[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 158 (Saturday, December 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8514-S8530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
4583, which the clerk will report.
  The legislation clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment with an amendment to H.R. 4853, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and 
     expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, 
     to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend 
     authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 
     4727 (to the House amendment to the Senate amendment), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4728 (to amendment No. 4727), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on Finance, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 4729, to provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4730 ((the instructions) amendment No. 
     4729), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4731 (to amendment No. 4730), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my honor to serve on President 
Obama's deficit commission, a commission chaired by former White House

[[Page S8515]]

Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former U.S. Senator from Wyoming Alan 
Simpson. For 10 months, we met and considered all of the possibilities 
for us to move toward a more stable fiscal picture in America. Our goal 
was simple: to reduce Federal spending, reduce the deficit by $4 
trillion over 10 years. It took us 10 months to come up with a 
proposal, and yesterday 11 out of the 18 members of the commission 
voted in favor, as I did. I had my reservations about some of their 
provisions, but I did not quarrel with the goal.
  Unless we are serious about budget deficit reduction, America's 
economy will be in peril. Borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we 
spend and borrowing it from countries such as China, which, as a 
result, have leverage on the U.S. economy, is something we should not 
ever accept as normal. It is abnormal and dangerous.
  I left that commission hearing yesterday, voting to cut $4 trillion 
over 10 years, to come to the floor of the Senate, where the Republican 
side of the aisle, the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, has a 
proposal for tax cuts over the next 10 years of $4 trillion. What a 
coincidence. All of the pain that would be inflicted on the American 
people and our economy from the deficit commission proposal to reach 
the goal of moving toward budget balance and sensible budgeting would 
be completely wiped away by the Republican tax cut proposal. That is 
why this debate is so critical.

  I fully support the amendment being offered by Senator Baucus of 
Montana, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, an amendment 
which says: We will have tax cuts, but we will do it sparingly because 
we need to, not only to help middle-class families but to help this 
economy. The Baucus proposal would cost us, over 10 years, $1.5 
trillion. It is a huge sum of money. But it is a sum of money we should 
invest at this moment because of the reports we received yesterday that 
the unemployment rate in America continues to rise, that our economy is 
fragile, that this recession is serious, and we need to move to breathe 
life into this economy as quickly as possible for workers and small 
businesses all across the United States.
  That is why I support the Baucus proposal. That is why President 
Obama supports it. That is why it is a sensible way to go. And that is 
why the Republican position--calling for expanding our deficit, calling 
for expanding tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans--the Republican 
position is indefensible, indefensible not just among Democrats and 
Independents but even in their own political party.
  A recent CBS poll showed more than 50 percent of Republicans across 
America reject the Senate Republican position calling for tax breaks 
for millionaires. When we add those who say to just extend the tax 
breaks for those making $250,000 or less or don't extend any tax 
breaks, the Republican position is rejected by Republicans across 
America. Why? Because they can add and subtract, and they understand 
that to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in America at this 
moment in history is foolish and reckless. Yet that is the position of 
the Republican Party and a definition of their values.
  I might also add, to think that the Republicans could stand before us 
and argue that we should give tax breaks to those making over $1 
million a year--let me quantify those tax breaks. The average tax break 
for a person making $1 million a year, under the Republican proposal, 
is $100,000 a year--$100,000 a year. That is what they are prepared to 
ask for and then turn around and argue it does not add to the deficit, 
which it clearly does--some $700 billion--and then argue we cannot 
extend unemployment benefits because it might add to the deficit.
  So on one hand, giving help to those who do not need it, did not ask 
for it, and, frankly, will not help our economy when they receive it, 
is acceptable to Republicans. But turning around to help 127,000 
unemployed people in Illinois who will lose their unemployment 
insurance this month--Merry Christmas, they lose their unemployment 
insurance--40,000 people in Missouri who will lose their unemployment 
benefits this month, this holiday season, and over 30,000 people who 
will lose it in the State of Iowa, to cut off those unemployment 
benefits, the Republicans say: Tough luck. That is the way it has to 
go. We have to be very careful about the way we spend money. Tax breaks 
for the wealthy, no unemployment insurance for those who struggle is an 
unacceptable position for America's economy and America's future.
  This is a clear choice. I support the Baucus amendment: help middle-
income families, reduce the deficit. Do not reward those who have done 
so well in our economy, have not asked for a tax break, do not need it, 
and only add to our Nation's deficit. As part of the proposal from 
Senator Baucus: provide unemployment benefits for those in America who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and deserve a 
helping hand in this holiday season.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield my time to myself, 15 minutes 
out of what we control.
  First of all, I remember before the President was sworn in he 
announced that--even though he ran on a platform of increasing taxes on 
higher income people--you do not raise taxes during a recession. So 
during the year 2009, there were no proposals to increase taxes from 
the administration, and, obviously, the Congress went along with that.
  Then, in August 2009, the President was in Elkhart, IN, and there was 
an exchange there along the same line, and the President said this:

       You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised 
     taxes in a recession.

  Well, with 9.8 percent unemployment yesterday, it is quite obvious we 
are still in a recession. This debate is not about cutting taxes. This 
debate is whether we ought to increase taxes on anybody during a 
recession. We believe we should not raise taxes on anybody during a 
recession.
  Also, I heard the other side in their early speeches talk about 
efforts on this side to prevent unemployment insurance from being 
extended. Well, that is the same song we heard from the majority party 
during June and July. I would remind people on the other side of the 
aisle, the results of the election were that the people of this country 
said they were concerned about jobs, about the economy, and about the 
legacy of debt.
  During that period of time last summer when we were being accused, as 
we were just accused this time, of not wanting to do anything about 
unemployment compensation, on June 14, June 17, June 24, and June 30, 
we tried to not only extend unemployment compensation but we tried to 
do it in a way that was paid for so we did not increase the deficit. 
But we were denied that opportunity.
  Finally, soon after the July Fourth break, we were given an 
opportunity to at least vote on an opportunity to extend unemployment 
compensation and pay for it. But we did not get the votes because for 
the other side, a deficit does not bother them except when it comes to 
increasing taxes on somebody else. Then they say the deficit is of 
concern to them.
  But the fact is, as I said yesterday right here as I spoke to my 
colleagues, if we look at the history of tax increases in this 
Congress--in Congress generally--over a long period of time, it is one 
thing to raise taxes if it will go to the bottom line, but we have seen 
time after time raise a dollar's worth of taxes and it is a license to 
spend about $1.15, $1.17. So raising taxes does not reduce deficits. 
The reason is, it is not because people in this country are undertaxed, 
it is because Congress overspends. For the tax increases of the past 
and the expenditures that followed, $1 of taxes gives a license to 
spend $1.15. It is just like the dog chasing its tail; he never catches 
it.
  So here we are, just 1 month after the people of this country very 
definitely spoke about their concern about jobs, the deficit, and the 
economy, and we are right back where the President said we should not 
be both before he was sworn in and then in August of 2009; that we 
should not increase taxes during a recession.
  So I would like to quickly discuss the proposal to increase taxes on 
some Americans starting in less than a month from now.
  The first one would be unemployment. Just yesterday--as I just stated 
but to be more specific--the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the 
unemployment rate ticked back up to 9.8 percent

[[Page S8516]]

from 9.6 percent. In July, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. For 
the 3 months of August, September, and October, it was pretty steady, 
9.6 percent; now for November, 9.8 percent. The unemployment rates for 
minorities are significantly worse than what it is for the average. The 
trend is in the wrong direction. In other words, the economy is in a 
very fragile situation. The economy is clearly telling Congress: Handle 
with extreme care.
  The second point is what the economists say. I have a chart that says 
what various economists say we ought to do. This was a survey by CNN 
Money. A majority of the economists say preventing the 2011 tax hikes 
is the No. 1 thing Congress can do right now to help the economy. That 
would be the 60 percent of the economists who say don't raise taxes for 
any taxpayers; the 60 percent of the economists who say preventing tax 
hikes on all Americans is the best course of action.
  But only 10 percent of the economists say preventing tax hikes on 
only the middle class is the best way to help the economy. Sixty 
percent say don't increase taxes on anybody versus 10 percent who say 
it is OK to increase them on some. Of course, the survey is by CNN, 
hardly known as being a Republican network.
  Four, some on the other side may say that preventing tax hikes on 
higher income folks is not important. The theory goes that high-income 
people would just save the money. There are a couple problems with that 
point. The first is, we all know the lack of savings and investment is 
harmful to the economy. But the other more direct response is, they 
probably would increase their spending on consumption.
  Mark Zandi, a respected economist with Moody's, had this to say: 
Normally, I would firmly agree that raising taxes on people who make 
over $250,000 a year would not make a meaningful difference in the way 
they spend money. But I worry that these aren't normal times and that 
even this income group may be sensitive.
  Now, obviously, these are not normal times when we still have almost 
10 percent of the people unemployed and a fragile economy. What this 
Congress does has consequences, and we ought to be very cautious how we 
approach it.
  Fifth, we have CBO saying the gross domestic product would be as much 
as 1.4 percent higher in 2011 if all the tax relief of 2001 and 2003 is 
made permanent. If the tax relief is only for lower income Americans--
as is proposed by the amendment before this body and by people on the 
other side of the aisle--then, according to CBO, the GDP would only be 
1.1 percent higher in 2011.
  Now maybe some people think the difference between 1.4 percent an 1.1 
percent of more growth is insignificant. But let me tell you, when it 
comes to 10 percent unemployment that sort of economic growth is going 
to put a significant number of people back to work if we allow the 
higher 1.4 percent to happen.
  In other words, the difference between preventing tax increases on 
all Americans and on only preventing the tax increases on some 
Americans--that three-tenths of 1 percent in 2011 is a very significant 
difference of economic growth.
  I would like to go to a sixth point. Given the recession, given the 
unemployment rate, given business reluctance to invest and grow, is 
this the time to reduce the gross domestic product at all? If it were 
just a matter of either the government got the money or the private 
sector, that would be one thing, as the government does have a deficit 
problem. But in this case, it is a matter of money simply not being 
there because of the hit to the gross domestic product. So we are 
talking about dead-weight loss.
  Then, seventh, fiscal history proves higher rates do not yield higher 
revenue. As shown on this chart, this is a 50-year history of revenue 
coming into the Federal Government as a percentage of gross national 
product. The red line is pretty steady. It does not matter whether we 
have 93 percent rates back in the Eisenhower and early Kennedy years, 
and then they were reduced down and down and down and down and down, to 
eventually, in 1987, when they got down to 26 percent, and, in 1990, 
they went back up to 39.6 percent. Now they are down to 35 percent. Are 
they going to go back up to 39 percent, 40 percent? This chart proves 
the taxpayers of this country are smarter than we are in Congress 
because we think we can raise high marginal tax rates and bring in more 
revenue, and it doesn't have anything to do with what the American 
people are willing to send to Washington.

  I wish to quote not this Senator but the Joint Committee on Taxation 
in regard to high marginal tax rates not making much difference to what 
money comes into the Federal Government because the taxpayers are 
smarter than we are. They are smart enough to know that if you have 93 
percent marginal tax rates, why work? So you didn't get any more 
revenue. There is still about 18.2 percent of the gross national 
product coming in for us to spend. But we don't give the taxpayers of 
this country any credit for having any smarts because we think we are 
smarter than they are, and this chart proves the taxpayers are smarter 
than we are because we have high marginal tax rates, and it doesn't 
bring in any more revenue. When are we going to learn?
  So the Joint Committee on Taxation says about this:

       We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased 
     marginal rates by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance 
     strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to 
     taxation.

  The ninth point out of 11--and I am about done--I often quote the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small 
business here. Because the President says 70 percent of the new jobs in 
America are created by small business so we ought to listen to what 
their voice in Washington has to say for small business and what we do 
and the effect, good or bad, on the economy.

