[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 156 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8374-S8377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3981

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the American people deserve to know why we 
are not legislating. We are all here, and we are not passing any bills, 
bills that are important to the American people; for example, a bill to 
keep the government operating. We are getting to the point where we are 
running out of time. We are not doing that today. A bill to authorize 
the Defense Department, here we are in the middle of two wars, we are 
not doing that bill. A bill to help victims of 9/11, the brave first 
responders who are suffering because they worked, some of them almost 
24/7, in the debris that was so toxic to them, and I remember then EPA 
Administrator Whitman saying it was all fine, it was all safe, the air 
was OK. We need to help them. We are not doing that. A bill to help our 
firefighters, a bill to help firefighters have the dignity to be able 
to negotiate for their wages, a bill called the DREAM Act to help many 
productive young people join the military and go to college and help 
our country, we are not doing those either. We are doing nothing. We 
are not doing a bill to promote manufacturing that was offered by one 
of my colleagues. We are not doing a bill to give tax breaks to 
companies that hire unemployed workers. We are not doing a bill to end 
tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. We are not doing the 
START treaty, a treaty that is endorsed by international experts from 
America on both sides of the aisle, including George Shultz, and people 
who worked for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. We are not doing that.
  All these bills, including the unemployment insurance extension, 
which is so critical, all that is being held hostage by my Republican 
friends who all wrote a letter and put their names on it. I am not 
making this up. It is in writing. They said they would do nothing until 
they won tax break bonuses for those who earn over $1 million, the 
millionaires and the billionaires. They are holding up all this 
important work. To me, it is shocking. I have heard of having an 
objection to a bill and having a strong moral objection to a bill and 
holding things up. They are holding up every single thing, as my 
friend, Senator Stabenow, has talked about for days now.
  Here is the point: Democrats have agreed to give every working 
American a tax break on their first $250,000 of income, every working 
American, up to the sky, a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. 
We even offered to go up to the first $1 million because some of our 
friends said: Oh, 250 isn't high enough. There are some small 
businesses in there. We investigated that, and 97 percent of small 
businesses would be protected with the $250,000 level. But if we go up 
to 1 million, all the small businesses are taken care of. We have 
expressed interest in going up to $1 million. Guess what. This is not 
enough for the Republicans in the Senate. They are fighting for those 
earning over $1 million, over $1 billion. It doesn't matter. They are 
holding everything hostage.

  Let's be clear. They are fighting, they are united, they are strong, 
they are adamant on behalf of the billionaires of this country, by the 
way, many of whom said: Please, we don't need any more tax breaks. We 
are doing great.
  So if ever people wanted to know which party fights for whom, this is 
it, folks. This is the clearest example I have ever seen in my life.
  Do you know that under the Republican plan a family earning $10 
million a year--listen, $10 million a year--will get back, under their 
plan, $460,000 every single year? They are fighting for that.
  They say they care about the deficit. I do not see that because their 
position on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will add 
hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. But when you ask them 
whether they would be willing to help us to extend unemployment 
benefits to the workers who are caught in this deep, dark recession, 
they say: Oh, we can't afford it.
  So listen, they will not pay for the tax cuts to their millionaire, 
billionaire friends, but they insist on cutting the Federal budget to 
pay for extending unemployment insurance, which, as far as I know, has 
never been done before. It is an emergency funding, and it is, by the 
way, $50 billion compared to $400 billion.
  So I hope the American people--I know they have a lot of things to 
do, getting ready for the holidays and caring about families; 
unfortunately, many of them are worried this holiday; more than 400,000 
workers in California will lose their unemployment benefits by the end 
of December--I hope they see who is fighting for them versus who is 
fighting for the millionaires and the billionaires. It is right out 
there.
  I could not believe that one of my colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle, from Massachusetts, was outraged that we tried to extend 
unemployment benefits. Why is he outraged? He should be outraged that 
more than 2 million workers nationwide will lose their benefits by the 
end of December. We just got a report that 7 million unemployed workers 
could be denied access to benefits by the end of next year, while my 
Republican friends are fighting to get $460,000 a year for someone who 
earns $10 million. They would allow 7 million unemployed workers in our 
country to go without benefits.
  Their proposal is: Well, let's cut a program. Well, ask any economist 
about that. That is harmful to an economic recovery. We know that for 
every $1 of unemployment insurance that gets spent, it has an impact of 
$1.61 to the economy because folks on unemployment are not like the $10 
million-a-year family that is going to stick it in their trust fund; 
they are going to spend it in the corner grocery store, and that has a 
ripple effect throughout the economy.
  I wish to read to you a statement by Laura from Long Beach, one of my 
constituents.

