[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8323-S8330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I will in a moment--in the spirit 
of fair play, we are waiting for some Republicans to enter the 
Chamber--I will ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged from S. 3981 so we can bring up and move forward on 
maintaining unemployment benefits for thousands of people. In my State 
alone, last night at midnight, 88,000--that is 1,000 people in every 
county; we have 88 counties in Ohio--Ohioans saw their unemployment 
benefits stopped because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
do not want to maintain unemployment benefits. What is shocking to me 
is that this Senate and the House of Representatives, regardless of 
party, for years, when our country has been in bad economic times, have 
maintained unemployment benefits for laid-off workers.
  Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has made a couple comments 
that disturb me and make it very hard to do this. We need a 
supermajority. We need 60 votes. They continue to filibuster or 
threaten to filibuster. Senator McConnell has made two statements, one 
through a letter in the last 24 hours and one 3 or 4 weeks ago when he 
said his No. 1 goal is that Barack Obama be a one-term President. I 
understand political parties, but his No. 1 goal is that President 
Obama serve only one term? Minority Leader McConnell, in a letter 
signed by all his Republican colleagues, which was sent to Senator 
Reid, signed by every Republican, said:

       We write to inform you we will not agree to invoke cloture 
     on the motion to proceed on any legislative item until the 
     Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented 
     the tax increases that currently will happen in January.

  What the Republicans are doing, I don't even understand it. They are 
saying they insist on a millionaire and billionaire tax cut come 
January, and they will, for all intents and purposes, shut down the 
government if they don't get their way. They are saying: Forget 
extending unemployment benefits, forget food safety legislation, forget 
don't ask, don't tell, forget the Russian-American START treaty--it 
used to be that politics ended at the water's edge; those days are 
over--and forget a middle-class tax cut. They are saying: We will shut 
down the government if we can't get a tax cut for billionaires and 
millionaires. My first priority is extending unemployment benefits to 
the 60 or 70,000 Michiganders; perhaps from the State of Senator 
Schumer, I would guess over 100,000 New Yorkers; from New Mexico, I 
would guess probably 10,000; and Alaska, thousands in that State. They 
are willing to say to those unemployed workers--and this is not 
unemployment welfare; this is unemployment insurance. Every worker in 
the State, he or his employer--academicians will debate whether the 
employee or employer actually pays it, but they put into the 
unemployment insurance fund. When they are laid off, they get money out 
of the fund. It is similar to health insurance or car insurance. You 
don't want to collect on it, but it is called insurance. You hope you 
are working so you don't have to collect on it, but they need to.
  There are five people applying for every open job, on average. In 
Michigan and Ohio, it is probably worse than that. These are not people 
sitting around with nothing to do, not wanting to work. I will not do 
this today, but I have read letter after letter from Ohioans saying: 
Here is my story. I have lost my medical coverage because I don't have 
a job, and you are cutting off my unemployment benefits--``you'' 
meaning the Republican filibuster.

[[Page S8324]]

  They will say: I am about to lose my house, and I have to tell my 12-
year-old daughter we will have to switch schools, and I don't even know 
what school we will go to because we are going to live in an apartment 
somewhere else because the house is foreclosed on. They are now going 
to the food bank they used to give money to.
  Do my Republican colleagues know any of these people? Do they go out 
and talk to people who have lost their jobs and have to explain to 
their families that they will lose their house and explain to the wife 
that their insurance has been canceled because they will not extend 
unemployment benefits? This is not a big, new welfare program. This is 
extending unemployment benefits. I just don't get it. They would rather 
do tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They would rather borrow 
$700 billion from the Chinese, put it on a credit card that their kids 
and grandkids will have to pay off, and then give it to billionaires 
and millionaires. That is the choice they are making.
  It is clear whose side people are on here. Are you on the side of 
maintaining unemployment benefits or are you on the side of 
millionaires and billionaires? Are you for giving a tax cut to the 
middle class, moving to pay down the budget deficit? It is so clear 
what we need to do.
  My colleagues still aren't here to make the request. I will add a few 
more comments.
  The other reason to maintain unemployment benefits is all economics. 
Senator McCain, when he was a candidate, his chief economic adviser 
said the best way to grow the economy, the best stimulus dollar you can 
spend is unemployment insurance. Because when you put a dollar in a 
laid-off worker's pocket from Lima or Zaynesville, she will spend it at 
the local grocery store, the local shoe store, to pay property tax, to 
pay the gas bill, whatever.
  That money is recycled in the economy. You give a tax cut to upper 
income people--a millionaire or billionaire--according to John McCain's 
economic adviser, you only get a 32-cent bang for your buck out of that 
versus $1.60 when you extend unemployment benefits, when you pay 
unemployment benefits. What that means clearly is the best thing to do 
for our economy is these unemployment benefits, not tax cuts for 
somebody already making $3 million a year. They are not going to buy 
anything more. They already have what they need. To give them another 
$30,000 or $50,000 in tax cuts simply does not mean anything.
  It is so important for purposes of the budget deficit, it is so 
important for purposes of growing this economy, and it is so important 
because it is the right thing to do for our workers, our laid off 
people, our communities that suffer if these workers are not spending 
these dollars in our communities. It is just so important that we move 
forward and do that.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor for one of my colleagues who 
has another unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before my colleague sits down, would he 
yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank you, Mr. President.
  The beginning of this letter, signed by 42 of our Republican 
colleagues, says:

       The Nation's unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is 
     unacceptable to Americans.