       Members of Congress fled with no action on important issues 
     like expiring tax rates, leaving the cloud of uncertainty 
     larger and darker. In response, consumer sentiment fell and 
     owner optimism remained anchored solidly in recession 
     territory. Thus, spending stayed in ``maintenance mode'', 
     deterioration of jobs continued, and capital spending remains 
     at historically low rates. Owners won't make spending 
     commitments when sales prospects remain weak, and important 
     decisions--

  I wish to highlight this--

     such as tax rates and labor costs remain so uncertain.

  This debate adds to that uncertainty, if you are going to have tax 
increases.
  So here we are on a Saturday. I have a chart up that I think says 
what today's debate is all about. We don't need a dog and pony show 
going on, on a Saturday, when we ought to be giving certainty to the 
economy, because the word ``uncertainty'' is exactly what CEOs of major 
corporations told the President back in June, when he called them in 
and said: You have $2 trillion in cash sitting in corporate treasury. 
Why aren't you spending it and creating jobs?
  They said: Because of so much uncertainty.
  So the bottom line is this. Stop the tax hikes.
  Mr. President, may I make a unanimous consent request, please, that 
Senator Hatch have 15 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Kyl, 
10 minutes; and Senator Graham, 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, because you New Yorkers think you can make us 
Midwesterners look bad, but I am glad to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. Through the Chair, I would simply 
like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point 
of view. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain 
to me why it is OK to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the 
highest income levels--above $1 million--and not pay for it, yet we 
have to pay for an unemployment extension?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes; I thought I made that point very clear. Because 
the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know if they 
give another $1 to us to spend, it is a license to spend $1.15. So it 
just increases the national debt. When it comes to paying for 
unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation 
because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it 
is not being spent. If you put money from stimulus into unemployment, 
you

[[Page S8517]]

don't increase the deficit, and you also have the money spent right 
away.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would just say the answer doesn't deal 
with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two 
should be treated equally. Mr. President, $1 of tax break per 
millionaire and $1 of increased unemployment benefits increases the 
deficit the same amount. However, every economist--I saw we had a chart 
up about economists before--will tell us $1 into unemployment benefits 
stimulates the economy about four times as much as $1 into tax 
decreases for millionaires. That is pretty universal. Mark Zandi, John 
McCain's economic adviser during his campaign, said $1 of tax breaks 
for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents' worth. So $1 of 
unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.
  I know we have a few of my colleagues coming. Does my colleague have 
anyone else here he wishes to have speak right now?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't think they are here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. OK. Then I will speak for a minute or two, unless you 
would like to speak a little longer.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Are you saying you don't want to use any time on your 
side to speak?
  Mr. SCHUMER. If you have more time on your side that you want to use, 
that is fine; otherwise, I will.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't want to eat into my colleagues' time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. OK. Then I will speak for a few minutes.
  Mr. President, this debate is very simple. Everybody here believes in 
all good faith that we ought to permanently extend tax breaks for the 
middle class. The question on the floor is, Do we want to extend those 
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at a time of huge deficit? 
I would argue vociferously no. I would argue most economists agree that 
shouldn't happen. I would argue the American people, by 26 percent to 
74 percent, are against giving tax breaks to millionaires. Why? It is 
very simple.
  It is not that we are against millionaires. God bless them. Most of 
them made their money the hard way. They worked hard. They made the 
American dream. Every one of us would like to have done that--or most 
of us. So this is not aimed at being critical of them. But, rather, it 
says we have two economic realities. We have an economy that under the 
Bush tax cuts right now--my colleague mentioned unemployment went up to 
9.8 percent. That is under these tax cuts.

  When the rates were a little higher under President Clinton, we never 
had unemployment that high. But we would argue: So the middle class 
needs to continue that break for two reasons. One, it stimulates the 
economy and, No. 2, middle-class incomes have declined over the last 
decade. In the first decade under the Bush tax cuts, middle-class 
incomes declined for the first decade since World War II. Under the 
Clinton rates, middle-class incomes increased rather significantly. 
Second, we would say this: But at the same time--this is the conundrum 
we have economically--we have a large deficit and the question is, How 
do you reduce the deficit? Again, I think both of us agree we should 
reduce the deficit. It seems to me, about the best way to reduce the 
deficit is not to give $300 billion of tax breaks to the 315,000 
Americans whose income is over $1 million.
  By the way, I would remind my colleague there are 160 million 
people--my colleague from Alaska has reminded me--160 million people 
who file tax returns. Only 315,000--by quick math, that is about .03 
percent--have an income over $1 million. But in the last decade under 
the Bush tax cuts, those people have garnered all the increase in 
wealth, all the increase in income--or just about--a huge proportion of 
it.
  So if we are looking for deficit reduction, should we hurt the middle 
class? No. Should we stop building roads? In my opinion, no. Should we 
take money out of Social Security? In my opinion, no. Where are we 
going to get it? Don't do unemployment benefits which stimulate the 
economy and mean so much to middle-class people who have been out of 
work for so long under this regime of Bush tax cuts? No. The best place 
to get that money--it is not that we want to punish wealthy people. We 
want to praise them. But they are doing fine and they are not going to 
spend the money and stimulate the economy. For some reason, 42 Members 
of this Senate, all on the other side of the aisle, somehow the 
linchpin of their entire economic policy is tax breaks--further tax 
breaks--for those who are very wealthy.
  Let me remind my colleague that every person whose income is $100 
million--there aren't many of them, but they have a lot of the income--
would get a $3.8 million tax break a year. The average middle-class 
person under our plan would get about a $2,000 tax break a year. Is 
that equivalent? Certainly, the person making $3.8 million isn't going 
to rush to J.C. Penney and buy that warm winter coat they have been 
waiting for. No.
  So I would say to my friend, it is a bit contradictory to say pay for 
unemployment benefits but don't pay for tax cuts to the rich. It is 
also a bit contradictory to say you care about deficit reduction but 
not when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthiest people.
  I am going to be here for the next 2 years to remind my colleagues, 
every time they talk about deficit reduction and don't spend money on 
this and don't spend money on that, that they were willing to increase 
the deficit $300 billion to give tax breaks to people who have over $1 
million.
  With that, I yield the floor and turn it over--I see my colleague 
from Utah is here. I kept him waiting yesterday. I am not going to do 
that today. So I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. President. This is a first 
for him to yield to me and appreciate me.
  That is not quite accurate because we are real good friends.
  My friend, the senior Senator from New York, has come forward with an 
amendment. The essence of the amendment is a marginal tax rate hike on 
taxpayers earning more than $1 million. It has been dubbed the 
``millionaires' tax.''
  Folks on the other side must know two things. One, this may be well 
designed from the other side's political viewpoint. Supporting the tax 
probably registers well with some of the Democratic polling mavens. By 
the same token, these polling mavens might be indicating to their 
patrons that this lameduck session vote might supply some good campaign 
material. As the debate ensued this past week, it almost seemed as 
though my friends on the other side were giddily rubbing their hands 
together. Maybe they view this vote as the equivalent of a Hanukkah 
gift or Christmas present. But their holiday political joy stands in 
sharp contrast to the dreary situation facing America's unemployed. Two 
years of wall-to-wall Democratic rule has only made the situation 
worse.
  There is a second thing my friends on the other side must know. They 
know Senator Schumer's amendment will surely fail. Does anybody doubt 
it?
  Thirty-three days ago, the American people sent a message: Work 
together. Take care of the people's business. Nothing is more 
fundamental to the people's business than how much they are taxed. In 
this weak economy they said: Keep taxes low. Keep taxes low.
  We should not meddle with the great sovereign power of taxation. It 
is especially true in this harsh economic climate. On April 19, 1774, 
Sir Edmund Burke tried to persuade the British Parliament to repeal the 
last of several controversial colonial taxes. His wisdom is instructive 
for today's vote. Remember, this is Sir Edmund Burke arguing for the 
colonists in America:

       Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America, 
     than to see you go out of the plain high road of finance, and 
     give up your most certain revenues and your clearest 
     interests, merely for the sake of insulting your Colonies?

  Burke's point was that the Parliament was acting unwisely by 
maintaining a tea tax primarily to spite the colonists.
  Four Saturdays from today, we will mark New Year's Day 2011. The tax 
law, as it now reads, will impose a punitive hike on virtually every 
American taxpayer. That date of reckoning has been clear since my 
friends took power almost 4 years ago in both Houses of Congress.
  My friends on the other side, with all due respect, your actions this 
morning

[[Page S8518]]

amount to meddling. You possess part of the sovereign power to change 
the tax law to prevent this tax increase. Instead, you have forced this 
body into a political showdown.
  The proponents of the so-called millionaires' tax say the reason to 
do so is ``fiscal discipline.'' This proposal preserves less than half 
of the revenue of the related positions in the Reid-Baucus substitute. 
If that is the case, and revenue is the goal of the proponents of the 
millionaires' tax, they ought to stick with the Reid-Baucus substitute.
  But let's set aside for a moment the fact that the revenue raised is 
a fraction of the broader tax hike on the Reid-Baucus substitute. Does 
anybody take seriously the amendment proponents' claims that the 
revenue raised will go to deficit reduction? Does anybody really 
believe that? You know they are going to spend every dime of it, if 
there were any revenues. Where is the mechanism to assure taxpayers of 
that? More important, what is the record of my friends on the other 
side on this point? You need to only look at the fine print in the 
revenue and spending tables of the President's budget.
  As an aside, the President's budget is the most transparent 
presentation of the fiscal features of the agenda of my friends on the 
other side. Hiking marginal tax rates on singles making more than 
$200,000 and families making over $250,000 translates to about six-
tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, per year over 10 
years. The new above-baseline spending initiatives in the President's 
budget translate to seventy-five one-hundredths of 1 percent of GDP per 
year over 10 years. What does that mean fiscally? The revenue raised by 
the broader tax hike in the Reid-Baucus substitute is less than the new 
spending in the President's budget. It doesn't take a rocket scientist 
to figure this out.
  As I stated earlier, the revenue raised by the amendment of my friend 
from New York is less than half of that of the Reid-Baucus substitute. 
Does anybody really believe that lesser amount of revenue is less 
likely to be spent? So much for the fiscal discipline argument.
  There are some disturbing points to ponder on this so-called 
millionaires' tax. I am going to alert my friends on the other side to 
them.
  The first point is that capital is the lifeblood of business. Pump 
more capital into business and it will respond: the business will gain 
economic energy. Curtail the flow of capital to a business and it will 
respond: the business will lose economic energy. That is what is 
happening in America.
  According to the latest Internal Revenue Service statistics of 
income--or SOI--data, a lot of capital gain income is earned by 
taxpayers targeted by Senator Schumer's amendment. Statistics of income 
data states that 56.6 percent of the net long-term capital gain from 
traditional capital assets is reported by taxpayers with $1 million or 
more in income. More important, if capital gains from transactions 
involving partnerships and other flowthrough entities are concerned, 
that percentage rises to 64.7 percent. There can be little doubt that 
we are talking about a large pool of capital.
  If my friends on the other side were to prevail, it would be a game-
changer for the tax treatment of a large pool of income from capital. 
The change in the capital gains would surely be a negative one.
  I have a chart that illustrates the change in the playing field for 
capital transactions. It shows where we are today; that is, 15 percent 
capital gains rate. If my friends on the other side are successful, in 
a little over 27 days from now, the marginal rate will rise to 20 
percent. The health care reform bill has baked in another 3.9 percent 
rate hike. That kicks in a little over 2 years from now. So that is 
23.9 percent.
  This chart shows that the marginal rate on nearly two-thirds of 
taxable long-term capital gains transactions could be affected. It 
means investors who supply that capital, the lifeblood of business, 
will see the marginal tax rate on capital gains rise by nearly 60 
percent in a little over 2 years.
  Everything else being equal, a rise in the marginal tax rate means a 
decline in the after-tax rate of return. The nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation always cautions us about this effect in their 
revenue estimates.
  Here is what Joint Tax said:

       We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased 
     marginal rate by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance 
     strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to 
     taxation.