       Today my parents' unemployment benefits expired. Today, I 
     don't know how they're going to make it. I don't know what 
     I'm going to do.
       This morning I woke up to hear that the Republicans in the 
     Senate have signed a letter pledging not to allow anything to 
     pass until Bush tax cuts are reinstated. These are the same 
     tax cuts that only help people who are employed, excessively 
     wealthy, and people who will never hire my dad, who is a hard 
     worker--but nearing 60.
       He experienced losing his job when a lot of Americans did. 
     Since then, he's been working low paying jobs at local 
     businesses--businesses that little by little have had to cut 
     back. Unfortunately, this usually means that they fire their 
     newer employees--employees like my dad.
       Since losing his job, his 10 year old car has quit working, 
     leaving him bereft of transportation and making it even more 
     difficult to find a job. My mom isn't as healthy as she used 
     to be and can't work because she needs to provide childcare 
     for my sister, who works hectic hours in the healthcare 
     industry.
       I'm currently in graduate school--the first of my family to 
     graduate from college. My husband and I are debating whether 
     or not I need to drop out so that I can help provide for my 
     parents, who currently live out of state.
       Suffice it to say, when I read the news this morning, I 
     broke down in tears.

  Let me divert. She heard about the letter from the Republicans saying 
they would do nothing until these tax cuts went in, and she broke down 
in tears. She said:

       My family has lived a hard life, and this just made it 
     harder. But really, I'm crying because I can't believe that 
     this is what my country has come to--or more importantly, 
     this is what my father's country has come to.
       . . . . He was raised believing that this country was the 
     best country in the world--that it would always look out for 
     the best interest of its people. He served in the military, 
     bought American cars, and worked at the same job for over 20 
     years. So as much as I am writing this letter because I'm 
     upset about my own familial circumstances, I'm equally 
     interested in writing you to remind you of the middle class--
     and those of us who are slipping out of it.

  I have a number of other letters, but I know other colleagues are 
here. But no one could be more eloquent than Laura and I want to thank 
her and everybody else who wrote to me and I

[[Page S8375]]

will come back again during the time we are in session to put these 
letters in the Record.
  But in summing up, it is very clear where we are. My Republican 
friends, to a person, have all signed on to a strategy, and that 
strategy is to keep us from passing very important legislation, 
including an unemployment insurance extension, including the Defense 
bill, including the START treaty--everything I put in the Record--until 
they get their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. That, to me, 
is a shame. They have a right to do it. I support their right to do it. 
But I also think the American people ought to know what is going on.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill 
to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance 
provisions; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the 
bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any 
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 
a couple ways we can help people who are currently looking for work. 
One is by extending unemployment benefits for those who have been out 
of work now 99 weeks. This is what the extension is about: for those 
who have already----
  Mrs. BOXER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have 
just heard from my colleague, would the Senator agree to include an 
amendment that has been proposed by Senator Brown that would offset the 
cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at 
the desk? Would the Senator include that amendment that has been 
proposed?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, I would not agree to that modification. It 
goes to the very point I was making. They want to give tax breaks to 
millionaires and not pay for it, but they are forcing cuts in other 
jobs programs here. It would only make a worse recession and I object 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. So I do object to the motion 
by the distinguished Senator from California.