  I just want to clarify what my colleague is saying. We will all be 
talking about this. It is more important to the people on the other 
side of the aisle to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires 
than move forward on unemployment insurance. We are going to ask 
unanimous consent on that proposal and on other proposals which we will 
hear from.
  But is my colleague basically saying, despite the fact that our 
colleagues admit unemployment is high--many are out of work--their 
solution to unemployment and people looking for jobs is to give tax 
breaks to people who are making millions and billions of dollars and 
people who did very well over the last decade--the only group? Is that 
basically it?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes, that is it. To illustrate that further to 
Senator Schumer and to the Presiding Officer, as to the last two big 
tax cuts that were done in this country for the wealthy--in 2003 by 
President Bush, in 2001 by President Bush--we know what happened from 
those two tax cuts. In the 8 years of President Bush, the hallmark of 
his economic policy was two major tax cuts for the wealthy, and there 
was a 1 million job increase in those 8 years during George Bush's 
Presidency--a million jobs--not even a net increase, not even enough to 
keep up with people coming out of the Army or coming out of college or 
high school.
  During the Clinton years, where they had a mix of tax cuts, some 
increases for higher income people, and they balanced the budget, did 
some budget cuts that Senator McCaskill supports--some of those--we 
ended up during President Clinton's 8 years with a 22 million job 
increase. There was a 22 million job increase by managing the budget 
right and giving assistance to middle-class people.
  In the Bush 8 years, with tax cuts for the wealthy: 1 million jobs. 
Yet Republicans now are arguing that the most important thing, 
possibly, to do for the economy, the most important thing to do for our 
country, is to reward the people who have already done very well in the 
last 10 years, at the expense of the broad middle class who have seen 
basically stagnant wages or worse during this decade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  We are here on the Senate floor, and we will be staying on the Senate 
floor for a little while to make one point. I would say this to the 
American people: We have an economy that needs improvement, and our 
colleagues have said they will not let anything happen, whether it be 
tax credits for employers who hire the unemployed, which I am talking 
about, help for the energy industry, tax credits to help manufacturers 
hire people, or unemployment insurance. All of those will be put on 
hold until we give tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires 
who--God bless them--are wonderful. They are part of the American 
dream. But they are the one group that has done well. It seems to me, 
as we will talk about for the next little while, it is absolutely 
absurd to say that should be the linchpin of our economic policy.
  We will ask unanimous consent to bring forth proposals that we think 
will do far more to get people back to work and help the middle class 
stretch the paycheck than giving tax breaks to the billionaires.
  I yield the floor because I know my colleague wishes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just to follow with my colleagues--and I 
so appreciate the Senator from Ohio and his comments regarding what is 
happening to people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own--
five people at least are looking for every one job that is available. 
There is a critical urgency families feel. I thank the Senator from New 
York for his passion as well as my other colleagues.
  Let me take a moment to emphasize what we are talking about. The 
Republicans--and they have now done through a letter to the leader--are 
basically saying they are willing to risk everything--everything--to 
give a bonus tax cut--as my friend and colleague from Alaska talks 
about, not a tax cut. Everyone is going to get a tax cut on their first 
$250,000 of income. They want a bonus tax cut on millionaires and 
billionaires that for the average millionaire will be about $100,000 
next year, which is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a 
year. So they are willing to shut this place down and risk everything 
in order to be able to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and 
billionaires.
  What does that mean? Well, they are willing to risk the deficit. They 
say we cannot help people who are out of work because it will cost $50 
billion unless it is totally paid for. But $700 billion for their 
wealthiest friends and supporters is OK. So they will risk the deficit.
  They will risk jobs. Where are the jobs? We have had 10 years of this 
policy, 10 years of this policy of tax cuts at the top waiting for it 
to trickle down. They think we just have not waited long enough. Folks 
in Michigan

[[Page S8325]]

