[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 164 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8840-S8847]
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. The Senate will resume the 
consideration of House message to accompany H.R. 4853, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     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 authorization for the airport 
     improvement program, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 3 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid/McConnell 
     amendment No. 4753 (to the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4754 (to amendment No. 4753), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
       Reid amendment No. 4755, to provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4756 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 4755), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4757 (to amendment No. 4756), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.


                        PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
staff be allowed on the floor for the duration of the debate on the tax 
bill: Michael Grant, Kane Ossorio, Jack McGillis, Nicole Marchman, 
Manishi Rodrigo, Will Kellogg, Danielle Dellerson, Mary Baker, Greg 
Sullivan, Andrew Fishburn, and James Baker.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, about 2 years ago, our economy was on the 
brink. One of the first things we did with our new President was to 
enact the American Recovery and Investment Act. We did so to jump-start 
our economy, and we did so to create jobs.
  In the 2 years since, our economy has created and sustained more than 
3.5 million jobs--3.5 million more than would have been available had 
we not taken that action. The economy is now starting to move in the 
right direction, but we still have a long way to go.
  The positive momentum in the economy is fragile. We need to work 
tirelessly to protect it. Our first priority must be to create more 
jobs.
  The lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003, along with a number of 
other tax provisions, are set to expire at the end of this year. If we 
do not act, taxes will go up.
  In addition, last month, the emergency Federal unemployment insurance 
programs expired. If we don't act, then by the end of next month 2 
million Americans will be without the critical assistance they will 
need. That is help they will need to put food on the table and keep a 
roof over their head. The tax cuts and unemployment insurance both have 
a critical effect on the middle-class families, our economy, and on 
jobs.
  A little more than a week ago, the Senate voted on two amendments 
that would have extended these tax cuts for the middle class and 
unemployment insurance. Our amendments would have

[[Page S8841]]

focused those extensions on the most effective ways to create jobs. The 
amendments we voted on last Saturday would have given critical relief 
to middle-class families. They would have provided unemployment 
insurance to millions of Americans who lost their jobs through no fault 
of their own. These two amendments--the Baucus amendment and the 
Schumer amendment--would have extended tax cuts that would have 
benefited all taxpayers.
  Those amendments would have extended critical tax cuts such as the 
college tuition tax deduction. They would have made the child tax 
credit permanent, and they would have cut taxes for employers, freeing 
up cash for them to expand and hire new workers.
  Those amendments focused on providing middle-class families the tax 
relief they need. They focused on creating the jobs our economy needs, 
and they focused on getting the biggest bang for our buck in creating 
those jobs.
  Cutting taxes for middle-class families and extending unemployment 
insurance stimulates our economy. They do so because the families who 
benefit from those policies are the families most likely to spend that 
extra money. Spending that money injects it directly back into our 
economy, and that helps the economy to grow and create jobs.
  The best way to extend these expiring tax provisions is to focus on 
the middle class. That is what my amendment did, and that remains my 
strong preference.
  There are some in this body, however, who want to extend tax breaks 
for the wealthiest as well. These folks have held tax cuts for the 
middle class hostage to get these tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires.
  Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are not the best way to 
create jobs. The Nation's wealthiest are more likely to save their 
money, rather than spend it and put it back into the economy.
  Permanently extending tax cuts for the richest Americans would cost 
our economy $700 billion over the next 10 years. That is too great a 
cost for a budget already burdened by deficits and debt. But despite 
this disagreement, creating jobs needs to be our first priority.
  If we do not extend unemployment insurance, then by the end of the 
next month, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own would lose their unemployment benefits. If we allow those 
benefits to expire, families who currently receive them would lose much 
of their income. Emergency unemployment insurance has benefitted about 
40 million people. That has included, I might add, 10\1/2\ million 