  My gosh, what more do you need to understand economics? Capital is 
the lifeblood of business. Raise the marginal rate on capital gains 
transactions, and the result will be a decrease in the after-tax rate 
of return on capital investments. What will happen? Capital will go out 
of taxable activities, in many cases. Capital, the lifeblood of 
business, will be constricted. With capital constricted, does anybody 
see business activity affected in any way that is positive? It would be 
hard to imagine that outcome.
  When most folks hear about a so-called millionaires' tax, they 
probably think it would have minimal impact on the business 
environment. The data I have discussed shows exactly the opposite. It 
also shows that any revenue raised will likely be spent. Anybody who 
believes that by raising revenues we are going to pay off the national 
debt has not lived in this country for the last 34 years I have been in 
the Senate. Our friends on the other side will always spend that money. 
That is how they keep themselves in power.
  Does it make sense to send a tax policy signal to investors to move 
their capital out of taxable business activity? In the worst economic 
environment in many years,--now with 9.8 percent unemployment--should 
we not be going in the opposite direction? Instead of finding ways to 
kill jobs when the unemployment rate continues to stagnate near 10 
percent, let's focus our time on finding a bipartisan solution to 
protect all Americans, especially our job creators, from crushing tax 
hikes. It is time to put a stop to this nonsensical political theater 
and get down to the people's business.
  One last thought. Over the last summer, President Obama said this:

       The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the 
     middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take 
     more demand out of the economy, and put businesses in a 
     further hole.

  I think the President was right. I think the economists think that 
statement was right. The last thing we should do is raise taxes in the 
middle of this downturn, which now is even more down because of the 
9.8-percent unemployment rate. But that tells only part of the story. 
If you talk about the underemployment rate--those people who don't have 
jobs, those who can't find jobs, those who are dependent on the Federal 
Government, and those who stopped looking for jobs, and there are a lot 
of people like that--you are talking about 18 percent or better. We 
have to wise up. The last thing on Earth we need to do is increase 
taxes at this late date.
  This is an important debate. The Democrats have had 4 years to change 
this, where they controlled both Houses of Congress. In the last 2 
years, they controlled not only the Houses of Congress but the 
Presidency. At this last minute, to say that we have to do something, 
it shows a lack of--well, you name it; I won't name it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think the American people, when they 
voted this year, were saying one thing: We want to keep the main thing, 
the main thing. To the American people, the main thing is getting the 
economy growing again and creating jobs. Almost everything that has 
been done here in Congress in the last couple of years has been the 
exact opposite of that. You have seen policies put into place that 
increase the cost of doing business in this country and make it more 
difficult for small businesses to create jobs.
  So here we are today debating what evidently has become the 
Democratic economic theory, which is to raise taxes to create jobs. We 
have seen this in play throughout the last couple of years. The cap-
and-trade bill was a tax on energy. It didn't get through the Senate 
because we were prepared to stop it, but it passed in the House of 
Representatives and was headed here. The health care bill raised taxes 
on medical device manufacturers and drug companies and health insurance 
plans, all of which is going to get passed on to small businesses in 
the form of higher insurance premiums.

[[Page S8519]]

  Here we are debating a frontal, direct tax increase on small 
businesses. It is the most astounding theory on how to create jobs I 
have ever seen--raising taxes to create jobs. That hasn't worked in 
practice. The Senator from Iowa eloquently pointed out that, 
historically, if you go back over the past half century, not only does 
it not create jobs, it doesn't generate additional revenue. As he 
pointed out, when you raise taxes, you don't get more revenue. When you 
lower taxes, you get more revenue. Why? Because it affects the behavior 
of the American people. It affects investors, it affects the allocation 
of capital, and it affects people across this country when they know 
their tax rates are going to be low.
  This seems to me to be completely off the track and off the point 
that the American people want us to focus on, which is keeping the main 
thing, the main thing--how can we expand the economy and create jobs? 
We do that by keeping taxes low on small businesses, which, by the way, 
create two-thirds of the jobs in our economy.
  What will be the impact of the proposal we will vote on today in 
terms of small businesses and their ability to create jobs? According 
to the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, half of small business income 
would be subject to higher taxes. That translates into 750,000 small 
businesses that would be faced with higher taxes. That also, 
incidentally, impacts about 25 percent of the workforce in this 
country.
  How does that translate in real terms? When these taxes go up on 
January 1 for people who make more than $250,000 a year, who are 
probably paying the 33-percent or 35-percent marginal income tax rate 
today, their taxes will go up to 36 percent or 39.5 percent. If they 
are a family of four and they have personal exemptions, these phase 
out. There is a cap on the number of itemized deductions they can take. 
When that kicks in, their top marginal income tax rate could go up to 
41 percent.
  If you are a small business today that is paying at the 33-percent 
rate and you end up paying 41 percent as a result of this increase to 
take effect on January 1, you are looking at roughly a 25-percent 
decrease in your income. That is obviously going to increase the cost 
of doing business. When you increase the cost of doing business, it 
makes it that much harder for small businesses to invest, to make that 
new capital investment and buy that new piece of equipment or to hire 
that additional person, or hopefully additional people, in the 
workplace.
  All they are simply doing here is trying to implement a failed policy 
that hasn't worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future. 
We have all the science and history and facts to support this. It is 
counterintuitive to the American people. How many people think the way 
to create jobs is to increase the cost of doing business in this 
country? When small businesses create two-thirds of the jobs in our 
economy, it is absolutely fundamental that you don't increase their 
cost of doing business. You don't raise taxes if your ultimate goal is 
to create jobs.
  The best thing we can do for the high unemployment numbers and for 
the debate we are having about unemployment benefits being extended is 
to get people back to work. This is the exact opposite way of going 
about that. It is completely counterintuitive. Raising taxes to create 
jobs is a failed economic theory, and it has failed in practice.
  I think if the Democrats' tax hike goes into effect--and make no 
mistake about it, I hear the other side talking about tax breaks and 
tax cuts. These are not tax breaks or tax cuts. Taxes are going up on 
January 1, pure and simple. That is all there is to it. Taxes are going 
up on income, on capital gains, on dividends, and they are going up on 
estates. If action isn't taken by the Congress, we are going to see the 
largest tax increase in American history.
  The other side says: Well, let's cushion it. Let's limit to it those 
making more than $250,000. Of course, that affects a lot of LLCs, a lot 
of partnerships and subchapter S corporations, whose incomes flow 
through to their individual income tax returns and who will be faced 
with the higher income tax rates, not to mention the higher capital 
gains and higher dividend rates. These are the very people we are 
asking to pull us out of this recession and create jobs.
  So where does that leave us? Well, we are going to have an 
alternative. The alternative would be that we just extend the tax 
relief, not raise taxes or the cost of doing business, and allow our 
businesses to prosper and to flourish and to create more jobs for the 
American people so we can get that 9.8 percent unemployment rate down 
and reduce the amount of unemployment benefits we have to come back 
periodically and approve.
  We have 9.8 percent unemployment. We were told a year and a half 
ago--a little more than that, almost 2 years ago--when the stimulus 
bill was being debated, if we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill, we 
could keep unemployment below 8 percent. That didn't work. Obviously, 
we borrowed $1 trillion to do that from our children and grandchildren, 
and what do we have to show for it? We have a 9.8-percent unemployment 
rate today and no apparent prospect for the economy to pull out of this 
sluggishness we are in.
  The best way to accomplish that, the best way to make that happen, in 
my view and I think the view of the American people--and I speak as one 
individual who is under the $250,000 threshold--is to allow the people 
who create the jobs in this country, the people who make more than 
$250,000, to continue to do well. I hope they do because the small 
businesses, when they can increase their top-line sales and increase 
their revenues and increase their bottom-line profits, are going to be 
in a better position to create jobs. I get that, and I think the 
American people get that. That is why they so consistently voice their 
disapproval--and particularly the best poll that was taken was the 
election-day poll, where they came out in big numbers and voiced their 
disapproval of the policies in Washington, DC, that continue to kill 
jobs.
  So I think we should be looking at what we can do not to kill jobs 
but to create jobs; what we can do to incentivize businesses to create 
jobs, not putting more burdens on them and increasing the cost of their 
doing business in this country. There isn't anything, in my view, that 
has happened in this last year, if you are concerned about creating 
jobs, that has been conducive to that.
  There was a group of CEOs pulled in to visit with the President 
sometime last summer. When the President posed the question to them: 
Why are you CEOs and corporations not creating jobs, I will paraphrase 
this, but I think the answer, very simply, was: It is your agenda, Mr. 
President. That is the problem. We have an agenda here that is killing 
jobs because it is increasing the cost of doing business in this 
country.
  It is a very simple proposition. I don't think it takes a lot to get 
it. That is why I think so many people are beginning to realize either 
of these proposals--the Baucus proposal or the Schumer proposal--are 
the wrong ways in which to approach an economic downturn in this 
country and the wrong way to get that economy back on track and get 
people back to work. The latest example of that was today in the New 
York Times.

       In the latest sign how the tax issue continues to rankle 
     and divide Democrats, the White House said the administration 
     opposes raising the threshold to $1 million.

  So we have the $250,000 vote that is going to occur and we have the 
$1 million vote that is going to occur, but what I wish to point out to 
everyone is, under the Schumer bill--which is the $1 million 
threshold--according to the Joint Tax Committee, that still impacts 
350,000 small businesses in this country whose income flows through to 
their individual tax returns. So it is a question of whom do you want 
to raise taxes on, 750,000 small businesses with the Baucus amendment 
or 350,000 small businesses with the Schumer amendment.
  Obviously, one is clearly better than the other, but the point simply 
is this: The economic theory we are debating about raising taxes to 
create jobs is the wrong one. It has been proven wrong historically. It 
is counterintuitive to anybody who knows anything about economics, 
which is why 60 percent of all prominent economists in this country 
say--and this was quoted by the Senator from Iowa today--the best way 
to create jobs, to grow and expand the

[[Page S8520]]

economy, is to extend these tax provisions that are going to expire on 
January 1.
  That is what this debate is about. I hope we will keep the main thing 
for the American people and not get distracted on all these other 
things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to defeat 
both of these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, what this debate is about is whether we 
continue to take money from the middle class and working families of 
this country who are struggling in a way they have not struggled since 
the Great Depression and force their kids to borrow huge sums of money 
in order to provide $700 billion over a 10-year period to the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  I hear my Republican friends, time and time again, coming down to the 
floor of the Senate, say we have a huge deficit, we have a huge 
national debt. Yet today what they want to do is to drive that national 
debt up by $700 billion over the next 10 years in order to give huge 
tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. So please, my friends, say 
what you want, but stop talking about the deficit and the national debt 
when what you are doing today is driving that debt up by $700 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  Secondly, everybody in America knows what is going on in our country 
today is that the middle class is collapsing, poverty is increasing, 
but the people on top are doing phenomenally well. In the last 25 
years, 80 percent of all new income created in this country went to the 
top 1 percent. You don't have to worry about the top 1 percent. The 
millionaires and the billionaires in this country are doing fine. They 
do not need a huge tax increase. Today, in America, we have the most 
unequal distribution of income and wealth that we have had in this 
country since before the Great Depression.