have waited far too long for it to trickle down. We are tired of 
waiting. We want a proposal that works.
  I will put forward a unanimous-consent request on something that has 
worked, an advanced manufacturing tax credit that has allowed now a 
number of businesses--I think over 12 businesses--to open in Michigan 
with clean energy manufacturing, stamped ``Made in America.'' In fact, 
we want to see ``Made in Michigan'' stamped on everything. We need to 
extend this tax credit because it is putting people back to work in 
Michigan and across the country. I will be making that unanimous 
consent request in just a moment. But they are willing to risk jobs, go 
home without focusing on jobs.
  They are willing to hold tax cuts for middle-class families and small 
businesses hostage for a tax cut for a few people at the top. We will 
not be lectured by them about small business, by a group of folks who 
have filibustered 16 different tax cuts for small businesses in this 
Congress--16 different tax cuts--including 8 tax cuts for small 
businesses in the small business jobs bill that added capital for small 
businesses last fall. So, believe me, we are here for small business as 
well as middle-class families.
  Social Security and Medicare: The debt commission is coming out with 
very serious recommendations that are focused on Social Security and 
Medicare. They are willing to risk that by adding more to the debt. 
Does that mean more changes to Social Security and Medicare?
  Then, finally, help for people who are out of work: They are willing 
to say our country, our great country, is not good enough, is not 
strong enough to step up when our families need it the most--families 
who never before in their lives have needed help. For the families in 
my State, the average person is 50, 55, 60 years old, who has worked 
all their life and never dreamed they would find themselves in this 
situation. But here they are, through no fault of their own.
  Now, in this holiday season, when we are asking that we just extend 
the regular program, not even dealing with the long-term unemployed, 
which is also what I want to do, but to extend the regular program so 
the person who today loses their job gets the same kind of opportunity 
to get help as the person who lost their job on Monday, because today 
over 100,000 people in Michigan are going to lose the opportunity to 
get any kind of temporary help because they lost their job.
  So our colleagues have set their priorities, big letters, tax cuts 
for millionaires and billionaires. They do not want us to do anything 
else until that gets done. We have a different set of priorities on 
behalf of American families, middle-class families, small businesses, 
people who need help right now.
  I am going to yield the floor at the moment, but I am going to be 
happy to have a unanimous consent request regarding a very effective 
jobs tax credit that we could pass today and get going and get people 
back to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor and talked about how the 
economy is fragile but going in the right direction and how many of us 
on this side of the aisle--as a matter of fact, all of us on this side 
of the aisle--took a lonely road over the last 2 years on some 
controversial issues that the public sees as controversial, but we knew 
we had to do something--something--to get this economy moving, and we 
are now seeing the benefits.
  Every time I open--I do not care if it is the Wall Street Journal, 
Business Week--you name the business magazine or newspaper--which are 
not the liberal magazines; they are very conservative magazines and 
newspapers, or on the Internet--they will show you statistic after 
statistic that we are moving in the right direction. For this last 
month, I think it is 92,000 new jobs the private sector created. But in 
order to do it, we need to do some more.
  I am a little frustrated by the letter. I also have a unanimous 
consent request that I hope to be able to bring up on HUBZones and to 
amend the Small Business Act. It is the idea of rebuilding local small 
businesses. What amazes me about this letter is it seems as though for 
some reason we can only do one thing at a time in this place.
  Now, I come from local government where, as a mayor, we had to do 
multiple tasks because we always had many of them on the table. It did 
not matter whether it was public safety or creating jobs or rebuilding 
a neighborhood or working with the community, we had to do multiple 
things.
  This country has multiple issues in front of it. We have an important 
START treaty that needs to be done. I am a member of the Armed Services 
Committee. Our national security is at risk, but for some reason the 
other side wants to wait until we give--I am not even going to call it 
a tax cut. I call it a bonus for the millionaires and billionaires. It 
is a bonus. It is not a tax cut. It is a bonus they want to give, $700 
billion of money we do not have. We cannot afford it. The working class 
of this country cannot afford it. The middle class cannot afford it. My 
son cannot afford it. My son's future kids cannot afford it--$700 
billion of more debt to give a bonus to the people who drove our 
economy into the ditch. I do not really get it.
  It seemed as though when I came here there was going to be a logical 
thought process, great debate. Once again, we are down here. Nothing on 
the other side. They will come out. I know they will have their charts 
and one-liners about how the economy will fall if we do not give 
millionaires and billionaires another tax break or bonus. It is not 
going to. We are on the road to recovery because this side took that 
lonely road when people told us: Wow, that is politically going to hurt 
you, and it did. We lost some people this last election. But leadership 
is not about taking the easy road, the easy answer, the simple 
solution.
  We are in a very complex time with many issues facing us 
internationally and nationally--economic, energy, world issues. We have 
to be able to juggle those all and move them forward. The public 
demands it of us.
  So this ultimatum, or whatever it is, this letter that they wrote 
just shows the classic tactic they have used the last 2 years. I 
mentioned this morning, and I will mention again, that I read in one of 
the political news stories yesterday that someone on the other side, 
one of the Senators from the other side, one of my colleagues, said: I 
can't believe it took us a week--a week--to do food safety. Neither can 
I. But it was not anyone on this side of the equation. Over there, they 
demanded us to have two 30-hour periods to debate food safety that 
ended up passing with over three-quarters of the body supporting it. 
Why? Because it is a good bill. But they wanted to delay it so we don't 
get to the main issues.
  Again, Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I want to 
give it. We thought they would be down here at 3:30. We thought they 
would be down here at 3:45. Now it is 4 o'clock. They told us to get 
busy. We are trying to get busy by doing some unanimous consent 
requests on job creation. But I will just tell you, it is important for 
us to recognize what their goal is here: delay, delay, not helping the 
American people, and basically giving bonuses to millionaires and 
billionaires, which is unreal.
  I see my colleague from New York wants to jump in, so I am going to 
yield for my colleague from New York. Again, I am hopeful there will be 
Members on the other side so we can get on with propounding unanimous-
consent requests to get the Senate moving.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know my colleague from New Mexico wants 
to say a few words about some of the job-creating proposals he has that 
have been held up by Republicans blocking for their millionaire tax 
cuts, but here is a headline I wanted to alert my colleagues and the 
American people to. This is Newsweek. It came out today. I want to read 
this headline to the American people. And this is not a Democratic 
publication. ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' Let 
me repeat that. ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' I 
couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly what the other 
side is doing. They are so eager to reward the wealthiest among us with 
a huge tax cut--even though we have a deficit, even though we have 
unemployment, even though we have so many