children.
  Emergency unemployment benefits particularly help middle-class 
families. Middle-class families receive 70 percent of total UI 
benefits. These are folks with a work history. They lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own. Unemployment benefits are the only 
lifeline many workers in Montana and across the Nation have left in 
this tough economy. These benefits support Americans who have worked, 
who are looking for work, and who will work again.
  If we do not extend unemployment insurance, we take some of the most 
stimulative dollars out of the economy. That will just hurt the 
economy's ability to create jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office says unemployment benefits have one of the largest effects of 
economic output in unemployment per dollar spent of any policy. The 
Department of Labor reports that for every $1 spent on unemployment 
insurance, $2 are reinvested in the economy. The Council of Economic 
Advisers estimates that as of September, emergency unemployment 
insurance benefits have increased the level of employment by nearly 
800,000. That is just since September.
  Unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately. 
That increases economic demand. It is critical to extend unemployment 
insurance to support a fragile economic recovery and to help create 
jobs.
  If we don't extend lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 and the 
other tax provisions expiring, at the present, the end of this year, 
millions of middle-class families will pay higher taxes next year. 
Middle-class families are the backbone of our economy and this 
recession has hit middle-class families hardest. Too many middle-class 
folks who have worked hard all their lives have been knocked off their 
feet by this great recession. Too many middle-class families are still 
struggling. If we don't act, individual taxes will go up. If we don't 
act, the child tax credit will shrink and the college tuition tax 
deduction will end. So will the State and local property tax deduction 
and the property tax deduction itself and a host of other tax breaks 
critical to middle-class families. Now is certainly not the time to 
raise taxes on middle-class families.
  If we don't act, taxes will go up on employers. Taxes will go up on 
employers engaged in critical research and development. That is R&D our 
economy needs to stay competitive in the global market, to grow and to 
create jobs. If we don't act, taxes will go up on employers working to 
develop new types of sustainable energy resources, such as wind power. 
Sustainable energy is the industry that could create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. Now is not the time to raise taxes on employers with 
potential to create jobs we need.
  So we must act, because if we fail to extend these critical 
provisions, we place our economy at risk. If we fail to act, we place 
middle-class families at risk. So while I strongly prefer acting in a 
way that focuses more on the middle class, that focuses on getting more 
jobs and gets us the biggest bang for our buck, inaction is clearly not 
an option. For that reason, I will support the bipartisan compromise 
the President has proposed.
  Plain and simple, this bipartisan compromise is about creating jobs, 
extending middle-class tax cuts will help create jobs. Not extending 
them would cost jobs, and we cannot afford to lose jobs. Job creation 
needs to be our No. 1 priority. Our economy has come a long way in the 
last 2 years, but the growth is still fragile. Let us keep the focus on 
creating jobs, let us keep moving our economy forward, let us pass this 
important legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator 
from Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it is very clear the vote today 
will result in a significant majority vote for the pending 
legislation--the so-called tax extenders--and I will be one of those 
who will be voting for it as well. But I must say, in the brief time I 
have, there is almost an Orwellian experience on the floor of the 
Senate as compared with the rest of America. Here we are, about to pass 
these necessary tax extenders--necessary to give some kind of certainty 
to businesses across America, small and large, and to give tax breaks 
to people in these most difficult times, including my home State of 
Arizona. But rather than just extending the tax breaks, which is what a 
majority of Americans want, we have engaged in the continuing 
practice--a practice that has alienated the majority of American 
people--of loading up with unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted sweeteners 
in order to, I guess, get votes or satisfy special interests.
  The Wall Street Journal, this morning, had an article entitled ``The 
Hawkeye Handouts,'' stating the tax bill is becoming a ``favor 
festival,'' starting with ethanol. It goes on to talk about the ethanol 
extension being the bipartisan handiwork of people who direct subsidies 
and trade protectionism plus mandates that force consumers to buy 
ethanol. This is a trifecta of government support and for an industry 
that is 30 years old and that even Al Gore now admits serves none of 
its advertised environmental purposes.
  I would like to quote for my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
what the Wall Street Journal says:

