[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 157 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8474-S8475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX RELIEF

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the 
debate we are having on the fundamental question of what type of tax 
relief will be considered by the Senate.
  Not too often does a debate offer such clear differences in 
priorities between the two parties. We have before us a sensible 
package, put together by Chairman Baucus, which would ensure that any 
family in America who makes up to one-quarter of a million dollars in a 
year would get a permanent tax cut instead of one that expires a few 
years down the road, as the Bush tax cuts will do.
  If Republicans would work with us, we could give businesses 
certainty, middle-class families tax relief, and create jobs at this 
very moment. Solving these issues has, at least from my perspective, 
broad bipartisan support. Everybody says they want to give business 
certainty, they want to give middle-class families tax relief, and they 
want to create jobs. So if we have that agreement, both sides should be 
able to come to support this proposition.
  Both sides have agreed we should move forward extending tax cuts for 
middle-class families, do more to create jobs, and ensure that the 
alternative minimum tax doesn't ensnare more than 30 million Americans 
this year. Unfortunately, the question isn't, Who is going to cut your 
taxes? That is not the question. The question is, Whose taxes are going 
to be cut?
  We could pass this bill today, give middle-class taxpayers certainty, 
take care of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax problem, which 
protects, right now, in terms of how we have responded to it to create 
relief from that--and we want to extend that relief not only to 30 
million people in the country but 1.6 million New Jerseyans whom we 
have saved from being bit by that AMT. Failure to act would mean they 
would pay an additional tax bill of up to $5,600.
  These are middle-class families who were never intended to pay a tax 
that was meant originally for those in our country who paid nothing 
toward the common good. Hence, the Congress created an alternative 
minimum tax, so those using the deductions in the code who paid nothing 
to the common good, to the Nation's defense, and its well-being had to 
pay something. But since that was 20, 25, 30 years ago, it was never 
indexed. We have now seen that has been biting middle-class families. 
In the case of middle-class families in New Jersey subject to the AMT, 
they would be bit by another $5,600.
  We also need to extend the desperately needed unemployment benefits 
to the 2 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own. That is all in this package. We could pass a number of job 
creation measures, such as an extension of Build America Bonds which, 
true to its name, puts people to work rebuilding communities across 
America. My proposal is to give them the tools they need to put people 
to work on projects that deliver safer and cleaner water to families 
through private activity bonds--something that gets the private sector 
putting up money in a way that creates jobs. Unbelievably, my 
Republican colleagues have pledged to stop this bill, to do that by 
what we call a filibuster, to insist that instead of a simple majority 
of the 100 Senators, there have to be 60. All these benefits, permanent 
tax benefits for middle-class families making one-quarter of a million 
dollars or less, the opportunity to create jobs, the opportunity to 
take care of a couple million Americans who lost their jobs, the 
opportunity to bring the private sector back again, the opportunity to 
give the private sector certainty, none of that is good enough for 
them. They will not simply vote against it; they are seeking to block 
this bill, by using the filibuster, from even being considered by the 
Senate.
  The difference in the priorities between our two parties is rather 
clear. Republicans would rather that taxes increase for all Americans 
than allow tax rates for millionaires and billionaires to revert to 
Clinton-era prosperity levels. So all of us have to face an increase in 
taxes in order to give an extra tax benefit to the wealthiest in our 
country.
  It happens to be a fact that the wealthiest in the country still see 
a tax cut under this bill, and it will be bigger than a middle-class 
family's tax cut. We are simply asking not to extend additional tax 
cuts on top of the tax cuts they will already receive. So everybody in 
America gets a tax cut under our proposal. As a matter of fact, that 
tax cut, instead of expiring a few years down the road, stays 
permanent. But, no, they want to give an additional tax cut to those 
who are millionaires, multimillionaires, and billionaires. Simply put, 
Republicans believe it is more important to deliver massive tax breaks 
to CEOs than to the people who work for them. They argue that 
millionaires paying tax rates at the levels they paid in 2000 would 
decimate the economy. The problem is, that position is simply not 
supported by the facts or the experience of the last decade.
  People who have worked hard and built personal wealth should be 
applauded for their success. I applaud people who, through their hard 
work, creativity, and ingenuity, have created wealth. They should be 
applauded and admired. I admire them. People who work hard and prosper, 
they love their country too. They are in the best position to be 
helpful to their country in this tough economic time. Many of them are 
willing to contribute if we ask. We know from experience that reverting 
to the tax rates that the wealthiest and most successful paid during 
the Clinton-era prosperity will certainly not break our economy. As a 
matter of fact, it was that era that balanced the budget for the first 
time in a generation, created record surpluses, low unemployment, low 
interest rates, and had the greatest peacetime economy in over a 
generation. It certainly didn't break our economy.
  So I just don't understand why my colleagues on the Republican side 
of the aisle continue to oppose what is good for America, for our 
children, and for our future. We are on the eve of the holidays. 
Middle-class families are sitting around the kitchen table at night 
wondering how they are going to afford to buy the gifts for their 
children this year. Middle-class families are wondering how they are 
going to make the next mortgage payment, how they are going to pay 
tuition for their college-age children next semester. These are tough 
conversations around that kitchen table.
  I can assure you those Republicans who are fighting for millionaires 
and billionaires are not worried this holiday season. Yet we are being 
asked to give them an additional tax windfall while middle-class 
families are struggling. Our Republican colleagues are playing Santa 
for the millionaires and Scrooge for the middle class.
  Those who make over $1 million, they want to give them a big fat 
check, averaging $104,000, with a bow on it. For our children, they 
want to give them a big fat $4 trillion bill to be paid back with 
interest for generations to come. I guess that is their version of 
happy holidays, America.