  Isn't it enough for you that the top 1 percent now earns 23\1/2\ 
percent of all income? Isn't it enough for you that the top 1 percent 
earns more income than the bottom 50 percent? Isn't it enough for you 
that in the last 25 years, almost all new income has gone to the top 1 
percent? Do you think the CEOs on Wall Street who make hundreds of 
millions of dollars a year need a tax break? Do you think so? I don't 
think most of the American people think our kids and grandchildren have 
to see their taxes go up in order to provide tax breaks for the richest 
people in this country.
  Thirdly, I would say, without the slightest doubt, if these guys are 
successful in giving $700 billion more in tax breaks to millionaires 
and billionaires, the next thing they will do is run down to the floor 
and say: Oh my word, the deficit and the debt are going up. We have to 
cut Social Security because we have such a large debt. Yes, we have 
raised the debt by $700 billion, now we have to cut Social Security. We 
can't afford to extend unemployment compensation. We can't do it.
  Millions of workers out there today, as we get to the holiday season, 
are worried about how they are going to take care of their families, 
how they are going to maintain a minimum level of economic security. We 
can't afford to extend unemployment security, but we can afford to give 
billions and billions of dollars in tax relief to the top 1 percent.
  So I think this is a very easy vote, and the vote is to say: OK. 
Let's give tax relief, let's extend the tax cuts to 98 percent--many of 
whom are struggling--but let's not give tax breaks today to the 
millionaires and billionaires of this country who, in many ways, have 
never had it so good.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think what we have just heard illustrates 
why it has been so hard for us to reach a bipartisan agreement on how 
to resolve the tax issues all Americans face in just 4 short weeks.
  Last Tuesday, a group of us went down to the White House to visit 
with the President, the Vice President, and some of his folks in a 
spirit of cooperation, I must say, and a spirit in which the President 
reached out to us and said: All right, the elections are over. My party 
didn't do so well, but it is time now for us to get together and work 
together, and the first piece of business we have to resolve is this 
tax issue. We have to figure out how we are going to fund the 
government for the remaining 10 months of the fiscal year, and we have 
to figure out how we are going to prevent Americans from getting a big 
tax increase come January 1. What I would like for you all to do--
talking both to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and 
Senate--is to sit down and try to negotiate this in a bipartisan spirit 
that truly would give credit to the Congress and give the American 
people some confidence that they can move forward with some degree of 
clarity about what their tax obligations are going to be. We agreed.
  The President asked us if we would be willing to sit down, literally 
immediately, to begin these discussions. We said yes. He named two of 
his chief spokesmen--the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and Jacob 
Lew, the head of OMB, to discuss those issues on behalf of the 
administration, and each of the four leaders in the House and Senate 
named someone to join the discussions as well. Leader McConnell asked 
me to do that on behalf of Senate Republicans.
  We immediately scheduled a meeting and we got together to discuss the 
parameters of how we should move forward, and it was a very productive 
discussion. But it also became apparent, and it became apparent the 
second time we met, that actually there weren't going to be any 
bipartisan negotiations to reach a decision until there had been a 
political catharsis on the Democratic side.
  So let me respond briefly to comments made by the majority leader 
this morning, who seemed to lay at the feet of Republicans the delay in 
getting this tax issue resolved, when, in fact, it has been due to the 
fact that House and Senate Democrats have had to demonstrate to many of 
the people in their political base that they can't accomplish what 
their base would like them to accomplish and, therefore, ultimately, 
they will have to negotiate something with us. I understand sometimes 
you need to go through a process whereby it makes it easier for you to 
make concessions, and I suspect that is part of what this is all about.
  I certainly don't denigrate the motives of any of my colleagues 
because this is hard, and they are getting a lot of pressure from 
people in their political base about not giving in to the Republicans 
and so on. But the President asked us to discuss this in a bipartisan 
way, and Republicans have been willing to do that. But, first of all, 
Speaker Pelosi scheduled a vote in the House that was the Democratic 
position to allow taxes to be increased on hundreds of thousands of 
small businesses and others in this country. A vote was finally held, 
and I might add that 20 Democrats left the fold and joined Republicans 
in saying: No, that is not the way to reach a consensus. Then the 
Senate Democrats decided to schedule the same vote and one more vote to 
try to accomplish the same purpose. Because of the lateness of the time 
in which that was done, the cloture didn't ripen until this morning, 
which is why we are here this morning getting ready to cast these two 
votes.
  But I wish to make it clear that I have a disagreement with the 
majority leader if he is suggesting that somehow it is Republicans who 
have delayed these negotiations. The fact is, we have had three 
meetings and I have sat there and we have been very genial with each 
other, but it has been very clear we are not going to be negotiating 
anything until this political process is over with--until the partisan 
votes have been cast--and then and only then will people sit down to 
seriously negotiate how we are going to resolve the issue. The problem 
is, of course, there is very little time before Christmas. The 
President has some other things on his agenda, as does the majority 
leader. I now understand we are going to have to schedule time next 
week for an impeachment trial, for example, that can take about a day 
and a

[[Page S8521]]

half. The President would like to see the START treaty brought up in 
the Senate and resolved before Christmas. There are other things that 
have to be done.

  I wish to make it clear that it is not the Republicans' fault that 
these things are taking time and we still don't have the tax issue 
resolved. It is interesting, we have now been in the lameduck session 
for 2 weeks and we have accomplished exactly one thing: the Senate has 
passed a food safety bill which now turns out to be unconstitutional. 
So 2 weeks of lameduck session and essentially nothing accomplished.
  Our Democratic colleagues have been in caucus for hours--hours--
trying to figure out what to do while Republicans are ready to 
negotiate, ready to act. But until this political catharsis has finally 
run its course, it appears there will be no more negotiation.
  I am assuming that the next time the negotiators get together--I hope 
it will be Monday morning; whenever we can get together--we will then 
be able to actually sit down and work through the process so we can 
extend the tax policies that have been in place for the last decade so 
that no Americans have their taxes increased, so that businesses will 
have certainty and families will have certainty about what their tax 
obligations will be going into the next year. If that process can begin 
quickly, then I think we can reach a bipartisan agreement that would 
make the American people proud and would demonstrate that we actually 
can come together on an important issue such as this for the benefit of 
the American people.
  But let there be no mistake, the votes that were taken in the House 
of Representatives and that will be taken here are not because 
Republicans wanted to take these votes. These are votes the Democrats 
believed were necessary to demonstrate essentially that they cannot get 
the support they need to do what they would prefer to do, therefore 
enabling them to sit down and talk to Republicans.
  Those are the facts. We understand this takes time. I just don't want 
to be blamed for taking the time when it is, in fact, not the 
Republicans' fault that negotiations have not been completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, as you know, I was presiding this morning. 
I was not scheduled to speak, but this time I decided to inform my 
staff that I would be speaking so they would not be surprised.
  First, with all due respect to the Senator from Arizona, let's not 
cast shadows on either side. We are all in this together. You cannot 
blame one side or the other for delay. I could argue that the food 
safety bill took way too long because of three filibusters from the 
other side. But we are here.
  I am new to this whole process the last 2 years, and I have been 
patient about the issues we face and talk about. But this one is a 
fundamental issue. It is not a question of how long we extend these tax 
benefits for the middle class; it is who gets them--the middle class or 
the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires.
  I heard my good friend, the Senator from South Dakota--we just 
sponsored a piece of legislation that passed--talk about the small 
businesspeople, that they will be affected. Well, let me give some data 
points because it is one thing to have opinions, it is another thing to 
have facts. Let's just focus on the facts.
  The bottom line is businesses in this country. I can speak as a small 
businessperson, I think the only one--if not broadly, pretty darn 
close--who has small businesses in this Chamber. My wife has four 
retail businesses. She started her businesses selling smoked salmon on 
a street corner on a vending cart. Today, she employs 30-some 
employees, struggling every day but making a difference in the small 
business world.
  Who are these people, the small business community I hear people from 
the other side talking about? I have no clue whether most of them have 
been in it, but I have. Who are these people? These are the people we 
get our drycleaning from or when we go to the convenience store, the 
pizza parlor, wherever it might be, these are the small businesses we 
are talking about.
  The small business community of this country that makes $1 million 
gross--that is not their taxable income; gross--$1 million and under, 
where probably their net income is well below $200,000 on that, the 
taxable income, is 95 percent of the businesses of this country. I like 
the $250,000-and-under proposal. I also like the compromise Senator 
Schumer has brought forward--$1 million and under--because it catches 
95-plus percent of the small businesses of this country.
  I continue to hear from the other side that we are going to have an 
impact on the small business community. You are not. If you support the 
efforts of helping the middle class and you support the efforts of 
helping small business--businesses that gross $1 million and under--and 
for those who don't know the difference between gross and net, net is 
the profit on which they get taxed; gross is what they sell the 
products for, not what they get taxed on. Don't confuse the numbers and 
confuse the American people. And 95-plus percent of the businesses will 
enjoy the tax relief and break. So don't be confused by some of the 
numbers that are thrown around on the other side or their one-liners.
  I am going to tell you from Alaska, when I go back to Alaska and I 
listen to the constituency or when I get the phone calls, e-mails, the 
thousand-plus letters and e-mails I get every single week, what do they 
want? They want to make sure the small business community--because in 
our State 56 percent of the employment is generated by small 
businesses, small businesses that every day are making a difference. 
Those are the folks on whom we are focused. It is a question of not how 
long these extensions are but who gets them. Is it the millionaire-
billionaire club or the people?
  I know the other side complains and even some on our side complain 
that we are here on Saturday, but you know there are a lot of Alaskans, 
a lot of Americans, a lot of folks from Colorado who are working today. 
They are working on Saturday, working on Sunday, working one or two or 
three jobs. First, I say to my colleagues, we are here to have a 
debate. Some might want to call it political. Well, welcome to 
politics, where 100 people get elected to a political process. This is 
what I came for--a debate and discussion about what is important to the 
American people, to the people whom I represent--Alaskans. That is what 
I came here for.
  Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal--again, not a very liberal 
magazine--as well as the Washington Post, which some may consider a 
liberal paper--read their headlines. We can talk about what is making 
the economy move. What is making the economy move is consumer 
confidence, not millionaire and billionaire confidence, I can tell you 
that. They have $2 trillion stuffed away in a bank account.
  My friend from Iowa is right--he and I have done some work together, 
and I respect him greatly--he is right: $2 trillion is stuffed away 
with the millionaires and billionaires. But the people who are 
expending the resources and buying this economy are the middle class, 
the working people of this country. It is a question of, who are we 
going to support? Who are we going to help?

  We do have these huge deficits. We have to make some decisions sooner 
or later. Today's is one of those decisions. I hope we are going to 
make a decision that, millionaires and billionaires, we are not going 
to fund your tax bonus, your tax giveaway from the taxpayers, on the 
backs of the future. But we are going to help the small business 
community. We are going to help the middle class.
  When you look at the numbers--Cyber Monday--some of you may not know 
what this is; I do because I am in the retail business in our family--
versus Black Friday, which is the Friday after Thanksgiving, and then 
there is Cyber Monday, which occurs Monday, Cyber Monday alone raked in 
a historic $1 billion. Now, no disrespect for the millionaires and 
billionaires, but they are not on Cyber Monday, I guarantee you that. 
Everyday Americans are, everyday Alaskans are--especially in Alaska 
because we have to get a lot of products that are not necessarily 
always in our State. Double-digit increases to the automobile 
industry--an automobile industry that we helped out to make sure they 
could survive, but now they are having double-digit sales. Home sales 
in October,