       The greater political risk is for Republicans, who should 
     worry that the tax bill is turning into a special interest 
     spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon biodiesel tax 
     credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there is $202 
     million for ``incentives for alternate fuel,'' $331 million 
     for a 50 percent tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks, 
     and so on. These credits are a form of special interest 
     spending via the tax code, which is precisely the business-
     as-usual behavior that Republicans told tea party voters they 
     wouldn't engage in. These business subsidies are grease for 
     Senate votes in favor of the deal, so the only chance to 
     remove them would be

[[Page S8842]]

     the kind of public outcry that attacked the Cornhusker 
     Kickback and other ObamaCare fiascoes. Call these ethanol 
     favors the Hawkeye Handouts.

  That is what this bill is all about. I say to my colleagues, I will 
vote for it, but it is not what the people said they wanted done on 
November 2.
  I understand that unless online gaming, poker playing, gambling 
legalization comes up, we will probably go to an omnibus bill, and that 
omnibus bill will be loaded down with earmarks and porkbarrel spending, 
which is a direct--a direct--betrayal of the majority of the voters on 
November 2 who said stop the earmarking, stop the spending, stop the 
outrageous porkbarrel projects.
  If this omnibus bill comes up loaded down with porkbarrel spending, 
we owe it to the American people to stop it. What we owe the American 
people is a clean continuing resolution, with no additional spending on 
it, that would be good for 45 days so the new Congress, in response to 
the American people, will act in a responsible fashion.
  This bill we are going to pass contributes to the debt and the 
deficit, it contributes to the mortgaging of our children's futures. I 
say to my colleagues, we should rise against any Omnibus appropriations 
bill, and we should only enact a continuing resolution. To my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle who may not have gotten the 
message of November 2, vote to have a clean continuing resolution. That 
is what the American people have said they want and that is what they 
deserve. The American people deserve to be heard. Let us reconnect 
Washington and the American people.
  I thank my colleague from Iowa for the time, and I yield whatever 
remaining time I have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition 
to the bill in front of us today, and I wish to start out by saying 
that, in addition to all the many challenges facing our Nation, a 
massive budget deficit and a crippling debt may prove to be the most 
difficult challenge we face as a country.
  A deep structural defect, such as the one our government has 
accumulated because of these debt levels, not only threatens our long-
term economic stability, it darkens the horizon in a way that 
discourages the innovation investment we need to spur American jobs 
today.
  Moreover, our apparent inability to squarely address the problem in a 
bipartisan way is a signal to the American people--as if they needed 
more proof--that our democracy is not working, and that is as dangerous 
as any attack on our country. It is a timebomb in our midst, the 
ticking of which we cannot ignore unless we are comfortable knowing it 
will eventually and inevitably blow up on our children.
  Just last week, a bipartisan group appointed by the President 
confirmed the seriousness of a threat with a different metaphor but one 
equally apt. The President's fiscal commission called our national debt 
a cancer that is threatening our country from within. Whether a 
timebomb or a cancer, the threat is real, and the Commission confirmed 
it in the starkest possible terms.
  The chairman's recommendations on how to respond were sobering. But 
in a way, they were also like a strong cup of coffee after a serious 
drinking binge. Americans sat up and listened, and for a few days 
between the release of the Commission's report and the vote of the full 
Commission the following Friday, it looked like we might be able to set 
aside the ideological differences that have poisoned our politics and 
address this problem. It looked like we might be able to follow the old 
adage when you are in a hole, stop digging.
  However, the next week, the President announced a plan that he 
negotiated with Republican leaders to extend the Bush tax cuts across 
the board--a plan that would add $900 billion to our national debt over 
the next 2 years. What is staggering to me is, it took just 4 days to 
switch the conversation from reducing the debt to adding to it. Just 4 
days after the most substantive conversation we have had about 
addressing the debt, we start arguing about the wisdom of extending tax 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires that alone will cost $700 
billion over the next decade. That is $700 billion in additional debt 
the people of the United States will owe to China and our other 
creditors around the world. To paraphrase one of my colleagues, I feel 
like we are operating in some kind of a parallel universe.
  Now, as the debate over the last several days has exhibited, Senators 
in this body--and the American people themselves--have a diverse set of 
views on tax policy and how to get our economy back on track.
  Central to these questions about tax policy is how to find mechanisms 
that will get our skyrocketing national deficit and total debt under 
control. Despite disagreements--our disagreements here and in the other 
body--I believe we owe it to the American people and to one another to 
be pragmatic and truthful about the fiscal challenges confronting us. 
It's the way that Coloradans like to operate, and I believe it's the 
way that most Americans want their elected official to behave. So I 
respect and even applaud the President's efforts to reach a compromise 
based on political pragmatism. But what I respectfully disagree with is 
the notion this compromise is based on anything approaching fiscal 
reality or truth in accounting, which is the point I believe the 
chairmen of the President's fiscal commission--Erskine Bowles and Alan 
Simpson--were making.
  If I might, I would remind my colleagues of the history of the Bush 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Those tax cuts were passed after 
we experienced one of the strongest economic environments in our 
history. Those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy believed that 
because we had begun to reduce our long-term debt, we could afford 
them. They believed those tax cuts would stimulate our economy further 
and create millions of new jobs. In the words of then-Vice President 
Cheney, it was a time when ``deficits don't matter.''
  I did not support the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 or 2003, for 
much the same reason I don't support them today. I voted against them 
as a Member of the House of Representatives. In fact, I'll remind this 
body that the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2003 was only possible 
because Republicans pushed them through on a reconciliation vote, which 
requires only a simple majority. It took Vice President Cheney to break 
the tie vote. I sincerely wish those tax cuts had effectively spurred 
sustained job growth. I do. But unfortunately, the next decade saw a 
decline in our economy such as we haven't seen since the Great 
Depression--banks failed, foreclosures reached a crisis point, we were 
forced to bail out financial institutions, an insurance giant, and the 
auto companies to keep the economy from crashing further. During that 
time, real income for average households decreased and the unemployment 
rate nearly doubled, as millions of workers were laid off.