[[Page S8326]]

other things to do--that they are holding up the entire Senate.
  Enough already. Enough already. And I would like them to come to the 
floor and defend holding everything up for a tax cut for the 
millionaires. We are willing, and many of us--I know the Senator from 
Missouri and myself--are saying: Give the tax cut to the middle class 
but not to the wealthiest among us, not because we don't like them, not 
because we don't admire them but, rather, because they are doing well, 
we have a deficit, and we have other problems.
  ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' That says it 
all.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield for a question.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I say to the Senator through the Chair that an awful 
lot of economists have met with I think all the Senators about the 
frustrations we have with this economy. So the question we have asked 
over and over is, What is the most stimulative thing we can do for the 
economy? What can we do in terms of our actions that will provide 
injection of the most money into the economy and therefore create the 
most jobs?
  I am wondering if the Senator could share with us what it is that is 
the most stimulative thing we can do.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Missouri for the question, 
which I will answer through the Chair.
  The most stimulative thing we can do is to extend unemployment 
benefits. Those folks will spend every dollar in our stores, in our 
restaurants, and it will create jobs. If we give a tax break to 
multimillionaires, oh, yeah, they will rush right to the supermarket to 
buy that prime rib because they didn't have the money. Please.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Let me ask another question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield for another question.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. We obviously passed this tax cut a decade or so ago, 
and they decided to make it temporary, not permanent, when it was 
passed. So there was a decision made by the Senate that it wasn't 
worthy of being permanent, that it was temporary. So now here we are, 
it was temporary, and we have to decide whether we make it permanent. 
That is really where the rubber meets the road because--and correct me 
if I am wrong--they made it temporary to see if this tax cut for the 
wealthy would create jobs.
  I am so sick of hearing on every TV show in America, well, if you 
give a 3-percent tax differential to the wealthiest people in America, 
they are going to create all these jobs. Well, I am trying to figure 
out where the jobs are that this tax cut for the wealthy created. This 
was an experiment. It didn't work. It didn't create the jobs. That is 
why we have this debate right now.
  We have to decide whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the 
middle class, with shrinking income, with more frustration because they 
can't do some of the basic things with their families that they always 
assumed they would be able to do in America or are we going to continue 
a bonus to the wealthiest Americans which doesn't even stimulate jobs?
  In fact, what we are going to do today is we are going to make a 
number of unanimous consent requests for things that will create jobs 
and see whether we can get our Republican colleagues to go along.
  The Senator was here for that debate, but I am assuming one of the 
reasons it was temporary was to see if this experiment in more bonuses 
for the wealthy would trickle down and create these jobs. It has been a 
decade, and I ask the Senator, how well has it worked?
  Mr. SCHUMER. My colleague asks an excellent question. It has not 
worked. Unemployment is higher today with these tax cuts in effect than 
it was before they went into effect. We have had the slowest job growth 
in this decade even before the recession with these so-called breaks 
for the wealthy in effect.
  Let's go back a decade. The tax rate was, for the wealthiest, at 40 
percent. We are not talking about a huge increase here; we are talking 
about the difference between 35 and 39.6. But during that time, jobs 
were created at a much more rapid rate, No. 1; No. 2, middle-class 
incomes expanded at a quicker rate than they did in this decade; and 
No. 3, we had a surplus, not a deficit.
  The bottom line is very simple: The tax cuts for the wealthy did not 
work. The tax cuts for the wealthy did not work. They may have their 
ideological reasons to give them, but I would rather see that money go 
not only for unemployment insurance--and I will talk later about this--
but also for the HIRE Act, which gives breaks to businesses, where they 
do not have to pay the payroll tax if they hire someone who is 
unemployed; for energy tax credits, which my colleague from New Mexico 
will talk about; and for all kinds of different activities that have 
been proven to work.
  I know my colleague from New Mexico is waiting, but I will once more 
read the headline from Newsweek, an article by Ben Adler, ``Republicans 
Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' How do you like that, America?
  I yield the floor because I know my colleague from New Mexico has 
been waiting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would emphasize what all my 
colleagues are saying, particularly what the Senator from Missouri 
said--a State that, as of last night at midnight, probably had some 
40,000 to 50,000, to 60,000 unemployed people lose their unemployment 
benefits they had earned because they had worked and they and their 
employer paid into it, but I would especially emphasize what she said.
  Ten years ago, these tax cuts primarily, overwhelmingly, went to the 
wealthiest Americans, and it was an economic experiment. I opposed 
them. I was in the House then. Congresswoman Stabenow opposed them. She 
was in the Senate then, I guess. But it is clear they haven't worked--1 
million jobs during the Bush years, 22 million jobs during the Clinton 
years.
  As a result--and I would emphasize this too--all of these proposals 
we are going to bring forward now--and we will ask unanimous consent to 
get these passed to get the economy up and running--the cost of all of 
them is less than the cost of this tax cut to millionaires and 
billionaires.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee 
be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension 
of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate then proceed to 
its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times, passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements 
relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record as if 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, we have heard here and in 
speaking with the Senators here on the floor about a really appalling 
action that has been taking place. I have a letter here signed by all 
of the Republicans who are really threatening to bring this place to a 
halt, completely bring it to a halt. They have written a letter to 
Senator Reid, and in the letter, they say:

       We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke 
     cloture on a motion to proceed to any legislative item.

  They will not proceed to any legislative item until they get what I 
would characterize as these taxpayer-funded bonuses for millionaires 
and billionaires. So they are going to bring the entire Senate to a 
stop.
  Their letter quotes President Obama saying:

       We owe it to the American people to focus on those issues 
     that affect their jobs.