[[Page S8522]]

existing home sales, which is critical to clean the inventory--again, I 
am from the real estate industry, and I know this--10.4 percent 
increase in October. That is not millionaires and billionaires who buy 
those homes because they just trade among their friends; these are 
working Alaskans, working Americans spending their money because they 
believe in the future.
  But here we are about to have a political debate, and I understand 
there is a lot of swapping and trading going on, and we are having to 
debate today, and who knows what is going to happen next week on other 
legislation. To be very frank with you, I think that is not the way 
this should operate. We should vote on this based on the merits, the 
merits of the 95-plus percent of the business community that will 
benefit from the million-and-under program, the 98 percent of the 
middle class who will benefit--that is whom we should be talking about.
  When you look at the data points in regard to the consumer 
confidence, we are now in the third month and running of increasing 
consumer confidence. Thirty retail chains talk about their record 
increases in sales. Again, the people who are shopping at these places, 
people such as myself, my family, my brothers and sisters, many 
Alaskans--that is what this is about. It is not a question of how long 
to extend these things; it is who will benefit from the right public 
policy discussion and decisions. Small business folks benefit.
  I understand the other side doesn't like the $250,000 and under, so a 
lot of us on this side, moderates, said: Well, why not try something a 
little different? Let's up it a little bit; let's get to the $1 million 
threshold because it covers basically everybody except the millionaire 
and billionaire club. That seemed reasonable. I have yet to see any 
compromise from the other side.
  That is also what the election told us. It wasn't one side won, one 
side lost. The people in this country, the people in Alaska are telling 
me every day: Get busy, solve problems, compromise, and move forward. 
The compromise should be not on how long these go but who benefits.
  My view, again, I am going to support both of these. I think the 
compromise that has been laid out on the $1 million and under will make 
a big difference to our business community. So that argument I keep 
hearing from the other side--and I will tell you this from the other 
side--I am a small businessperson. I know who these people are. So when 
you talk about it and talk about an economist says this or that, I have 
worked in it, I live it, I see it. So I understand what they are asking 
me to do. Going with that compromise is the right decision in the long 
term.
  I encourage my friends that we can reach a compromise here and get to 
help our small business community, the middle class, and put money in 
to reduce the deficit--to reduce the deficit. Help our economy, reduce 
the deficit, I would say that is a pretty good deal, and that is what 
the taxpayers and the voters told us in this last election.
  To my friends on the other side, we are reaching out. They may not 
like the $250,000, but the $1 million and under is a positive step to 
help our communities. Again, why would we give millionaires and 
billionaires $300 billion in another bonus? It makes no sense to me. 
They are not the ones driving this economy, despite what my friends on 
the other side might say. It is the people who are the small business 
community, it is the people who work every single day, who are working 
today while we sit here and deliberate this issue, who will be working 
tonight and tomorrow and Monday. For us to sit around and say: Let's 
wait until Monday to sit down and have compromise--today is the day, 
right now; this is what we are doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to contrast the Democratic 
plan, plan A, and the Republican plan, plan B, and what they mean for 
the working citizens of the United States of America.
  Let me start by talking about the Democratic plan, plan A. It is plan 
A because it is America's plan. Why is it America's plan? First, it 
benefits every single taxpayer in America. That is the first reason.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have liked to talk about how 
the Democratic plan only helps those who earn under $250,000, but that 
is because they are not paying attention or they are deliberately 
distorting the facts, because the Democratic plan provides a tax break 
on the first $250,000 regardless of what amount of money you make. So 
it helps every single American.
  The second is that the recent focus on citizens earning less than 
$250,000 is because it is the working citizens of the United States of 
America who have been getting the short end of the stick. The amount of 
money--the average income for workers in America plateaued in 1974.
  Now, that happens to be the year I graduated from high school. 
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of taking my son to his first day 
of high school, same high school I went to, exactly 40 years later. So 
for almost 40 years, the working wages for working Americans have been 
flat. But during that time period, the wealth of this country has 
increased enormously.
  The productivity of the American worker has increased enormously. Up 
until the mid-1970s, when the productivity increased, the wage of 
working Americans increased. They shared in the productivity of our 
economy because they were the driving factor in our economy. 
Unfortunately, for the last 3\1/2\ to 4 decades that has not been the 
case.
  Then along come the great Bush recession. This recession, caused by 
the deregulation of retail mortgage,--allowing predatory mortgages, 
allowing kickbacks from mortgage originators to create predatory 
mortgages, when folks qualified for prime mortgages, and then the 
deregulation of Wall Street so those could be packaged into securities 
was a 2-year ticking time bomb because they had these teaser rates on 
the mortgages.
  When the interest rates went from 4\1/2\ to 9 or 10 percent, not only 
did the mortgages blow up but the securities based on them blew up. And 
we blew up the whole economy. So, thank you very much, friends across 
the aisle, for attacking the most important financial instrument for 
American families, the American mortgage, destroying it, allowing 
predatory mortgages, allowing predatory securities, blowing up this 
economy, and attacking the American family.
  I cannot tell you how many millions of American families are 
suffering because of the policies that you all implemented over the 
last decade. What is the result? The American family home has lost 
value, a tremendous amount of value. Families are underwater. What is 
the result? Huge unemployment caused by the meltdown in the great Bush 
recession. Retirement savings are depleted. Folks who thought they 
could have retired maybe now, maybe in 2 years, 5 years, are realizing 
they may have to work as long as they are able to work, as long as they 
are able to keep a job. Their dreams are blown up thanks to these Bush 
policies.
  Well, there is a third reason the Democratic plan is the American 
plan. That is because four out of five Americans support it. Some 79 
percent, or roughly 80 percent, four out of five Americans support tax 
breaks for families earning less than $250,000, for extending those tax 
breaks. So that is plan A, America's plan, because it helps all 
Americans, because it is focused on the American worker who has been 
hit so hard by the great Bush recession, and, because four out of five 
Americans support it and understand we need it.
  But now let's turn to the Republican plan, plan B. Plan B consists of 
bonus breaks for billionaires--millionaires and billionaires. Why 
``bonus''? Because every person helped under the Republican plan who 
earns $1 million or $1 billion has already been helped under the 
Democratic plan. But my colleagues across the aisle want ``extra'' for 
the wealthiest, most successful Americans.
  I respect tremendously the entrepreneurs who have been so successful. 
But there is a time when we have to ask, Are bonuses to those best off 
the best strategy for America to go forward? This is quite a tongue 
twister:

[[Page S8523]]

bonus breaks for billionaires. It gets even worse. These are the 
extensions of the Bush breaks, and because my colleagues across the 
aisle are trying to sell it as a job creation issue--and we will get to 
that in a minute--they are bogus.
  So we have the bogus bonus Bush breaks for billionaires. That is the 
Republican plan B, saying they will obstruct any issue on the floor of 
the Senate so they can get these bonus breaks for their best friends 
earning millions and billions.
  Well, I will tell you, these are expensive. Let's ask ourselves how 
much is the average value of the Republican bonus break? Well, $100,000 
per taxpayer. That is how much. If we take the $700 billion the 
Republican plan creates in more deficit and more debt, if we take that 
$700 billion and divide it by the number of citizens--men, women and 
children--in America, 300 million, that is $2,300 for every man, woman, 
and child in America.
  So my colleagues across the aisle are proposing taking $2,300 out of 
every child's and adult's pocket in America to give breaks, $100,000 
tax breaks, to millionaires and billionaires.
  So let's look at the total cost. Total cost, $700 billion, before we 
add on interest. Let's add on interest. It is almost $1 trillion. That 
is a huge increase in our deficit. So it is deficit busting, debt 
adding, financed by China, and placed onto our children.
  Is that what the excited Republican team, coming fresh out of an 
election, wants to say is their top priority in America, taking $2,300 
from every man, woman, and child in America so they can give a $100,000 
tax break to millionaires and billionaires?
  Well, they have a way of trying to camouflage this. That camouflage 
is to talk about jobs. So let's talk about jobs. Let's look at the 
Republican plan in terms of job creation. Well, CBO ranked the 
Republican plan against many other plans, and where does it come in? 
Dead last.
  I have the detailed chart from the Congressional Budget Office, and 
up here at the very top is the Democratic plan. That is to provide 
assistance to the unemployed. Here at the very bottom is the Republican 
plan, which is bonus breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
  Let me tell you just how different these are. Increasing aid to the 
unemployed is estimated to create 8 to 19 jobs for every $1 million in 
expenditure, 8 to 19 jobs. How many jobs are created by the Republican 
plan? One to three, one to three jobs.
  So the Democrats are saying, let's take the dead-last plan in job 
creation, the Republican plan, and let's replace it with the best plan, 
the Democratic plan.
  Republican plan, one to three jobs per $1 million, one to three for 
$1 million; Democratic plan, 8 to 19. Well, my good friend from South 
Dakota was here saying it is all just common sense. Yes, it is common 
sense. We take the plan that is the worst for job creation, and we 
replace it with the plan that is the best for job creation.
  Well, friends across America, this is about jobs, and the word 
``jobs'' will come out of the rhetoric on the opposite side of the 
aisle with every speech. But it is bogus. Their plan is dead last; 
Democratic plan is top of the list. Check the CBO study.
  It hurts to hear folks who are out of touch with the foreclosure 
crisis in America----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the chairman to yield me 30 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much does the Senator seek?
  Mr. MERKLEY. One minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my friend from Montana.
  It is summarized like this. We have American families who are 
hurting. They have lost their jobs, their retirement savings, the value 
of their houses. Let's have the plan that is best for creating jobs, 
not the plan that is worst for creating jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am allocated 10 minutes, I think. Can 
you let me know when I have used 9 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Senator Grassley, 
Senator Baucus.
  I guess the first observation I would like to make is that we are 
here on a Saturday morning. This is democracy, in many ways, at its 
best. People understand the two votes are going to fail. But it is good 
for Americans to have genuine differences to be able to discuss what 
makes us tick, why we want to go one way versus the other. So the fact 
that America is divided on a lot of big issues is just the result of 
living in a free country.
  What was the lesson of the last election? They are what you would 
like them to be. But here is my observation, for what it is worth. Our 
Democratic friends took a beating. As Republicans, we have been there. 
In 2006 and 2008 we took a beating. In 2006, the Iraq war was going 
very badly, and Americans were very frustrated. President Bush's 
popularity plummeted.
  In 2008 we had an economic meltdown that I thought was related to 
housing, where we lent money to people who could not afford to pay 
their mortgages. The mortgages were being packaged and sold as all 
kinds of exotic instruments throughout the world. It brought the whole 
world economy down, and we have been struggling ever since.
  We can talk about how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the cause 
of this problem, how loose the practices were when it came to lending, 
but I think most people understand that our economic crisis was created 
by the housing market being overextended and people getting into that 
market in exotic ways without a whole lot of regulation.
  Here we are a couple of years later. I think the last election was a 
message to our Democratic friends: For the last 2 years, you have been 
going down the wrong road. The health care bill, which about 80 percent 
of Americans, if it ever becomes law, will be under government-
controlled health care, was an overreach.
  The stimulus package was $780-something billion that has not done 
what it was billed to do. When we look at the amount of spending the 
Democratic Party is engaged in, way above what every American has been 
able to do, this was an election basically not to pro-Republican, just 
to our Democratic colleagues. Stop. And the way you get stopped around 
here is to get replaced.
  So the House had a dramatic election. We picked up seats in the 
Senate, and some of us thought maybe we could pick up about two or 
three more. We made some pretty poor choices when it came to 
candidates, but that is now behind us.
  What I would like to tell my colleagues is, when I look at America I 
do not see an undertaxed nation. I think our Tax Code is far too 
complicated. Now 35 percent is the rate. How much is enough? Is it 
39.6? Is that the difference between a social justice country and a 
land of the rich? I mean, are we going to increase taxes for the upper 
incomes by 10 percent when we cannot create enough jobs for Americans 
who are unemployed?
  I do believe in this idea that upper income Americans are the ones 
who create most jobs for the middle class and people looking for work. 
That is just the fact.
  Here is how our Tax Code works today. Forty percent of Americans pay 
no Federal income tax. Forty percent of us really do not pay any income 
tax at all. Of those who do, 50 percent of those who pay Federal income 
tax pay 3 percent. The other 50 percent pay 97 percent.
  The top 10 percent of wage earners in this country pay 70 percent of 
the taxes. Now, I am for a progressive tax system, but that is not 
right. That seems to me to be taking the country in the wrong 
direction.
  There are 750,000 small businesses who will get a tax increase if we 
do not extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody.
  I will make a prediction. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries in 
the world, a lot of things we would like to know that we do not know 
the answers to. This is not one of them. What will happen, hopefully, 
next week, is all of the Bush-era tax cuts will be extended because we 
have high unemployment, and

[[Page S8524]]

now is not the time to pass on to businesses or upper income Americans 
more taxes.
  I hope we can extend some of the Obama tax cuts. I do not want to 
raise taxes on anyone. If you do not pay taxes, then you should not be 
getting a tax cut because you have no tax liability. But if you were in 
the EITC before, you have some tax liability. The Obama tax cut and the 
stimulus helped you. I am one who considers that to be something we 
should be looking at, that no one's taxes should go up, Bush-era tax 
cuts or Obama tax cuts.
  When it comes to the unemployed and unemployment insurance, we are 
going to extend that. But we have to have a package that makes sense. 
So once we get this vote behind us Democrats on the other side will 
join with Republicans on this side to say no to the class warfare 
approach.
  One of my good friends from New Jersey said something that got 
everybody stirred up, that negotiating with Republicans is like 
negotiating with terrorists. Well, I know Bob Menendez. He is a fine 
man. But these are heated times. We say things that sometimes maybe 
sound good to our base but upon reflection we should not say. Nobody 
over here should be considered in that light. To our Democratic 
friends, we have a genuine disagreement. That is all it is. The one 
thing we have in common, when the real terrorists do come to visit 
America, they could care less how much money one makes. They will kill 
the janitor and the business owner just as quickly because they don't 
see any difference based on income. The one thing Americans have in 
common is, we do believe in free speech, open debate, religious 
diversity. That is not something we believe in based on income. That is 
something we believe in based on being an American.