  If tax cuts for the wealthy among us were an efficient way to spur 
innovation and investment, I have to believe economists would be 
telling us to continue them. But here is what they are actually saying: 
Economists of all stripes are telling us extending tax cuts for the 
wealthy is one of the least effective ways to create jobs and build the 
economy. Even some of America's most successful businessmen, Bill Gates 
and Warren Buffett, among those who stand to gain dramatically from the 
bill before us, have urged us to prioritize seniors, long-term economic 
growth, and job creation instead. They know what recent history has 
shown--that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not help our 
economy, and it certainly doesn't help our national debt.
  Just over 1 week ago I stood here with all of my colleagues and voted 
to support a proposal that would have followed the advice of 
economists, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett and extended relief to 
middle-class families. Most importantly, that plan would have heeded 
the overwhelming wishes of Coloradans--and Americans across our 
country, who do not believe it makes common sense to extend tax cuts 
for the rich. Americans understand, maybe better than many of us in 
Washington, DC, that middle-class tax relief is the way to spur our 
economy. To a family making $50,000 a year, an $800 tax cut could make 
the difference between paying for daycare or health insurance or a 
second car so both parents could work.

[[Page S8843]]

  As more and more Americans become the first in their families to 
stand in an unemployment line, I find it hard to explain or justify 
last week's filibuster preventing middle-class tax relief so 
millionaires and billionaires can get an extra six-figure check from 
the Federal Government.
  We have heard all kinds of arguments for extending tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, and we have been told this bill represents the 
best deal we could get in order to bring further tax relief to middle-
class Americans. But, again, those arguments are based on political 
pragmatism not a truthful or objectively measured analysis of the 
actual impact on our budget deficit. That is why the cochair of the 
President's deficit commission, Erskine Bowles, a university president 
who knows the impact our budget crisis has had on our States, on 
education, and on families, has spoken out against this irresponsible 
tax deal for wealthy Americans. He said:

       I'm deeply disappointed that we have this short-term deal 
     and it's not linked to long-term fiscal restraint.

  I think that hits the nail on the head.
  I take no pleasure in opposing most of my colleagues today. I have 
long held the view that by working together, we can bridge divides and 
find solutions that are both pragmatic, collaborative and factually 
sound.
  I regret that the bill before us speaks more to our failure as an 
institution than it does as an example of effective compromise. This 
deal is about politics and a President backed into a terrible corner by 
a looming deadline when this Congress must adjourn and a new one will 
take its place.
  The bill we are considering today is where the negotiations should 
have started--not where they ended. We should be voting on a plan that 
would allow us to extend tax relief for working families and put the 
$700 billion we would save over a decade toward our deficit, 
unemployment insurance, tax credits for low-income Americans, and other 
ways to get our economy growing.
  We should be voting on a plan--a compromise negotiated in good faith 
and based on the realities of our economy and not a date on the 
calendar--whose economic and fiscal impacts can be verified.
  That is what I wish had been negotiated. And I would prefer to stay 
here in Washington, through the holidays if necessary, to work out a 
better deal for the Coloradans I represent, and for the American 
people.
  Mr. President, I sincerely fear that the bad choices made in the last 
decade will haunt us through the next decade. For these reasons, the 
legislation before us today is a step too far, and that is why I oppose 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Tax Relief, 
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act. I realize 
that this legislation has stoked intense passions both among Members of 
this body and the public at large, and I would like to take a few 
moments to explain my thoughts regarding this legislation and my vote 
here today.
  I have served in this Chamber for nearly 30 years now. And during 
that time, I have frequently been confronted with the extremely 
difficult necessity of voting for legislation that, while deeply 
flawed, includes provisions that are incredibly important for the well-
being of the American people. Today is no exception.
  Indeed, to say that the tax legislation we are voting on today leaves 
much to be desired is a vast understatement. There is quite a bit about 
this legislation that I find extremely objectionable.
  By extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, including the top 
3 percent in our country for 2 additional years, what we are ultimately 
doing is driving our country deeper into debt with foreign creditors, 
forcing damaging funding cuts during already tight budgetary times, and 
increasing the burden of paying for our excess on our children and 
grandchildren.
  This legislation would also create generous new parameters for the 
estate tax, raising the exemption level to $10 million for couples and 
reducing the top tax rate to 35 percent--providing millions of dollars 
in tax breaks to the 39,000 wealthiest Americans. Indeed, in my own 
State, it is likely that fewer than 100 estates will actually be 
subject to any tax under the estate tax provision included in this 
bill.
  And that is to say nothing of the fact that the agreement we are 
voting on today fails to extend numerous successful programs included 
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, like the TANF emergency 
contingency fund and the COBRA premium subsidy, or that the provisions 
that will actually stimulate economic growth are only extended for a 
mere year.
  But in spite of my strenuous objections to much of what is included 
in this bill, I believe it would be a grave mistake for us to defeat 
this measure today. Because while it would be incredibly easy to simply 
vote against this legislation and head home, the truth is that what is 
at stake here is far more than my opposition to tax breaks for our 
Nation's wealthiest families.
  At the end of the day, this is about the well-being of the American 
people, far too many of whom are hurting during this period of 
continued economic turmoil and uncertainty. In Connecticut, nearly 9.1 
percent of the State's workforce--some 172,400 men and women--were out 
of work in October alone. And nationally, the numbers are even worse.
  So, while there is much in this legislation that merits indignation, 
the fact remains that there are many provisions that are far too 
important to all those Americans who have fallen on hard times over the 
last several years to warrant its defeat.
  Besides extending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, this 
legislation will also extend tax cuts for middle class families making 
under $250,000 annually, putting additional cash in the pockets of 
working Americans and their families.
  This legislation will also extend and expand two critically important 
tax credits for lower income families for 2 additional years--the 
$1,000 child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit. Together, 
these provisions will benefit millions of working families and their 
children at a time when they need these benefits the most.
  And perhaps most importantly, this legislation renews Federal 
emergency unemployment insurance through the end of 2011, preventing 
nearly 7 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the current 
recession--including nearly 80,000 in the State of Connecticut from 
prematurely losing their benefits next year as they look for work.
  So, while my decision to vote in favor of this legislation today was 
incredibly difficult to make, I nevertheless believe it is the right 
one. Simply put, while it is a difficult pill to swallow, the Tax 
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act--
the Middle Class Tax Relief Act--represents the best chance we have 
right now to extend some critically important benefits for working 
families in this country. These are the people who have been hit the 
hardest by the current recession, and as their representatives, I 
believe we owe it to them to provide some relief, even if it does come 
in the form of the flawed legislation before us today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe that before this Congress 
adjourns we must extend unemployment benefits that are so vital to the 
economic survival of many American families and to our economic 
recovery. I also believe we must ensure that working families are not 
hit with a tax increase that endangers our recovery. But the 
legislation before us exacts a high price, and it should be amended to 
accomplish those goals without giving unwarranted benefits to the 
wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, the procedure under which it is 
intended for us to consider it will apparently give us no opportunity 
to correct its shortcomings.
  The tax cuts included in this bill, while they would benefit working 
families, are too skewed toward the well-off, and would exacerbate a 
growing trend of income inequality in our country. Today, the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans receive about one-quarter of total 
U.S. income. Thirty years ago, they earned only about 10 percent of 
total U.S. income. Not only have incomes for the wealthiest sector of 
the population continued to grow. Incomes for middle-class families 
have been stagnant and have actually fallen when adjusted for 
inflation.