  Well, I have a bill right here that will affect the jobs of the 
American people. It is called the clean energy bill. This is a clean 
energy bill. It is S. 1574, the Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings 
Act.
  As all of us know, clean energy is going to be the industrial 
revolution of the future, trying to move us toward renewable energy--
solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. This is where we are going to see 
job growth in the future. This is our chance to be out there in front 
on the technology we invented here in the United States. This is the 
way you create clean energy jobs.

[[Page S8327]]

  So the demand they have issued to us--the ultimatum, really--is, you 
can't bring a clean energy jobs bill, which we have worked on very hard 
to get to the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 1574; that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three 
times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to 
the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this 
request just came to us moments ago. This is the first time we have 
seen this request, and I cannot speak to the merits of this bill or the 
problems that may exist.
  What I do know is that 42 Senators from this side of the aisle have 
signed a letter to say that what we ought to do and what we need to do 
is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every 
American come January 1.
  Mr. President, some of these requests may have bipartisan support, 
but we don't know anything about the specific legislation as we have 
just received this request. I think almost every bill in this package 
of requests that we are going to be considering now is still in 
committee, so we don't even know if the ranking member of that 
committee has concerns or potential changes.
  This is not the way to handle this. This is December; it is a 
lameduck session. Let's stop the theater and get to the business we all 
know we need to address.
  I object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has 
said these bills we are trying to bring to the floor here aren't out of 
committee. I believe he is incorrect when it comes to things such as 
the START treaty.
  Here we have the Republican Party saying they aren't going to 
consider anything else until they get these taxpayer-funded bonuses for 
their millionaires and billionaires. That is what they are saying. Yet 
we have a treaty that is pending. It is on the calendar, Mr. President. 
If we look on that Executive Calendar there, it is on the calendar. We 
want to bring that up. In fact, I believe Senator Kyl said today that 
we are not going to bring that up. We are going to stop everything. I 
saw him on television talking about how we are going to stop everything 
and that we are just not going to bring up that treaty.
  So there are things pending on the calendar that are ready to go. And 
this treaty in particular deals with our national security. National 
security used to be an issue where Democrats and Republicans worked 
together. But with this letter, it looks as if they are not going to be 
bipartisan. They are going to issue this ultimatum, and they are not 
going to try to work with us on these kinds of issues.
  While they are doing that, we no longer have inspections, we no 
longer are allowed to go to Russia and look at their sites and find out 
if they are complying with previous treaties. This new START treaty 
would allow us to do that. But, instead, what we are seeing here, over 
and over again, are these kinds of objections.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague from Wyoming a 
question in reference to what he just spoke about? I thank him for 
yielding for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my colleague said he wanted to make sure 
his colleagues on that side of the aisle didn't want to do anything 
else until they made sure there was a tax cut for every American. Let 
me pose a hypothetical. Let's say we gave a tax break to every American 
whose income was below $1 million but not to people above $1 million. 
Would he and his colleagues continue to block things, such as the 
unemployment insurance, the HIRE Act, and energy tax credits? In other 
words, when the Senator says a tax break for every American, does he 
mean it has to be for millionaires?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my statement was, what I do know is that 
42 Republicans have signed a letter to say what we ought to do and what 
we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax 
hike on every American come January 1.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague yield for another question, a 
followup?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I would be happy to read the entire letter that was 
sent to Senator Reid if there is some question as to what was exactly 
in that letter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My question is very simple. The Senator said he wanted 
to prevent a tax hike on every American. Hypothetically, if we 
prevented a tax hike on every American except the small number whose 
income was over $1 million last year, would my colleague and his 
colleagues continue to block efforts to do any other piece of 
legislation?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am not going to answer a hypothetical. 
What I will tell you is, we did send a letter to Leader Reid. I will be 
happy to go through the entire letter at this point:

       Dear Leader Reid: The nation's unemployment level, stuck 
     near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate 
     Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector 
     job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his 
     first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it 
     to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect 
     their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to 
     come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us 
     to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job 
     growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become 
     the Senate's priorities.
       For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not 
     agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any 
     legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the 
     government and we have prevented the tax increase that is 
     currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time 
     left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling 
     should be focused on these critical priorities. While there 
     are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the 
     Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters 
     above the critical issues of funding the government and 
     preventing a job-killing tax hike.
       Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase 
     and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. 
     Without Congressional action by December 31, all American 
     taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual 
     income-tax rates and investment income through the capital 
     gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the 
     President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only 
     some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a 
     job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time, 
     Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a 
     tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business 
     income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The 
     death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 
     percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small 
     businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small 
     businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to 
     agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong 
     remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act 
     on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax 
     ``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you in a 
     constructive manner to keep the government operating and 
     provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty 
     that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.

  With that, I tell you that all 42 members of the Republican Party, 
this side of the aisle, have signed their names.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I have a great deal 
of respect for my colleague from Wyoming, but he has not answered the 
question and it is obvious why, because the Republican Party and all 42 
members care as much or more about giving a $100,000 tax break to 
someone whose income is $1 million as they care to give a small tax 
break to somebody whose income is $50,000. That is what we are here 
talking about.
  The reason this letter and the response of my good friend from 
Wyoming to my question doesn't answer the question is because they are 
hiding. They are hiding behind the curtain of protecting the 
millionaires. We are