[[Page S8475]]

  Does it make sense to anyone but our Republican colleagues who, once 
again, are telling us that rewarding the wealthiest helps us all, that 
that wealth somehow trickles down and creates jobs? I say: Show me the 
jobs. We cut taxes for that universe of taxpayers, the highest income 
taxpayers in the Nation, and they said it would create jobs. Well, show 
me. Where are they? In the year the Bush tax cuts were passed, 
unemployment was under 5 percent. After nearly a decade under Bush's 
tax policy, unemployment has doubled. It now stands at nearly 10 
percent. Now they are saying we need to reward the rich again and it 
will create jobs. Well, in my view, the Bush Republican tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires has been the biggest failed jobs program 
in our Nation's history. But what it did do is add enormously to the 
debt.

  I have listened to those who have come here talking about the 
consequences of debt. Yet they are rushing to add to that debt in 
dramatic ways, all for the wealthiest people in our country. So my 
question to my Republican colleagues who believe that only debt-
financed tax cuts for millionaires can fix the economy is this: Where 
is the prosperity that President Bush promised to the middle class when 
these cuts were passed a decade ago?
  In fact, let's look at that decade. The Bush decade will go down in 
history as one of the worst decades the middle class has ever faced. 
While the wealthiest saw their incomes swell and their taxes plummet, 
middle-class salaries remained stagnated. Families' costs, such as 
health care and college tuitions, skyrocketed, and jobs disappeared 
overseas. The stock market sputters along at the same levels it 
achieved under the Clinton-era tax rates. Middle-class wages have 
continued to lose ground to inflation and health care costs, and 
millions more now live in poverty than before these tax cuts were 
passed.
  When the unregulated greed on Wall Street led to millions of 
Americans losing their jobs, Republicans said: You are on your own--
literally. Literally, on this very floor--while leading a filibuster 
against an extension of unemployment benefits, and asked, How is it you 
can do that to these people who, through no fault of their own, face 
the unemployment line--one Republican retorted: Tough--and the rest of 
it you can fill in the blank--to pleas from families desperate for 
help.
  If Republicans were truly in this debate to create jobs and protect 
the middle class, then why did the Republican leader introduce a bill 
that is actually a tax increase on millions--a tax increase on 
millions--of middle-class American families? Yes, a tax increase. That 
is right. The Republican bill offered by their leader spends $1 
trillion more. Yet the vast majority of Americans would see their taxes 
increase if it were to become law. Why? Because President Obama's tax 
cut for 95 percent of Americans--for so many middle-class families--was 
not a large enough priority to make it into their package. Gutting the 
estate tax was but additional middle-class tax relief was not.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--the one entity both 
Democrats and Republicans depend upon for the scoring of our efforts, 
for thinking about what are the best job-producing initiatives and 
whatnot--has found the most effective way--this is them, through their 
studies--to create jobs. They say the ``biggest bang for the buck'' is 
extending jobless benefits, and ranking right behind in terms of 
effectiveness are payroll tax cuts and small business tax incentives.
  The chairman's bill contains all of that--all that the Congressional 
Budget Office has said are the biggest creators of jobs.
  The Republican leader's bill contains none--zero--of those 
initiatives. The Congressional Budget Office has determined the 
Republican package does not contain even one of the most effective 
ideas for job creation. So if Republicans are in this debate to create 
jobs, why don't they include the proposals that economists are telling 
us are the most effective in creating jobs?
  We know Republicans have said no to everything. We know the 
Republican leadership's top priority is not middle-class families but 
defeating President Obama. But we cannot tolerate the harm their 
political strategy will do to middle-class families. They are even 
willing, for the sake of their political strategy--which is to have 
this President fail, which means not whether the President fails but 
whether the country fails--to hold hostage permanent middle-class tax 
relief, for multimillionaires and billionaires.
  I urge my colleagues to remember those who are struggling this 
holiday season to keep their homes, to find a job, and to provide for 
their families. I urge my Republican colleagues during this kind, 
forgiving time of year to open their hearts and change their political 
playbook. Their political playbook maybe has brought them some success, 
but it puts middle-class families at enormous risk. There is no reason 
the Senate cannot have a bipartisan vote or a simple majority vote on 
making reality permanent tax cuts of $250,000 or less for our families 
and to give businesses the certainty they need by creating an extension 
for those who are unemployed, which will create opportunities for the 
private sector and Build America Bonds to get us working again. That is 
all in this package. It will give relief from the alternative minimum 
tax.
  That is the vote we are going to have--all of that. Saying no to that 
in order to help the wealthiest people in the country--those we applaud 
for their hard work and ingenuity, but those who are willing, I 
believe, to help their country and have the best wherewithal to do so--
is just simply a political game book that should be ultimately 
abandoned. If not, in this vote, Republicans will have abandoned the 
middle class of this country at a time in which they need our support 
the greatest.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________