[[Page S8844]]

  This unconscionable inequality will only increase as a result of the 
estate tax provisions in the bill before us. The pending legislation 
would exempt the first $5 million of estates from any tax, and tax 
remaining amounts at 35 percent. This is far more generous to the 
wealthy than the $3.5 million exemption and 45 percent tax that was law 
before this year. Just a few thousand Americans would benefit from this 
generous provision, but the cost to the treasury is huge.
  Now, our Republican colleagues have argued that all of that 
inequality is a necessity, because only if we extend these enormous 
benefits for our wealthiest citizens will our economy continue its 
recovery. But, we know that this is not true. We know, in fact, that 
tax breaks for the wealthy have little impact on the economy as a 
whole.
  As independent experts from the Congressional Budget Office and 
Congressional Research Service, from the Federal Reserve and the 
National Bureau of Economic Research, from academia and the private 
sector have all demonstrated, tax cuts for the wealthy do a great deal 
to add to their savings, but do not stimulate the economy. Economist 
Mark Zandi, who has advised members of both parties, estimates that in 
terms of bang for the buck, extending the tax cuts expiring at the end 
of this year will boost the economy by just 29 cents for every dollar 
they cost. Compare that to Mr. Zandi's estimate that we would get $1.64 
worth of economic boost for every dollar of enhanced unemployment 
benefits.
  In fact, there are few people other than our Republican colleagues 
who believe that tax cuts have a large positive effect on the economy. 
Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist, summed up what is nearly a 
consensus view among economists this way:

       The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support 
     of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent 
     that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, 
     very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the 
     government's revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, 
     which all Republicans claim to abhor.

  This legislation does include some very important measures that will 
help working American families, boost the economy and increase 
employment. First among them is the extension of unemployment benefits, 
which, I remind my colleagues, does not provide additional weeks of 
benefits beyond the current 99-week maximum, but does continue the 
current emergency benefits that have helped millions of families. As I 
mentioned before, these benefits are a valuable tool in building the 
economic recovery. As Congressional Budget Office Director Doug 
Elmendorf has testified:

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

  But beyond the positive effect on the economy, extending these 
benefits is the right thing to do. The Americans who depend on these 
benefits to put food on the table and shelter overhead did not throw 
the economy into crisis. They did not profit from the recklessness that 
brought so much profit to so few. Helping the jobless is simply the 
right thing to do.
  Indeed, it is outrageous that our Republican colleagues have insisted 
that we can only help those in great need if we also provide enormous 
benefits to the wealthiest among us. They hold hostage aid to those in 
need unless we include tax cuts for those who have no such need. I know 
there were some Republicans who objected when President Obama used this 
same language in describing their position on this issue. I would say 
to them that if people do not want to be called hostage takers, they 
should not take hostages.
  And we cannot forget that the result of these tax cuts for the 
wealthiest among us is the addition of billions upon billions of 
dollars to the deficit. Our Republican colleagues, who have called so 
loudly for government to live within its means, seem to live in a world 
of magical accounting, where the impact on the deficit of tax cuts for 
the well-off can be ignored. Over the next two years, the measures in 
this legislation that Republicans have set as the price for tax cuts 
for the middle class and aid to the jobless will add more than $100 
billion to the deficit. At a time when Washington is awash in deficit-
reduction plans that would impose draconian cuts to important Federal 
programs, we simply cannot afford to do that.
  Now, there is a traditional solution to the problems with this bill. 
That solution is debate and amendment. There is no reason why those of 
us who oppose portions of this legislation should not have the 
opportunity to air our objections, propose remedies to them and place 
them before the Senate. But the procedure under which the Senate will 
consider this bill will apparently not allow us to do so.
  While the problems in this legislation are significant, the apparent 
inability for Senators to offer improvements amendments also affects my 
thinking on the cloture motion before us. Even an abbreviated amendment 
process would provide the chance to make the case for a more equitable 
bill. While efforts to amend the bill might not be successful, it is 
unacceptable to me that we would not even have the chance. Under those 
circumstances, I cannot agree to this motion. If we defeat this cloture 
motion, hopefully we would be able to take up a better bill and debate 
it. I believe we must fight harder and fight longer, to the end of 
December if necessary, for a bill that extends unemployment benefits 
and takes other steps that are essential to the hopes of working 
families, a bill that is more fiscally prudent, a bill that does not 
extract the high price that this bill extracts.
  If given the chance to address its flaws, I believe the Senate can 
produce sounder legislation. I hope we will reject this motion for 
cloture so that we can consider legislation that provides tax relief to 
middle-income families and aid to those in need without handing 
billions in unneeded and deficit-increasing benefits to the wealthiest 
among us.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the The Tax 
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 
2010, which will prevent tax increases on middle-class Americans, 
provide targeted investments in American businesses, and continue much-
needed relief for the unemployed.
  After wrestling with my concerns about upper-class tax rates and the 
estate tax provision, I have come to the conclusion that this bill is 
necessary in order to preserve and promote our economic recovery.
  Between the extension of tax rates for the middle class, the patch 
for the alternative minimum tax, and several extensions of previous tax 
policy, almost $500 billion goes toward preventing a substantial tax 
increase on working Americans.
  A tax increase on that scale would significantly hamper the economy 
and place further strain on families struggling to stay afloat during 
uncertain economic times.
  The words spoken by former President Clinton last week underscore a 
strong point made by a man who knows something about how to forge 
legislation necessary to move our Nation forward.
  He said:

       The agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best 
     bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number 
     of Americans, and to maximize the chances that the economic 
     recovery will accelerate and create more jobs . . .

  That is what we must do: focus as much effort as possible on creating 
jobs and supporting industry in the United States. We must adapt to the 
changing contours of the global economy and ensure we retain our 
competitive position as the world's greatest economic power.
  I was very pleased to hear that the Treasury grant provision was 
included in this package. It illustrates the kind of policy necessary 
to encourage the industries of the future.
  The Treasury grant program is responsible for $18.2 billion in 
renewable energy development in just the past 2 years. That is 1,465 
projects around the country.
  With the program extended, California alone could see at least 141 
more projects break ground next year. That would mean an additional 
27,000 megawatts of energy and tens of thousands of jobs in high-
unemployment counties.
  High-tech companies in California and across the country will also 
benefit from a 2-year extension of a key research-and-development tax 
credit.
  And the president of the National Association of Manufacturers called 
this

[[Page S8845]]