[[Page S8328]]

pulling that curtain open and we are showing the American people and 
will continue to show that the No. 1 goal of the Republican Party is 
not jobs, it is not helping the middle class, it is not getting our 
green energy industry going, it is not helping small businesses hiring 
people as in the HIRE Act, it is to give the millionaires a huge tax 
break and hold hostage that the middle class will not get their tax 
break. We are going to continue to go at it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with one thing my friend from 
Wyoming said in the letter they signed, which is we should not be 
continuing job-killing practices. I would say after 10 years of tax 
cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? If there ever was a policy 
that didn't work, it was that one. We have lost, in Michigan alone, 
over 800,000 jobs under the policy they want to continue. In the 
country we have lost over 8 million jobs under the economic policy they 
want to continue--not helping the middle class, not helping small 
business but giving the bonus benefit, the extra tax cut to those at 
the top, hoping it will trickle down. Frankly, we are tired of waiting 
for it to trickle down.
  What we are proposing and I am going to offer as a unanimous consent 
request is to continue something that is actually working, that is 
actually creating jobs in this country and beginning to turn 
manufacturing around.
  I think the exchange between the distinguished Senator from New York 
with my friend from Wyoming is very telling. Even if we were talking 
about tax cuts for those up to $1 million, that is still not enough.
  This is not about small business. People on the other side of the 
aisle have filibustered and voted against 16 different tax cuts for 
small businesses in the last 18 months, 8 of those in September and 
October. This is not about small business. We are the folks who have 
been fighting for small business and will continue to do that, as well 
as those in the middle class.
  I am going to ask, in a moment, unanimous consent for something that 
is an extremely effective and exciting new focus for our country; that 
is, on something called clean energy manufacturing. We are committing 
to making it in America. We want to see the words ``Made in America'' 
again. I want to see ``Made in Michigan,'' frankly, on all those 
products.
  One of the things that 18 months ago we passed as part of the 
Recovery Act was something called an advanced manufacturing tax credit, 
to allow companies to deduct 30 percent of their costs for new plants, 
new equipment, hiring people in the area of green energy: wind, solar, 
electric, batteries, and so on. We have seen across the country now, 
183 new manufacturing facilities in 43 different States across the 
country as a result of that. People are being hired, and every month we 
are seeing manufacturing numbers go up rather than down in the last 18 
months. If, in fact, we add another $5 billion, another small 
investment compared to the $700 billion for millionaires and 
billionaires in the tax cut--if we just invest $5 billion of that, it 
is estimated we will unleash at least $15 billion in total capital 
investments, partnering with the private sector, and create tens of 
thousands of new construction and manufacturing jobs.
  That is our priority--things that work, focusing on jobs and making 
things in America again.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3324, the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the bill be read 
three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to 
the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this 
request, again, has come to us just moments ago. This is the first time 
we have had a chance to look at this. I will not speak to the merits of 
the bill and the problems that may exist, but this is not the way to 
handle this. As you know, we are now in December, in the lameduck 
session. There are things that could have been brought up any time in 
the last 1\1/2\ years to 2 years, and we have focused specifically on 
making sure taxes are not increased for Americans between now and 
January 1. All Americans are concerned about those taxes going up.
  As a result, I think it is time to stop the theater we have and get 
to the business we all know we need to address and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is not theater. This is about real 
people in my State who want to work. This is about investing in middle-
class jobs and manufacturing. It is about taking a policy that has been 
in place now for 18 months that has worked and being able to extend it.
  In terms of bringing this up for the first time, we have focused on 
it and have been debating it and discussing it over and over. The bill 
I asked unanimous consent for is bipartisan. This is not new. We have 
not been able to get through the obstructionism, the throwing of sand 
in the gears, and the filibustering to bring this up. If we want to 
focus on something between now and the end of the year, let's focus on 
jobs and getting people back to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915, something we have 
been discussing the last week, and that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk, a fully offset 
repeal of section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, the Small Business 1099 paperwork mandate, be agreed to, that the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and that the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
indicate, as someone who has voted in fact to repeal this particular 
provision, I think it is important we get that done. We actually have a 
majority of Members who have supported getting that done. Senator 
Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, brought forward a proposal 
that unfortunately did not get the bipartisan support necessary to be 
able to do it, but we are committed to getting this done. It is 
something I hope our colleagues will join with us in as we bring the 
tax bill to the floor before the end of the year. It is important, in 
my judgment, that we repeal this provision, which I do believe is 
onerous for small business, but it needs to be done in the context of 
the broader package, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wyoming still has the floor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by my 
colleague from Michigan because this was brought to the floor 
previously but with a threshold of 67 votes, and there were two 
different approaches to trying to help the small businesses across the 
country that are all being held hostage by a very onerous paperwork 
requirement in filing. But the threshold of needing 67 votes was too 
high, even though people from both sides of the aisle voted for both 
the measures that were offered.
  We want to help small businesses around the country and eliminate 
what the IRS says is going to be almost impossible to comply with, what 
small businesses say is going to be expensive to carry out, and what 
Senator Johanns, in an amendment, has a paid-for solution. I think this 
is something we should, as a Senate and as a body, be committed to 
adopting. The President of the United States says this needs to be 
solved.
  What I heard now is an objection to something I think is a very 
reasonable request, and I am sorry that objection has been made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Let me just indicate again, as a Senator who voted for 
both proposals that were in front of us, I could not agree more. We 
have to get this done. I believe there is a commitment on both sides of 
the aisle to get