  As I was saying, there are two ways to help those who are looking for 
work and one of which is to improve the economy. We can do that by 
giving some certainty--certainty--to people who provide jobs, who build 
businesses, who create opportunities, the job-creating sector of this 
country. We can do that by giving them certainty regarding what their 
tax rates will be come January 1. Right now there is an incredible 
amount of uncertainty.
  The second way is to deal with the unemployment benefits for those 
who have been out of work now 99 weeks because that is what this is 
about. These are people who have been collecting unemployment benefits 
for 99 weeks. I will tell you, there are people across the Nation 
having a tough time due to this poor economy. I wish to see the economy 
improve.
  The national unemployment rate in October was 9.6 percent. Today's 
front page of USA Today says: ``Jobless data could break '80s 
record''--a record from the 1980s. ``November was likely 19th month 
above 9 percent.''
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question--please, a very 
quick one?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much, and he is my friend.
  I just want the Senator to understand this extension is not for 
anything beyond 99 weeks. Believe me. It is up to 99 weeks. We do not 
have any extension beyond 99 weeks. I just wanted my friend to know 
that.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments of 
the Senator from California. Senator Brown, who occupies the desk next 
to mine, was on the floor talking about this just 2 nights ago and does 
want to work to extend unemployment benefits and to do it in a way that 
is paid for. That is why I came to offer the amendment to the Senator 
from California to say: Well, let's do it but do it by paying for it 
using unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk.
  We need to pay to extend this. But what we need to do is stimulate 
the economy because of what we see on the front page of USA Today about 
``Jobless data could break '80s record'' and ``November was likely 19th 
month above 9 percent.'' We need to give certainty to business.
  My colleague from California made comments about a letter signed by 
42 Republican Senators. In fact, I did sign that. All the Republican 
Members of the Senate signed it. In the first paragraph it says:

       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.''

  That is why 42 of us signed the letter. Let's focus on that. Let us 
get that done. Let us provide that certainty. If after that is done the 
majority party wants to go and address the issues of don't ask, don't 
tell, wants to talk about the DREAM Act, talking about incentives for 
illegal immigrants with college education, if they want to talk about 
issues of firefighters joining unions, fine. But let's get to the 
fundamentals of what the American people want to have dealt with. That 
is why I was happy to offer an amendment to my colleague from 
California to say pay for it, and then we can move on. Because 
businesses need that sort of certainty.
  I heard her many comments about taxes, and I believe you should not 
raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times such as these. My 
colleagues on this side of the aisle all agree and there is actually 
bipartisan agreement that you should not raise taxes on anyone in the 
middle of economic times such as these.
  The newest Members of the Senate--and since the election there are 
now three new Members who have been sworn in; two on that side of the 
aisle, one on my side of the aisle--are unanimous in saying one should 
not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times.
  Senator Manchin from West Virginia said: ``I wouldn't raise any 
taxes.''
  Senator Coons from Delaware said: ``I would extend them [the tax 
cuts] for everyone.''
  So when I look at this and also see statements by Joe Lieberman from 
Connecticut, Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Senator Jim Webb from 
Virginia, Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, Senator Conrad from North 
Dakota, it is a growing chorus of Democrats saying: One should not 
raise taxes on anyone during these economic times.
  We need to give certainty to the job-creating segment of this Nation. 
We need to do it in a timely manner. With it only being 4 weeks until 
the end of the year and people wanting to know what is going to happen 
with their taxes, I think the best thing this body could do is to 
provide that certainty.
  So with that, I notice a number of colleagues who are waiting to 
speak and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I agree with my friend from Wyoming. 
We need certainty in the marketplace, and we are happy to do that. We 
are happy to create certainty right now that middle-class taxpayers and 
small businesses will be able to receive tax cuts permanently into the 
future, that we will be able to extend those tax cuts.
  We also believe it is important to give certainty to people who are 
out of work through no fault of their own, who yesterday began to lose 
unemployment benefits. Now, I personally believe, as long as the 
economy is as sluggish, as slow, as challenged as it is, we ought to 
extend benefits beyond 99 weeks. But the bill in front of us is not 
that. It is the bill Senator Boxer talked about, which is just the 
basic program. The program basically says, if you lose your job today 
you have the same opportunity to receive some temporary help as the 
person who lost their job on Monday or Tuesday because, right now, the 
Republicans have been blocking us from even extending the basic program 
for anyone who is newly unemployed, newly out of work.

  So I think people who are out of work at this holiday season would 
like some certainty.