provision ``key to manufacturers' competitiveness and ability to create 
jobs.''
  In the end, that is the bottom line. Will the economy be 
substantially better off if this bill passes? If the answer is yes, 
then there is simply no other option.
  In the past few days I have spoken to a number of prominent 
economists about what this bill would mean for our economic recovery. 
With unemployment levels at 9.8 percent nationally and 12.4 percent in 
California, it is crucial that the economy start growing at a fast 
enough rate to create more jobs.
  The consensus is that the provisions before us will immediately 
hasten the pace of the recovery, creating enough momentum to get us to 
the point of self-sustaining economic growth.
  However, we must follow this bill with measures that address tax 
reform in order to create a simplified system that addresses the 
inequalities that have become apparent over the last decade.
  From 2003 to 2007, income for families in the top 5 percent of 
taxpayers increased by 7 percent, while 95 percent of taxpayers' 
incomes remained stagnant.
  The average income of the top 1 percent of earners increased by 10 
times as much as that for the bottom 90 percent.
  During the expansion of 2002 to 2007, families saw their medium 
income drop by $2,000, the first time Americans have seen their incomes 
drop during a period of economic growth.
  In 2007, the top 10 percent took home almost half of the country's 
total earnings, the highest level of income inequality in our Nation's 
history.
  Clearly, our current Tax Code does not work for most Americans. As we 
get back on our feet, we must shift our focus to economic policies that 
promote opportunity and allow for the continued pursuit of the American 
dream.
  The point today is that we have two options. We can swallow our 
distaste for a few of the provisions included in this package for the 
sake of struggling Americans everywhere.
  Or we can take a big risk with the economic recovery by allowing tax 
rates to reset to 1990s levels. The people that would hurt the most are 
the very same people we are trying to help.
  I choose to do what is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the 
Americans that need help most, and that is why I will support this 
bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while this proposal contains a number of 
provisions I support, including an extension of desperately needed 
unemployment benefits as well as a 2-year extension of the middle-class 
tax cuts, it fails in at least one critical respect. Rather than 
include a combination of responsible spending cuts and revenue 
increases to offset its projected cost of nearly $900 billion, the 
proposal instead just adds its cost to our already massive national 
debt. This measure adds more to our national debt than either the 
stimulus bill, which I supported, or the Wall Street bailout, which I 
opposed. There may be good arguments to postpone fully paying for these 
tax cuts or, alternatively, for offsetting their cost over a number of 
years to avoid undermining the fragile economic recovery. But, like the 
Baucus and Schumer proposals I opposed earlier this month, the measure 
before us fails to make even the most modest effort to pay for these 
tax cuts. Instead, it heaps $900 billion onto an already mountainous 
level of debt that we are asking our children and grandchildren to 
bear. And much of this money will go toward unjustified tax cuts for 
the wealthiest Americans.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill is about stopping the biggest 
tax increase in the history of the country that will happen if we do 
not pass something between now and the end of the year. That happens 
because the 2001 tax law, the present tax policy, was only good for 10 
years, and it sunsets. So you go back to the big tax policy we had, the 
high tax policy we had in the year 2000.
  We are passing this now because of a simple rule of economics: you 
should not increase taxes during an economic recession. With nearly 10 
percent unemployment, we are still, obviously, in a recession.
  Some on the other side supported the President's earlier proposal 
when he wanted to maintain the existing tax policy just for those below 
a $200,000-a-year income. The Senate did not support that proposal, and 
it is clear that proposal could not pass. I know that can be a 
difficult thing. Over the years I have seen proposals I thought were 
good and just and that I cared passionately about defeated in the 
Senate. But you just move on, so that is what our President has done. 
He has moved on in a pragmatic spirit. He has put forward another 
proposal to prevent the biggest tax increase in the history of the 
country from happening. He doesn't view it as ideal, and few on my side 
of the aisle do as well.
  For all of us, it is a balancing act. We want to stay true to our 
ideals. We also want to deliver practical results to our constituents.
  I submit this bill does not increase taxes, it does not cut anybody's 
taxes, and that happens to be the right balance for the vast majority 
of us. But it also happens to be what is right for the economy now that 
we are in a recession.
  Just 10 days ago, the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8 percent. In 
July it was at 9.5 percent. The trend is in the wrong direction. We are 
in a fragile situation. The economy is clearly telling Congress: handle 
with extreme care. The majority of the economists surveyed by CNN Money 
says preventing the 2011 tax hikes is the No. 1 thing that Congress can 
do right now to help the economy. The survey results are on a chart, 
showing that 60 percent of the economists said preventing tax hikes on 
every American was the best course of action to take at this particular 
time; that the economy is in a fragile situation.
  We have the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying GDP growth 
will be far less if we let the biggest tax increase in the history of 
the country happen without Congress intervening. If the tax relief 
doesn't maintain at the present level, the economy would grow .3 
percent less than if we do it the way the President originally wanted 
to do it, just for those people under $200,000 a year income.
  In other words, the economy will grow at 1.4 percent if we leave the 
tax policy of the last 10 years in place as opposed to taxing people 
who make over $200,000 a year at a higher level. Then the economy would 
only grow at 1.1 percent.
  Given the recession, given the high unemployment rate, given 
business's reluctance to invest and grow, we need to be especially 
sensitive to GDP growth. 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. We are talking about dead-weight loss.
  For those who think taxing people more will bring in more revenue, I 
would put up a chart that expresses tax policy and the result of it 
over the last 50 years. We can see the red line that says there is an 
average of about 18.2 percent of all the wealth. We can see the red 
line shows for a 50-year average, about 18.2 percent of the gross 
national product has come to the Congress to spend, regardless of what 
the high marginal tax rates were--going back to 1993 and the Eisenhower 
administration, going down to 70 in the Kennedy administration, going 
down to 50 in the Reagan administration, going down to 26 in the Reagan 
administration, back up 40--almost 40 percent in H.W. Bush's 
administration, and then down to 35 percent where they are now. They 
could go back up to 40 percent if we do not intervene right now.
  What this ought to tell everybody is, marginal tax rates do not make 
a difference, a big difference, in how much money comes into the 
Federal Treasury. The people of this country decided about how much 
they are going to give to us in Congress to spend out of the entire 
national income. It is about 18.2 percent regardless of where the 
marginal tax rates are.
  It tells me that people, if they do not want to work, if they do not 
want to

[[Page S8846]]

earn or if they want to hire people to legally avoid taxes, are going 
to do it, and we are only going to get so much.
  Here is what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says about 
this:

       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.