  I ask my colleagues on both sides to understand that not only are we 
in this war on terror together, we are in this economy together. A lot 
of Americans are suffering, some more than others. The ones who are 
struggling in the middle class and lower incomes are trying to do one 
thing everybody agrees on--get a job. I believe the best way for 
struggling Americans to get a job is not to raise taxes but keep them 
low in a weak economy. That is what I genuinely believe.
  I did not come from a rich family. I am the first person in my family 
to ever go to college. My mom and dad owned a liquor store and a 
restaurant. They worked long and hard to make sure my sister and I 
could go to college. When my parents died, I was 22 and my sister was 
13. If it were not for Social Security survivor benefits, we would not 
have made it. She received Pell grants to go to school when her college 
days were there. I was in the Air Force and helped where I could. I get 
it. People are struggling. There is a role for the government. But this 
is not the time for our government to raise taxes on anybody because 
all of us are struggling to try to find a way out of this economic 
mess. There are tough days ahead, economically. There are tough days 
ahead in the war on terror.
  Let's have these votes, come back next week, and see if we can solve 
some problems that all Americans are dying for their Congress to solve: 
get us back on sound economic footing, deal with debt.
  Hats off to Senator Durbin, Senator Crapo, and Senator Coburn for 
their votes on the debt commission. They did some very hard things. 
That product is going to serve the country well. We are all in this 
together.
  I wish everyone good holidays and maybe a time to reflect that we do 
have more in common than we have in differences.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the job market is still suffering 
from the fallout of the recession from the end of the Bush years. The 
unemployment rate nationally is near 10 percent; in my State, it is 
well over 11 percent. The proposal of Chairman Baucus would inject 
hundreds of billions of dollars into this faltering economy, helping 
struggling families make ends meet and creating jobs in the process. On 
behalf of the 65,000 Rhode Islanders who are out there currently 
looking for work, I express my support for the Baucus 1-year extension 
of emergency unemployment benefits. Without this extension, thousands 
of Rhode Islanders will soon be left with no source of income as they 
continue to search the want ads, no money for the mortgage or rent, no 
money for food, no money for medicine or for holiday presents for the 
children.
  The 1-year extension of this lifeline will quite literally mean for 
Rhode Island families the difference between keeping a home or facing 
homelessness this winter. The vast majority of unemployed Rhode 
Islanders are out there looking for work. They are out of work through 
no fault of their own. They are looking for work every day. The jobs 
simply are not there.
  I was at the Cranston senior center yesterday for their Christmas 
holiday party and spoke to a lady whose son had been in the workforce 
for 28 years. He had a substantial career. He was out of work. He is 
stocking shelves at the minimum wage. People are not ducking work. The 
jobs are not there.
  Historically, Congress has extended unemployment benefits when the 
national unemployment rate has been above 7.2 percent. It is over 9 
percent. It is 9.8 percent, according to a report Friday. This 1-year 
extension will give the 65,000 unemployed Rhode Islanders and over 15 
million unemployed Americans the support they need to continue 
weathering this tempestuous economy.
  In addition, this tax package would continue a powerful incentive for 
more investment in smaller companies. Under the proposal of the 
chairman, qualified investments made in 2011 in small businesses would 
be eligible for a 100-percent capital gains tax exclusion, if they are 
held for at least 5 years. As the credit market continues to slowly 
thaw, I have heard from numerous Rhode Island business owners that they 
would like to expand operations, but they can't get the capital. This 
provision will encourage much needed equity investments so businesses 
in Rhode Island and around the country can create and expand jobs.
  The Baucus proposal would make permanent the current tax rates for 97 
percent of taxpayers and deliver tax savings to 100 percent of 
taxpayers. I am sure my colleagues hear from their constituents, as I 
hear from Rhode Islanders, that it is getting more and more difficult 
for families to balance their budgets. Each year ticks by bringing 
higher fuel, food, and medicine costs. Budgets are stretched paper 
thin. It would be harsh now to let taxes go up for middle-class 
families. The Baucus proposal would keep tax rates where they are for 
individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and families earning 
less than $250,000 per year. Continuing these rates will spare middle-
class families considerable tax increases. For example, a family of 
four earning $60,000 per year would save $2,500 under our plan. I can 
assure my colleagues that for some of my constituents, that $2,500 
could be the difference between paying their mortgage and facing 
foreclosure or sending a child to college instead of into the minimum-
wage workforce.
  In addition to continuing the middle-class tax cuts, this will inject 
about $200 billion into the economy over the next 2 years. When middle-
class families get additional resources, they tend to spend them, 
invigorating the economy and supporting local and regional jobs. From 
family budgets to the national economy, extending the middle-class tax 
cuts is a clear win-win.
  This is not necessarily the case for extending tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires. Under the Democratic plan, the first 
$250,000 of income for a wealthy family would benefit from extended 
lower rates. This means $6,000 to $7,000 in savings. But our Republican 
friends want to go much further and give the average multimillionaire a 
$100,000 tax bonus. Every economist knows a middle-class family is more 
likely to spend an extra few thousand dollars on groceries, on clothes, 
on pharmaceuticals, than a person who already has millions to spend 
will with an extra $100,000. In an age of large deficits, we need to 
start to make tough choices on our budget, and this should be an easy 
one. Let's keep rates where they are for the vast majority of Americans 
and permit the rates at the very tiptop to go back to Clinton-era 
levels.

[[Page S8525]]

  We are warned that if millionaires and billionaires have to pay the 
same tax rates as the 1990s, the economic recovery will suffer. But 
were the Clinton years a time of economic suffering? Of course not. The 
economy thrived in the 1990s under Clinton income tax rates, far better 
than it did under the Bush tax rates. There is no reason to think the 
recovery would suffer if we restored the Clinton-era rates for the very 
wealthiest and most fortunate.
  I find it astonishing that our Republican colleagues continue to 
filibuster our efforts to get a tax break for all Americans in order to 
secure a bigger tax bonus for the top 3 percent of the American 
population at a cost to our debt and deficit of $700 billion. The 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn about 21 percent of all income 
and own over one-third of our Nation's wealth. Those figures are at 
their highest levels since the Roaring Twenties. Quite simply the rich 
are richer than they have ever been, and Senate Republicans are holding 
hostage a tax benefit for all Americans to demand a superbenefit for 
the superwealthy.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will stop obstructing this important 
tax reduction and emergency unemployment legislation. From funding the 
government to authorizing the military, we have so much work to do this 
year. The price for regular Americans of obstruction in the Senate is 
becoming too high.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the chairman, for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Today, we stand at a crossroads. We have two vital issues facing this 
country. One is an economy that is moving too slowly. The second is a 
large deficit looming around the corner. How do we solve that problem? 
The best way to solve that problem, in my judgment, is to give tax 
breaks to the people who will spend it, the middle class, and to make 
sure the highest income people who have done very well over the last 
decade, instead of getting a tax break, make sure that money goes to 
deficit reduction. Most economists who would look from 10,000 feet up, 
who are not ideological, would say that is the solution. So why, then, 
do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make the linchpin of 
their economic policy tax breaks for the wealthiest among us? It can't 
be because it is needed to stimulate the economy. Economic statistics 
show that very little of the dollars we give them in tax breaks will go 
to stimulate the economy. It can't be for the purpose of fairness. The 
highest income people in America, the people who make over $1 million, 
the people who make over $250,000, are the ones who have benefited the 
most in the last decade while middle-class incomes have declined. It 
can't be because they care about the deficit. Because if they did, that 
would be a much higher priority.
  It is hard to figure out why 42 Members on the other side of the 
aisle say tax breaks for the wealthiest among us are more important 
than any single other issue. Over the next 2 years, when they come to 
the floor and talk about deficit reduction, they will be reminded that 
they chose $300 billion in tax breaks for the very wealthy, not paid 
for, increasing the deficit, over any other priority.
  Our view is simple, those of us on this side of the aisle. Our view 
is that tax cuts should go to the middle class. The well-to-do among 
us--God bless them. They have done well, and we are proud of them. We 
don't resent it--their huge increase should go to deficit reduction. It 
is that simple.
  My colleagues on the other side say: Well, what about small business? 
Virtually no small businesses have incomes of less than $1 million. 
Some big businesses disguise themselves as small businesses for tax 
purposes, but no small business does. So we are not hurting small 
business one job. Then they say: What about moving the economy forward? 
The answer is very simple. Thirty cents out of every $1 we give to tax 
breaks for people who make above $1 million goes into the 
economy. Madam President, $1.62 goes into the economic economy. We 
renew unemployment insurance. In the most anomalous situation of all, 
they insist that unemployment insurance be paid for but tax breaks to 
the wealthy not to be. It is a philosophy far out of touch with what 
America needs and what average Americans believe.

  The election was not a referendum on tax cuts for the millionaires. 
Very few people campaigned on it. A CBS poll shows 26 percent of 
Americans think the Bush tax breaks ought to go to everybody, and 74 
percent think they should not go to the millionaires.
  One final point. We had 10 very good years in the 1990s. Middle-class 
incomes increased, the deficit was reduced. The wealthy did well under 
the previous administration's tax policies. The Bush tax policies have 
been a failure. We should not repeat them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let's start with a basic fact: the 
legislation we soon will vote on represents a tax cut for every single 
American taxpayer. From the poorest to the wealthiest, every single 
American taxpayer will pay less in taxes under this legislation than 
they will pay if we do not act.
  But prudently, given the concerns all of us profess about our fiscal 
situation, this legislation draws a line. While every taxpayer would 
enjoy a tax cut, that cut would only apply to income under $250,000 for 
families and $200,000 for individuals. This is important for two 
reasons. First, it focuses on the middle-class families that were 
struggling to get ahead even before reckless mortgage lenders and Wall 
Street traders drove our economy into a ditch. Second, drawing that 
line respects the need to address our fiscal situation. Extending the 
cuts for income above the $250,000 level would increase our budget 
deficit by $818 billion over the next 10 years.
  Let's focus on that for a moment. Just a month ago, we concluded a 
political campaign. During that campaign and after the votes were 
counted, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly 
characterized that election as essentially a referendum on the deficit 
and jobs. In a joint opinion column published in the Washington Post, 
Republican leaders in the House and Senate wrote that the message from 
voters is, ``They want us to stop the spending binge, cut the 
deficit.''
  So what's the first major policy position taken by our Republican 
colleagues after that election? It is a proposal to increase the budget 
deficit by $818 billion. They say the deficit is important to them but 
apparently not so important that they would give up additional tax cuts 
for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in order to cut it.
  This change of heart extends beyond the question of tax cuts and the 
deficit. In that same opinion article, the Republican leaders say 
voters in 2010 told us ``they want both parties to work together on 
policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job 
growth.''
  Well, here is our chance. This legislation includes an extension of 
unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs in this 
recession. There is no policy option more effective in helping ``create 
the conditions for private sector job growth'' than extending 
unemployment benefits. Doug Elmendorf, the director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, said before the Budget Committee on 
September 28:

       The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary 
     cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the 
     unemployed.