[[Page S8329]]

this done. You are correct that the 67-vote threshold was very high. We 
need to come back in a different context and get this done. I am 
committed to working with my colleague to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming, who is a good 
guy, just said that the motions we are making, unanimous-consent 
motions--that these things could have been brought up earlier. Oh, if 
only it were true. If only it were true that we could have brought 
these things up earlier. If anybody has been paying attention, they 
would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking 
everything, including motherhood and apple pie, for the last year. They 
have voted unanimously to move judicial nominations out of the 
Judiciary Committee, and then they languish and they will not allow us 
to bring them up for a vote.
  Then my friend said we need to stop the theater. Well, let me tell 
you what theater is. Theater is when a Senator says: If we cannot get 
everything resolved and all of the spending decisions made by Monday, 
well, then, I just don't think we can do the START treaty. Theater is 
having 42 Senators say: We will not participate unless you do what we 
want to do today. That is theater. That is theater. Theater is saying: 
Well, you could have brought this up earlier, when everyone knows they 
blocked everything we wanted to bring up. That is theater. What you are 
seeing on this side right now is a healthy dose of indignation on 
behalf of the American people who are hurting.
  I think back. I think back to elections past when great patriots were 
accused in the most vivacious ways of being soft on national security. 
I remember a Senator who lost his limbs in battle who had 
advertisements run against him that somehow he was soft on terror 
because of a twist and distortion of a vote he had cast in the Senate.
  Now fast forward. We have a treaty that the military unanimously 
supports, that the Secretaries of State for those Republican Presidents 
who warned us about loose nuclear weapons and terrorists--their 
Secretaries of State have stood up and said this is the thing to do. 
The ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, 
Senator Lugar--is there anyone more respected on what we should be 
doing to protect this Nation than Senator Dick Lugar? And they are 
holding this treaty hostage to protect millionaires. Has it come to 
that? They now are willing to risk national security, the security of 
this Nation, because they refuse to allow us to stop the extra-big tax 
bonuses to millionaires and billionaires. Can you imagine what would 
have happened to somebody in my party who had the nerve to stand up in 
the face of our allies, our military, bipartisan support, everyone from 
Pat Buchanan to Colin Powell, who has said to the American people that 
this START treaty is necessary? And they are saying: Well, if you don't 
give us a tax break for millionaires by Monday, we are going to go 
home. Really? It takes your breath away. It just takes your breath 
away. I have some unanimous-consent requests I will also make today, 
but I really want that to sink in.
  We have reached every goalpost they have put up on the START treaty, 
and then they have moved it. We have no verification of nuclear weapons 
in Russia right now, and we haven't for months, and they are nibbling 
around the edges because--do you know what I believe this might be? I 
might believe this is part of the strategy that was announced by the 
leader of the Republican Party that their No. 1 priority is to defeat 
President Obama, to damage him. They want to deny the passage of this 
treaty, I believe--it certainly has the appearance, anyway, that this 
is about damaging President Obama.
  We should be focused on our national security. We should be focused 
on giving tax cuts to Middle America. We should be focused on tax cuts 
to small businesses. We have done net tax cuts in this country of $300 
billion in the last 18 months, and all of those tax cuts were focused 
like a laser on the middle class and on small businesses.
  Do not let anybody sell you a bill of goods that the Democratic Party 
is not fighting for tax cuts for Middle America and small business. 
Now, we are not so excited about the millionaires. Those are not 
stimulative. They have not created the jobs. It has been an economic 
experiment that has failed. Once again, the trickle down did not 
trickle. And it is time for us to get busy, make these tax cuts 
permanent for the middle class, and continue to try to reduce our 
deficit.
  I see my friend. Nobody has worked harder, and I have tried to be a 
partner with him to reduce spending in the Federal Government. But this 
all of a sudden ``we are going to take our football and go home if you 
don't give us what we want by Monday''--and here is the richest part of 
this. The person who is saying ``we are going to go home on Monday if 
we don't get it by Monday'' is the person who is negotiating. He is 
supposed to be negotiating at 5:30. I mean, it is like looking in the 
mirror and saying: Hey, if you don't get it done by Monday--if he wants 
to get it done by Monday, then be reasonable about the millionaires. Be 
reasonable about the millionaires, and we can get this done, and we can 
go home and celebrate Christmas with our families and come back and 
start hard next year to reduce this deficit with a good downpayment--
$300 billion going to reduce the deficit because we are not going to 
give a very small, incremental tax increase to people who have plenty 
of cash right now. What they really need, those millionaires, they need 
the middle class to have some money to spend to create the demand. That 
is the economic policy that makes sense in this climate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent I wish to do, 
but before I do that, I want to say that I know the Senator from 
Wyoming is not here right now, but I want to echo the point that we are 
going to deal with the 1099s. It is a question of making sure we pay 
for it the right way. I do not think anyone in this body--we are 
motivated and I think a lot of us are working in a bipartisan way to 
resolve that issue.
  As someone who has been in the small business world since the age of 
14, who has had a business license since that age, I have aggressively 
talked about the issue of small business, I have lived small business, 
and I clearly understand what the 1099 is all about. I talked about 
this issue back in July and made it clear that we need to deal with it 
and get rid of it. So we are going to be working on it. We will see 
this, hopefully, as part of the tax package, a tax extender package, 
and we will deal with it.
  I come to the floor because I also have a unanimous consent I would 
like to do in regard to small business. This is a bill that will help 
what they call HUBZones, HUB areas that are high unemployment to the 
tune of 140 percent of the average adjusted unemployment rate. These 
have been very helpful for many different communities across this 
country as well as in our State.
  This is the Rebuilding Local Business Act of 2010. It amends the 
Small Business Act and designates HUBZones and gives them another 3 
years of opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3563 and that 
the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be 
read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements 
relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I 
wonder if I might be recognized to speak following the objection I 
intend to make--reserving the right to object, Republicans have said 
that we believe the single most important step we can take to create 
jobs is to keep the current tax rates, which will go up automatically 
on January 1; secondly, we need to fund the government--funding expires 
this Friday; and that after that, we can move to whatever else the 
Democratic leader would like to bring up. We should fund the 
government, keep the tax rates where they are, freeze spending, and go 
home.
  I object.