  That chart proves exactly what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on 
Taxes has said.
  We have known about these looming tax hikes for a decade now. We 
should have acted many years ago. Now we have only 19 days to go before 
the tax hikes take effect. We are down to the wire, and we need to act. 
We need to act because it is what it takes to turn this economy around. 
The time to dither is over. The National Federation of Independent 
Business, the voice of small business, had this to say recently. 
Because of no action on expiring tax rates there is a ``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 
continues, and capital spending remains at historically low rates. 
Owners won't make spending commitments when sales prospects remain weak 
and important decisions such as tax rates and labor costs remain so 
uncertain.''
  That is the end of the quote from small business.
  Uncertainty is the issue we have to deal with here. Passing this bill 
so the biggest tax hike in the history of the country will not happen 
is one thing that will bring some certainty, and maybe more certainty 
than anything else, to our economy.
  The bottom line, as evidenced by this chart, is stop the tax hikes. 
It is time to leave the tax policy of the last 10 years in place so at 
least for the next 2 years people know they can hire and expand this 
economy and expand theirs.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  How many minutes do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think, Mr. President, I am going to take 2\1/2\ 
minutes to address what the Senator from Arizona said about some of the 
provisions in this bill. We keep having ethanol referred to as a 
subsidy.
  Let me tell you about some of the subsidies that are in this bill 
because you might think that ethanol is the only one. Think in terms of 
the research and development tax credit. That is subsidy for big 
business that has been around for 30 years. Think about the Indian 
employment tax credit, the subsidy for new market tax credits, the 
subsidy for railroad track maintenance credit, mine rescue team 
training credit, the subsidy for employer wage credit for employees who 
are on Active Duty in the uniformed services, the subsidy for 15-year 
straight line cost recovery for qualified leaseholder improvements, the 
subsidy for the 7-year recovery period for motor sports entertainment 
complexes.
  I don't quite understand, when there are 72 provisions in this bill 
that expired on December 31, 2009, and they are just being continued as 
some of them have been for 30 years, how somebody today is going to say 
that is bad tax policy and they did not say it over the last 30 years, 
particularly when it comes to a time when we know we need a balanced 
alternative energy program--balanced for whatever can be alternative 
energy because God only made so much fossil fuel. Obviously, we ought 
to be using petroleum. But should we import more petroleum from the 10 
percent of the fuel used in motor vehicles coming from ethanol? Do you 
believe we ought to have a good national security program that is less 
based upon the requirements of imported oil?
  I think we ought to look at this balanced program as being one of 
fossil fuel, one of alternative energy, and one of conservation and 
ethanol and biodiesel and wind and solar and all that is part of a 
balanced program, and they all have tax incentives.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, with an amendment No. 
     4753.
         Max Baucus, Joseph I. Lieberman, John D. Rockefeller, IV, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, John F. Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Mark L. Pryor, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard J. Durbin, 
           Mark R. Warner, Jeanne Shaheen, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, 
           Christopher J. Dodd, Kent Conrad, Jim Webb, Bill 
           Nelson, Amy Klobuchar.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 
amendment No. 4753, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  (Mr. MANCHIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) and 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--15

     Bingaman
     Brown (OH)
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Udall (CO)
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Merkley
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 
15. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I voted today to move forward with the 
tax package because I did not want to block the Senate from considering 
this legislation. But I do not support the bill in its current form, 
and I will not support it on final passage if there are not additional 
improvements made to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                   Modification of Amendment No. 4753

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Reid-McConnell amendment, No. 4753, in 
the motion to concur with respect to the House message on H.R. 4853, be 
modified with the technical change which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

     donor died as of the end of the calendar year, reduced by''.
       (2) Section 2631(c) is amended by striking ``the applicable 
     exclusion amount'' and inserting ``the basic exclusion 
     amount''.
       (3) Section 6018(a)(1) is amended by striking ``applicable 
     exclusion amount'' and inserting ``basic exclusion amount''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to estates of 
     decedents dying and gifts made after December 31, 2010.

[[Page S8847]]

       (2) Conforming amendment relating to generation-skipping 
     transfers.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall 
     apply to generation-skipping transfers after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS TITLE.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall apply to the amendments made 
     by this title.

                          ____________________