  Let me repeat that:

       The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary 
     cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the 
     unemployed.

  Director Elmendorf isn't alone. Economist Mark Zandi told the Finance 
Committee earlier this year:

       No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective 
     during the past two years than emergency UI benefits.

  These economists and others, across the ideological spectrum, base 
these judgments on empirical studies and complex statistical models. 
But the reason what they say is true comes down to common sense. If you 
are without a job, you don't have much money not just money to spend on 
luxuries but money to spend on food and shelter for yourself and your 
family. So the relatively small amount of money you receive in an 
unemployment check almost certainly will go to pay for

[[Page S8526]]

those necessities. You have little choice but to spend it. And that 
spending helps generate economic activity. A wealthy taxpayer, by 
contrast, has the luxury of taking the money from a tax cut and putting 
it in his or her pocket a luxury they are likely to exercise, meaning 
that tax cut for the wealthy does little to stimulate the economy.
  The legislation we will soon vote on includes other important 
provisions that would fulfill the Republican leaders' self-proclaimed 
goal of working together to stimulate job growth. It would permanently 
reduce capital gains tax rates, and permanently extend the expanded 
child tax credit for working families. It makes relief from the 
marriage tax penalty permanent. It makes permanent provisions that 
reduce taxes for small businesses, freeing up capital for those 
businesses to generate new jobs, and extends temporary provisions to 
help small businesses such as exclusions for small business capital 
gains and increased deductions for start-up ventures. It continues 
initiatives to boost investment in advanced energy technologies that 
are increasing employment in my state and others. It extends the 
research and development tax credit. It repeals a provision of the 
Affordable Care Act that added to small business reporting 
requirements, a provision that I would think our Republican colleagues 
can support.
  In short, if you say you ``want both parties to work together on 
policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job 
growth,'' and if you say you want to rein in the deficit, you should 
support this legislation. And if you say you support more jobs and less 
deficit, and then vote against this legislation, you are guilty, at 
best, of a real inconsistency.
  So I will vote in favor of the cloture motion on the Baucus 
amendment. And I should add that, if Senator Baucus's amendment fails, 
I will vote in favor of Senator Schumer's amendment. If we cannot agree 
that those making over $250,000 a year can endure a slightly higher tax 
burden at this time of great concern over deficits, surely we all can 
agree that those enjoying incomes over $1 million a year are able. We 
should not, and I hope we would not, reject tax cuts for the vast 
majority of middle-income Americans, and even most high-income 
Americans, in order to pursue tax cuts for those who are least in need.
  I urge my colleagues to support cloture so that we can get this much 
needed tax relief to middle-class families and small businesses and 
contribute to private sector job growth and a growing economy. It is 
time for our Republican colleagues to back up their rhetoric with their 
votes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 set 
to expire at the end of the year, the whole debate about what to do 
next needs to be based on fairness and honesty. Any additional tax 
relief we provide now must be targeted to those who need it most like 
those Vermont businesses looking to grow and expand their workforces 
and those Vermonters struggling to pay their bills, heat their homes, 
and put food on the table this winter. We must recognize the enormous 
cost of making these tax cuts permanent as even a short, 2-year 
extension of all tax cuts would cost us over $400,000,000,000 and the 
cost of extending tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 annually 
balloons to $700,000,000,000 over the next decade. We also must 
acknowledge that with a finite amount of Federal resources we will be 
forced to shortchange important government services for millions of 
Americans if we provide extravagant tax cuts to a handful of 
millionaires and large corporations.
  Like it or not, taxes are an essential way for Federal, State, and 
local governments pay for important services and projects that we 
access and use daily. Taxes pay for our schools and teachers; they 
maintain our roads and bridges; they support our military and veterans; 
and they sustain a host of other programs from food assistance to 
unemployment benefits to and medical care that help all Americans. It 
is the responsibility of Congress to make sure that the federal tax 
rates are fair and justified. Our tax system must strike an appropriate 
balance that allows hard-working Americans to keep much of their income 
to spend as they choose while still providing the government with 
enough revenue to pay for the important programs we rely upon.
  Unfortunately, over the past decade the U.S. Government has 
increasingly spent more money than it has received from taxes, causing 
our national debt to grow to unsustainable levels. Under the previous 
administration, for instance, we saw our Federal debt triple as 
President Bush pushed for trillions in tax cuts and two wars without 
offering a way to pay for them. I opposed these policies because I was 
concerned then, as I am now, that our soaring Federal debt will have 
devastating repercussions.
  I have serious concerns that fully extending all of the Bush-era tax 
cuts would be a major mistake if we are truly committed to helping our 
economy recover from the Great Recession and to putting our country 
back on the glide path to fiscal responsibility. The Bush tax cuts of 
2001 and 2003 have led to record Federal deficits, contributed to the 
government's current financial woes, and have not helped many Americans 
who face the greatest financial burdens. Most disappointingly, the Bush 
tax cuts failed to ``trickle down'' to help those Americans most in 
need, while the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans benefited 
substantially. Unfortunately, many of these wealthy beneficiaries of 
the Bush tax cuts have not injected that money directly into the 
economy to hire new workers or create new jobs. Why do we think that 
extending the income tax cuts to the top wage earners now will produce 
a different result now?
  I do think that Congress should make directed tax relief to help 
working families and to improve the economy. For instance, there are 
some Bush-era tax cuts that I support keeping on the books such as the 
increase in the child tax credit, the elimination of the marriage 
penalty, and the 10-percent tax bracket. In addition, I think we should 
retain many of the hiring incentives championed by President Obama that 
are providing needed assistance to small businesses in Vermont that 
looking to create job opportunities. These tax breaks have allowed 
Vermont companies to hire new workers and purchase new equipment for 
their business, thus creating demand for other new jobs to produce that 
equipment.
  But now is not the time to extend tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans and to companies that are sending American jobs overseas. I 
am greatly concerned that if we maintain these policies, our soaring 
federal debt will have devastating repercussions. We will become 
increasingly vulnerable to the foreign nationals who are collecting our 
debt. Our ability to provide promised Social Security and Medicare 
benefits will be jeopardized severely. And, our children and 
grandchildren will be left with an enormous debt that they cannot 
possibly be able to afford.
  That is why I will support the two cloture motions we are voting on 
today. While I prefer capping the tax cuts at $250,000, in the spirit 
of compromise I am willing to extend the relief to those with incomes 
under $1,000,000. These are both more fiscally responsible ways of 
moving forward than a blanket extension for a small group of 
millionaires. If the last election was a public outcry to restore 
fiscal sanity to Washington, then the last, major accomplishment of 
this Congress should not be putting billions more in debt on the 
American credit card.
 Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, allowing any of the Bush tax cuts 
to expire would be a dramatic failure of economic policy. These tax 
cuts, enacted during President Bush's first term in office, delivered 
major relief to all taxpayers. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates 
that tax cuts have been worth $2,200 annually for a family of four. 
They reduced the marginal rates in every tax bracket and created a new 
10 percent marginal rate for Americans with the lowest incomes. These 
individual tax cuts, in addition to giving people additional spending 
power, had a positive impact on small businesses. The tax cuts also 
lowered the cost of business expansion for all firms through reduced 
tax rates on dividends and long term capital gains. Unfortunately, 
legislative procedures kept these tax cuts from being made permanent 
when they were created, and unless a new law prevents it, all of them 
will expire at the end of this year. If

[[Page S8527]]

this happens, it will reduce Americans' spending power and the capacity 
of small businesses to grow. With our economy in the middle of a very 
fragile recovery, proposals to take more money out of the economy run 
the risk of pushing the Nation back into recession.
  In the meantime, the Democrat leadership of Congress insists on 
scheduling votes solely for the purpose of political messaging. For 
example, the House voted to permanently extend the lower rates on the 
first $200,000 of an individual's income and the first $250,000 for 
married couples. In the Senate, we are scheduled to vote on two similar 
proposals drawing lines at the first $250,000 of a married couple's 
annual income and the first $1 million of a couple's income. The 
purpose of these arbitrary income lines is to create political theater. 
Only earlier today, we understand that the Senate amendments will also 
include other provisions such as keeping the death tax, albeit at a 
lower rate and a higher exemption. The amendments will also include 
important provisions such as another patch on the alternative minimum 
tax and an extension of a variety important tax provisions which have, 
in fact, already expired because the Democrat leadership is a year 
behind in moving the annual tax extenders package. I am simply not 
going to participate in political games. We have a responsibility to 
offer serious proposals. We must extend all the Bush tax cuts. The 
Heritage Foundation reports that in Oklahoma alone, no extension would 
cost over 8,000 jobs annually, decrease per household disposable income 
on average by $2,800, and increase individual income taxes by $4.4 
million.
  Any vote to not extend all the Bush tax cuts is simply a tax on small 
business. Small businesses are the engine of economic growth in this 
country, and they have historically been responsible for creating more 
than 70 percent of all new jobs. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, the 750,000 Americans in the highest tax bracket report 
roughly half of the $1 trillion in total net business income on their 
personal returns. This is mainly income earned from small business 
operations. By saddling the cost of a growing government on these 
Americans, the President is putting the survival of small firms, new 
job creation, and economic growth at risk. Small businesses are also 
particularly vulnerable to increases in individual tax rates. Because 
their businesses are often structured as partnerships, their tax 
obligations pass directly to their owners, so any tax increases on a 
small business owner is a tax increase on the small business itself. 
With small businesses across our nation hanging on by a thread and 
having difficulty finding the money they need, now is no time to raise 
their taxes.
  It is frustrating that the President and Democrats in Congress 
continue to not hear the American people. If the President is truly 
interested in the long term economic prosperity of the nation, he will 
begin adopting and pursuing policies that encourage small business 
growth and development. Extending all the Bush tax cuts is a promising 
and necessary start. Unfortunately, until we cease this political 
theater, we cannot seriously work to ensure the growth of our economy 
to create jobs for more Americans. I am simply not going to participate 
in political games this weekend. I will be absent from the political 
posturing votes tomorrow because I would have simply opposed them. I 
trust that in this next week, we can get past theater and turn to 
serious proposals extending all the Bush tax cuts, ensuring that 
middle-class Americans are not hit with the alternative minimum tax, 
and extending the annual tax extender package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to know how much time I 
have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there are a lot of issues that have 
been brought up in the last hour that need to be responded to. I 
probably will not get to all of them, but I would like to start with a 
recent one that was just stated.
  It is not a case that tax cuts are more important than any other 
issue for those of us on this side of the aisle, not at all; growth of 
the economy, because growing this economy is the only way we are going 
to get people employed, bringing in more revenue, and getting the 
deficit down.
  We are not going to get the deficit down by increasing taxes, and I 
will explain that in just a minute. It is going to take economic 
growth. You have to get the economic engine started again. We have to 
get the unemployment down. It is the economy we are talking about.
  I heard several of my colleagues this morning say if we do not go 
along with big tax increases, we are giving a bonus to a lot of people 
in this country who maybe do not need any more money. Well, if you 
accept the idea that if Congress acts or does not act, we are giving 
people a bonus, you are starting with a proposition that for all the 
income people make in this country, Congress is going to decide where 
that income ought to go and that somehow we are going to give people a 
bonus if we do not take some sort of action in the Congress. Well, that 
is ludicrous. That is the ultimate of the lack of economic freedom in 
this country. Because every penny anybody makes, whether it is through 
the work of their hands or their brain, is money that belongs to the 
people of this country; otherwise, they have no economic freedom.
  The Constitution gives the power to tax for the legitimate purposes 
of government. But it does not give us the opportunity to tax to give 
bonuses to people because the money is theirs in the first place. It is 
only a question of how much we are going to take away from people for 
the legitimate constitutional purposes of government.
  Then, where do you get the idea that we are going to give a tax break 
if we do not do something in Congress? The issue is not tax breaks to 
anybody. The issue is the tax policy of the last 10 years passed in 
2001 that will sunset December 31 of this year. Should we continue that 
tax policy or should we increase taxes on some or all people? That is 
the issue. We are not talking about a tax break for anybody. In other 
words, there is not going to be any tax policy different than what we 
have right now. That is what we feel is the best for the economy. We 
should not increase taxes on anybody.
  You get the impression from the other side that if we start taxing 
certain people in this country more that somehow the deficit is going 
to go down. Well, I heard the President recently on some news program 
discussing this issue, and I do not have an exact quote, but, in 
effect, he said that as for as he is concerned, rather than not raising 
taxes on people and bringing that money in to reduce the deficit, he 
said: I have better ways to spend the money.
  I spoke earlier this morning about the fact that people do have a 
better way of spending the money, not only the increase in taxes that 
might come in but even beyond that.
  I have quoted some individuals so many times, but I brought the exact 
quotes with me now because I was paraphrasing them before. But Peter 
Ferrara wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: ``Beware 
the Balanced Budget Deal.'' He said:

       Washington's traditional approach to balancing the budget 
     is to negotiate an agreement on a package of benefit cuts and 
     tax increases.