[[Page S8330]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, still having the floor, let me respond. 
First off, I want to make sure, as the public is watching this, what 
that means. Keeping the tax rates where they are means millionaires and 
billionaires continue to get a bonus because that is what it is, with 
no disrespect to my colleague on the other side. I mean, corporations, 
businesses today--and I can speak about this, again with no disrespect 
to my colleague, as someone in the small business world. Our family is 
in this business. My wife owns four retail stores, started from 
scratch, just as I did in many of my businesses. The small business 
community--the small business community--benefits not by the people 
over the 2 percent, the top 2 percent; the small business community are 
the ones below that. Half of the businesses in this country, the small 
businesses, gross less than $25,000. That is a fact.
  So for us to just kind of continue business as usual and keep these 
tax rates where they are for the millionaire and billionaire club--that 
didn't help us the last 3 years. The fact is, right now they have those 
tax breaks. Right today, they have those. They had them last year. They 
had them the year before. And what happened to this economy? It crashed 
and burned almost to the ground. What has happened to the millionaire 
and billionaire club? They have more money in their bank accounts today 
than ever before. That is not me saying it; that is other independent 
data out there. Corporations have more cash on hand today than they 
have had in decades.
  So for us now to say: Hey, let's give the millionaires and 
billionaires another bonus for the next year for running our economy 
into the ground doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make sense to 
the people back home in my State, the Alaskans I talk to every single 
day. As a matter of fact, when I came here in January of 2009, we were 
in our fourth or fifth month, if I remember right, of losing 500,000 to 
700,000 jobs a month. Do you know what that is equal to? That is the 
total population of my State every single month being lost.
  People who are saying we have to make sure the millionaires and 
billionaires have this $700 billion bonus, paid for by the taxpayers of 
this country, to drive us more into debt, and believe that is going to 
solve this economic problem is absolutely wrong. I have had to scratch 
nickles and dimes together to build businesses. I have done it before. 
I have succeeded and failed. That is not what grows business, giving 
millionaires and billionaires breaks. What makes a difference, for 
example, is the small business bill we passed, where we only got two 
votes on the other side, a small business bill that brought money to 
loan small businesses. That is what makes a difference, or extending 
the tax credit, which we did, not only during the recovery bill, the 
stimulus bill, which I know everyone on the other side hates, but also 
during our small business bill so people can buy equipment and 
depreciate it in the first year, write it off in the first year. That 
is of real benefit to small businesses. Extending the SBA loan program, 
expanding it from the limitations they had before to $5 million to make 
sure that the front-end fees do not have to be charged, what did that 
do in my State? It tripled--tripled--the loan capacity of SBA to small 
businesses. That was supported on this side. You want to grow small 
business. That is how you do it, because the way it has worked, we 
drove into the biggest recession since the Great Depression.
  So I respect the comments on the other side, but for us to say to the 
American taxpayers: Hey, we are going to give another $700 billion to 
millionaires and billionaires, is beyond comprehension--beyond 
comprehension, especially when we tell them: Oh, by the way, it is 
going to be debt financed. So my son, who is 8 today, and his kids, my 
grandkids, maybe, in the future, will still be paying that bill because 
we were told that by Monday we have to make a decision.
  I am not doing that. I didn't come here to play those games, to swap 
off the START treaty or national security for the benefit of 
millionaires and billionaires.
  The other thing I have learned about this place, we can multitask. I 
came down here this morning, no one was on the Senate floor. I go to 
committee meetings--there is supposed to be 15, 25 people--2 people 
show up, maybe 4. I don't know what other people are doing. I am 
showing up because that is what I was sent here to do by the people of 
my State, to come here and work. For us to sit around and say we can 
only do one thing at a time--I talk to families every single day. They 
are doing multiple things every day, every single day. Why we can't, 
with all the staff we have, all the abilities we have, focus on more 
than one thing is ridiculous.
  Again, no disrespect to the Senator from Tennessee. I mean him no ill 
words. I am frustrated. I didn't come here for these kinds of games. We 
put a 1099 amendment on the Food Safety Act. People are asking: What 
are we doing? I heard yesterday, why did we spend a week on the food 
safety bill. The other side wanted to delay it because it was good 
politics for them to delay and drag it out. So here we are. We have a 
deadline. We have to get this passed or we are going home. If you don't 
want to be around here, then go home. But the fact is, the American 
people sent us here, Alaskans sent me here to not just do one issue but 
to do multiple issues. That is what our country is about. It is 
complex. There is no single issue that drives the economy. But giving 
millionaires and billionaires a $700 billion tax bonus is ridiculous.
  I appreciate the comments. I am sorry my colleague objected to this 
one item because in order to build this economy, we have to have 
multiple things in play. This gives more tools to the private sector to 
grow their neighborhoods and businesses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. BEGICH. I appreciate the opportunity to rant for a little bit and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________