[[Page S8376]]

  I was interested in a story in the paper today--I believe it was 
today--quoting the Michigan Retailers Association concerned about 
Christmas and the inability to have unemployment benefits extended 
would directly relate to the ability of families to have any kind of 
opportunity to have Christmas, and it would affect retailers and small 
businesses. They would like to see some certainty. I would also like to 
see a more robust effort and certainty as it relates to jobs.
  When we look at the way to stimulate the economy, the way to create 
jobs, the budget folks tell us the No. 1 way right now to keep the 
economy going is to help those who have no choice but to spend the 
dollars in their pockets. That is somebody who is out of work. That is 
the No. 1 way to stimulate the economy, to try to keep things moving, 
and certainly we have heard that from our retailers. On a long list, 
the least effective was to give another bonus tax cut to millionaires 
and billionaires. That was the least effective.
  So I agree we want economic certainty. What I would love to see is to 
take those dollars that have been ineffective for 10 years--and we know 
that simply because it hasn't created jobs. I have lost over 800,000 
jobs in Michigan, 10 years of tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires. I have one question: Where are the jobs? If my colleagues 
can answer that, I am happy to support that policy.
  What I would suggest as an alternative is that now, just a little 
under 2 years ago, we invested in the recovery to, for the first time 
in many, many, many years, invest in American manufacturing: battery 
manufacturing, new clean energy manufacturing, making things in 
America, making things at home. And we are beginning to see every month 
now manufacturing slowly coming up. The investment in the American 
automobile industry has paid off for us in turning things around, in 
keeping manufacturing jobs here. We are moving from 2 percent of the 
manufacturing of advanced battery technologies in America to 40 percent 
of the world's manufacturing in 5 years because of a strategic 
investment.
  I am happy to talk about those kinds of investments, but what we have 
heard from Republican colleagues is that they are willing to risk 
everything. They will risk everything to get another tax cut, a bonus 
tax cut on top of the one everybody is going to get if we extend tax 
cuts for the first $250,000 in income per couple. They want a bonus tax 
cut, and they are willing to risk everything and stop everything if 
they can't get it. So it is very clear what their priorities are.
  I can speak from Michigan that these are not our priorities. When I 
look at our manufacturers, our suppliers; when I look at small 
businesses; when I look at families who are struggling to keep their 
homes to stay in the middle class--maybe trying to get into the middle 
class--working families, their priority is not to give somebody making 
$1 million a year another $100,000 bonus on top of the regular tax cut.
  So what are we talking about? We are talking about everything being 
risked for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. What are some of 
the things we are risking? Another $700 billion on the national debt. 
If we want to deal with the debt--and I don't know about my colleagues, 
but I heard an awful lot about the debt, concern about the deficit in 
this last election and through this last year. There were concerns when 
we were investing in manufacturing, investing in other things to create 
jobs, helping small businesses; the tax cuts for small businesses, 
lending for small businesses. We heard an awful lot from the other side 
of the aisle about the fact that we shouldn't be doing these things 
because of the deficit. The most important thing was the deficit.
  I am not willing to be lectured about the deficit. I voted to balance 
the budget when I was in the House under President Clinton. We handed 
President Bush a balanced budget, the largest surplus in the history of 
the country. So I am not willing to accept that. I have great concern 
about the deficit, but that concern means I don't want to see $700 
billion put on the national debt for a bonus tax cut for millionaires 
and billionaires.
  So they are willing to risk the national deficit. They are willing to 
risk jobs. Again, the least stimulative way to create jobs is to put 
another bonus round of tax cuts in the hands of millionaires and 
billionaires who, if they invest it--we don't know whether it will be 
overseas, taking jobs overseas or where it will be--but we know it 
hasn't trickled down to the people I represent, certainly, in Michigan.
  The sense I get from the other side of the aisle is that they think 
we just haven't waited long enough; we haven't waited long enough for 
it to trickle down. Well, we are tired of waiting. We are tired of 
waiting, and we are tired of an economic policy of tax cuts geared to 
those up here when it doesn't work and we are losing jobs. Under that 
policy of trickle-down economics, Michigan lost over 800,000 jobs in 
the last 10 years. I am tired of that. I want to see a policy that is 
going to work. That one hasn't worked. I don't see why in the world we 
are willing to extend it.
  They are willing to hold up the tax cuts for middle-class families 
and small businesses. Again, I am not willing to be lectured about 
small business when we have seen 16 different small business tax cuts 
filibustered in the last 2 years on the other side of the aisle; eight 
tax cuts in the small business jobs bill that only two colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle courageously stepped over to support. So we 
understand the importance of small business.
  Social Security and Medicare: We have a debt commission that has a 
number of proposals that are very difficult on Social Security and 
Medicare, and that is based on the deficit we have now not another $700 
billion. I wonder if my colleagues are willing to support cuts in 
Social Security and Medicare, additional cuts to pay for their tax cuts 
for millionaires and billionaires. I don't know. Is that what they are 
suggesting? It certainly is something that could happen if we add 
another $700 billion.
  Then there is the one we have been talking about that is not an 
economic issue but a moral issue for us as a country: Are we going to 
help folks who have gotten caught up in this country and who find 
themselves in a situation that is unprecedented through no fault of 
their own? They didn't cause the recklessness on Wall Street. They were 
not the ones who made the decision not to enforce trade laws in a fair 
way or tax policy that allows jobs to go overseas.
  The people in my State were not the ones who made any of the 
decisions that caused the situation they are in. Yet Wall Street did 
pretty well. A lot of folks did pretty well. A lot of folks now are 
back doing very well.
  The folks left holding the bag are working families, folks who have 
been in the middle class and are now mortified because they have to go 
ask for help at a food bank for the first time in their lives. That is 
not an unusual situation in my State; people who have always worked, 
who want to work but find themselves in a situation, because of the 
economy, they did not create; where they now have to ask that our 
country be willing to support them at this time for their families 
until we can turn this economy around. Who are we if we are not willing 
to do that as a country?
  Frankly, I am embarrassed we are having a debate on the floor of the 
Senate about whether to extend help for somebody who has lost their 
job, the bread winner who no longer can bring home the bread versus a 
$100,000 bonus tax cut for a millionaire next year, and whatever it is 
for billionaires. I find that embarrassing, and I find it more than 
that, actually. If ever we are going to talk about our values and 
priorities and get them right in terms of what affects the majority of 
Americans, it ought to be when we are looking at these choices.
  People in my State want to work. They want us to focus on jobs. They 
want us to partner with business. They want us to do those things; when 
it is necessary, stand back, get out of the way; stand up and partner, 
do all of the things that will allow us in a global economy to compete, 
to be able to make things in America and, of course, I prefer they be 
made in Michigan. But they want jobs. They want the economy to turn 
around.
  Nobody is out there asking for a handout. They do want us to 
understand what they are going through and to be willing to have the 
same sense of