  Then he went on to say:

       What happens [if you do this] is the tax increases get 
     permanently adopted into law. But the spending cuts are 
     almost never fully adopted and, even if they are, they are 
     soon swept away in the next spendthrift budget. Then--because 
     taxes weaken incentives to produce--the tax increases don't 
     raise the revenue that Congress initially projected and 
     budgeted to spend. So the deficit reappears.

  Then he talked about Reagan making such a deal with Democrats in the 
Congress to have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. 
Then he has this sentence:

       Reagan went to his grave waiting for those spending cuts.

  Then, recently, there was an article by Stephen Moore and Richard 
Vedder that talks about raising taxes to reduce the deficit. There are 
a few sentences I am going to read:

       Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.

  He uses the figures they have studied:


[[Page S8528]]


       . . . we found that over the entire post World War II era 
     through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated 
     with $1.17 of new spending.

  They refer to some other studies; that it is somewhere between $1.05 
and $1.81.

       But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what 
     variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted 
     in less spending.

  Madam President, do I have time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think it is important to lay a few 
facts on the table.
  The Senator from Oregon did a good job making this point clear, but I 
think, frankly, very few people in the country understand this point, 
this debate. To be honest, I think there are a good number of Members 
of the Senate who do not understand this point; the point being that 
under my amendment, for those individuals who earn $200,000 or less, 
their tax cut is permanent. Under that amendment, it is important to 
remind all of us that every individual will get a tax break regardless 
of their income; that is, every individual who has more than $200,000 
of taxable income will receive a cut of at least $5,400. So if you are 
above $200,000, you still get a tax cut; you get a tax cut as an 
individual of about $5,400; and if you are a couple, it is probably 
close to double that. That is under my amendment.
  The same is also true under the Schumer amendment. Under the Schumer 
amendment, for those who make $1 million, their tax cut is going to be 
about $40,000. Even though the cutoff is $1 million, those who earn 
more than $1 million will get a tax cut. You get a tax cut under my 
amendment and you get a tax cut under the Schumer amendment. The tax 
cut you will receive under my amendment is about $5,400, if you make 
over $200,000; and the tax cut you will receive under the Schumer 
amendment, if you earn over $1 million, about $40,000. If you are a 
couple, it is probably almost double that, most likely.
  Add to that, in my amendment--and I think it is also in the Schumer 
amendment--the dividends rates are lower from ordinary income to 20 
percent. So those folks who rely on dividends are going to get an 
additional tax break.
  So the point I am making very clearly is, everybody gets a tax cut 
under our amendments. It is not fair for the other side to characterize 
it that only some people are getting a tax cut. It is true those under 
$200,000 will get a bigger break on a percentage basis, but in dollar 
terms, they are going to get less of a break than those who earn 
$200,000 and above and under the Schumer amendment $1 million and 
above.
  The second point I wish to make is that we have to make choices. We 
often hear the expression: There is no free lunch. Nothing is free. 
Life is choices.
  We make choices in this Senate. Sometimes the choices we make are 
quite difficult, but they are also significant.
  I am a little bit bemused--I was bemused, and I still am bemused--
because I heard the Senator from South Carolina praise the President's 
deficit commission report, which recommends cutting the national 
deficit through various mechanisms, revenue increases, and spending 
cuts, cutting the national debt by about $4 trillion over 8, 9 years. 
The Senator was praising that. I say ``bemused'' because the basic view 
of the Senators on the other side is to increase the national debt by 
about $4 trillion; that is, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kentucky will, over the next 10 years, add $4 trillion to the deficit--
not subtracting $4 trillion from the deficit but adding $4 trillion to 
the deficit, for a swing of about $8 trillion over 8, 9, 10 years. That 
is fairly important.
  It is important because many commentators are concerned about the 
debt we have as a country. They point out the problems Greece has, 
Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. There are even articles that maybe 
countries in Europe should break away from the euro and have a separate 
currency.
  The main point is, we live in somewhat precarious times, and we have 
to not add to the deficit. The amendment I offer does add to the 
deficit, I might say, in all candor. It adds about $2 trillion over 10 
years because we cut taxes in the manner in which I explained. The 
Schumer amendment adds a little bit more to the deficit. But that is 
only about $2 trillion, $2.3 trillion, $2.4 trillion; whereas, the 
other side would like to add $4 trillion.
  I am just saying, everybody gets a tax cut under the amendment I am 
offering, and those who make more than $200,000 get more in dollar 
terms than do people below $200,000. That is a statistical, 
mathematical fact. Again, it is about $5,400 for those whose income is 
$200,000 or above. Under the Schumer amendment, it is about $40,000 for 
those whose income is $1 million or above; whereas, those below that 
get a tax cut as well but not as many dollars.
  Just to remind everybody, we do have to make choices. We have to keep 
an eye on the debt. We should not increase the debt more. These various 
provisions do a bit. Let's not increase the debt more than we have to.
  I might add to that, too, and it is something I think we should be 
concerned with, over the last quarter century, the top 5 percent 
wealthiest Americans received an aftertax break of about 150 percent; 
that is, the aftertax income of the top 5 percent of the American 
people, over the last quarter of a century, grew by about 150 percent. 
Compare that with middle-income Americans. Over the last quarter 
century, the aftertax income of middle-income Americans grew only 28 
percent. So it is a huge difference.
  So our policies cause those most wealthy to have much greater 
aftertax benefits than for middle-income Americans. Add it all 
together, I think it makes sense. We have to have balance. We have to 
make choices. Everybody gets a tax cut under our two amendments, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the two amendments. I think it 
is not perfect, but it is a good, fair, balanced policy. It is the 
right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I ask that all time be yielded back on both sides 
and that we proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to H.R. 4853, the Airport and 
     Airway Extension Act of 2010, with an amendment No. 4727.
         Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark R. 
           Warner, Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark 
           Udall, Tom Udall, Byron L. Dorgan, Patty Murray, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Harkin, Jeff 
           Merkley.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
4853, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, with 
an amendment No. 4727, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas 
(Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator 
from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S8529]]

  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Sessions
     Vitter
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
36. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I would like to tell the Senate what the 
schedule is going to be, but we can't do that unless we are able to 
hear each other.
  The Republican leader and I had a conversation this morning, and here 
is how we are going to move forward. We are obligated to complete an 
impeachment that Democrats and Republicans who were appointed to a 
committee worked very hard on, spending days and days on their own away 
from all the cameras, doing the tedious work that has to be done. We 
have tried to find a place to do this that would be convenient, and 
there is no place. So we are going to start Tuesday morning the 
impeachment of a judge.
  I will file cloture on a number of measures on Monday night for a 
Wednesday cloture vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield on the question of the 
impeachment?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it not correct that we need Senators to be here 
Tuesday morning in that regard?
  Mr. REID. That is true. We are going to have to start early Tuesday 
morning. We need to complete the impeachment as quickly as we can to 
make sure everything is fair, and we will make sure that is the case. 
We expect some work to be done on Tuesday, with votes required in the 
Senate. Most of the proceedings will be closed. We will have to be 
here. We hope we can complete this on Wednesday. I am confident, having 
spoken to the managers, that we should be able to do that.
  On Wednesday we hope to be able to complete the impeachment. If not, 
we will complete it whenever we can. We will have the cloture votes on 
Wednesday I have just indicated we will have. Then that leaves a pretty 
clear path to what we need to do.
  We hope we can have some arrangements made on the tax issues by then. 
We have tried to work to that point, and we have not yet done it. We 
have to take care of spending for the rest of the year. I have had a 
number of conversations with the Republican leader on that.
  We also hope there is time to do the START treaty, but we need to 
move to that either with some kind of general agreement or we can just 
move to it. That should give us ample time to do those things before we 
leave.
  We want to leave the Friday before Christmas Eve. That would be 8 
days before Christmas. We hope we can do that. That is the plan. We all 
know where we were last Christmas Eve, and we don't want to be in the 
same place this Christmas Eve.
  Any questions from the Republican leader?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Did the Senator also reference filing cloture on some 
items?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I will file cloture on the 9/11 situation in New York, 
the firefighters negotiation matter. The third would be the DREAM Act, 
and the fourth would be giving seniors a $250 COLA.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And those votes would occur on Wednesday?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What was the fourth one?
  Mr. REID. Yes. The fourth is the $250 COLA. Madam President, we would 
do the votes an hour after we come in. We will try to work something 
out to do it after we complete the impeachment. The other thing I have 
indicated--in fact, we had a number of bipartisan conversations 
yesterday--is, we are trying to figure out a time to move forward on 
the Defense authorization bill. The issue on that is what we do with 
amendments.
  Without belaboring the point, I would be happy to consider doing a 
number of amendments if we had time agreements on them. Just to have an 
open process at this stage, I don't see how we can do that. I will 
continue to work with my friends, the chairman of the committee, and 
others who are interested, both Democrats and Republicans, recognizing 
how important that legislation is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the second-degree 
     amendment No. 4728.
         Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark R. 
           Warner, Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark 
           Udall, Tom Udall, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Mark L. Pryor, Richard J. 
           Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4728 on the motion to concur in the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853, the Federal Aviation Administration 
Act of 2010, with amendment No. 4727 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas 
(Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wicker

[[Page S8530]]



                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Sessions
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, according to the strange logic of 
Democratic leaders in Congress, the best way to show middle-class 
Americans that they care about creating jobs is to slam some of 
America's top job creators with a massive tax increase. Today's votes 
were an affront to the millions of Americans who are struggling to find 
work and a clear signal that Democrats in Congress still have not 
gotten the message of the November elections.
  With unemployment over 9 percent for more consecutive months than at 
any time since World War II, the voters are looking for a different 
approach here in Washington. Two years of out-of-control spending and 
big government policies have led to record deficits and debts, chronic 
unemployment, and deep uncertainty about our Nation's fiscal future. 
Meaningless show-votes and antibusiness rhetoric won't do anything to 
make the situation better.
  This Saturday's session is a total waste of the American people's 
time. One of the votes we held today was opposed by every single 
Republican and many Democrats. The other vote we held was a poll-tested 
plan opposed by every single Republican and the President of the United 
States. As you can see, nothing we did today stopped the tax hikes that 
are now less than a month away. As the majority leader said this 
morning, these theatrics need to end.
  There is strong bipartisan opposition to these attempts to raise 
taxes on small businesses across the country. Americans do not want 
political posturing; they want jobs. Today's votes are the clearest 
signal yet that Democrats in Congress do not take our Nation's job 
crisis seriously.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. He is not the majority leader, I might add.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am sorry. Will the minority leader yield for a 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I guess that is a no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________