[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.
____________________