[[Page S8377]]

urgency about the average family in this country as we did for the Wall 
Street banks. That is ultimately what we are talking about on this 
floor, is what the priorities are going to be.
  Our colleagues have sent a letter, with everybody signing it, saying 
they are not willing to do anything else. They are not willing to 
extend unemployment benefits. Two million people started losing their 
benefits yesterday--temporary help, by the way--$250 to $300 a week, 
which just barely kind of maybe keeps the heat on, because it is 
getting cold in Michigan, and a roof over their heads while they are 
desperately sending resumes out all over the country.
  I get on planes now with people who are flying all over the country 
because they want to work. They are flying all over the place and 
coming home on the weekends, trying to find work. Our colleagues say: 
Well, you know what. Forget them. They need to wait because the most 
important thing is extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 
our country.
  I happen to--as we all do--know a lot of people in that category who 
say to me: I am willing to do my share. I am not asking you for this. I 
am willing to do my share. I have done well. I understand we have a 
national deficit. I understand we have a country that has a lot of 
challenges right now, and I am willing to step up and do my part. So 
this is not trying to beat up on people or demagogue against people who 
have worked hard, in many cases, and done well for themselves. But it 
is about having a set of priorities about what is important. In the few 
days we have left between now and the end of the year, what is the most 
important thing we could be doing?
  I know other colleagues wish to speak. Let me just say, in my 
judgment, we can create certainty. It certainly doesn't have to be 
extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It certainly can 
be extending tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, 
creating certainty with the R&D tax credit for those who want to 
innovate and invest. There are other kinds of certainty we can create 
for businesses in our Tax Code. We need to do that before the end of 
the year.
  We need to remember that there are a whole lot of families right now 
who are trying to create some certainty in their lives about whether 
they can put up a Christmas tree because they are still going to have 
their house. That is not rhetoric; that is happening to people. We as 
Democrats are not willing to risk all this. The Republicans may be 
willing to risk everything to give a bonus tax cut to millionaires and 
billionaires, but we are fighting for everybody else.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________