[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 165 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8964-S8979]
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 with respect to
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 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
authorization 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/McConnell
modified 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. We are not in a quorum call, are we?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No.
Mr. REID. The Republican leader is on his way and has an important
speech to give, so if everyone will just be calm while he delivers his
speech.
Recognition of the Republican Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Remembering Richard Holbrooke
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday America lost one of the
most talented and dedicated diplomats it has ever produced. Richard
Holbrooke began his diplomatic service several decades ago as a young
foreign service officer in Vietnam. The storied career that followed
spanned the globe and will remain an integral part of the diplomatic
history of our Nation.
Dick Holbrooke will always be remembered for pursuing the hardest
missions, whether negotiating the Dayton Accords which helped end the
war in Bosnia or his immensely difficult final assignment as Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke
doggedly pursued what in his view best enhanced the diplomacy and
national security objectives of our Nation. We honor his legacy of
service to America's foreign policy interests by continuing his efforts
to help Afghanistan deny the Taliban a return to power and to disrupt,
defeat, and dismantle al-Qaida.
I might just add, I remember running into Dick at the White House a
couple of weeks ago. He never missed an opportunity to be selling what
he was doing. So he sidled up to me and in his usual aggressive way
began to discuss his current mission in Afghanistan. He was a dedicated
public servant, and we will all miss him greatly.
TRIBUTES TO RETIRING SENATORS
George Voinovich
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to Senator
George Voinovich who has served this Chamber and the people of Ohio
with honor over the past 12 years after an already long career as a
devoted public servant. George has served in the Ohio statehouse, as
Ohio's Lieutenant Governor, as the mayor of Cleveland, as Governor of
Ohio, and as a U.S. Senator. That is quite a record of accomplishment.
When George walks out of the Chamber for the last time, he will have
served 44 years in public service.
Yet in a career that has taken him from Cleveland to Columbus to
Washington and around the world, George has always made time for his
family, and no one was surprised when in January 2009 he announced that
he planned to retire at the end of this year in order to spend more
time with Janet.
George and Janet have been married for nearly half a century and they
have seen a lot together. George grew up in the same working class
neighborhood in Cleveland where he and Janet still call home today. He
attended Collinwood High School, Ohio University, and Ohio State
University for law school. After practicing law for several years in
Cleveland, he began his political career in 1963 as an assistant
attorney general of Ohio. Three years later, at the tender age of 30,
George was elected to the Ohio statehouse.
The 1970s was a period of economic turmoil for many American cities,
and Cleveland was no exception. In 1978, Cleveland became the first
American city since the 1930s to file for bankruptcy, and George, who
was serving as the State's Lieutenant Governor at the time, decided he
needed to do something to help his hometown.
Mounting a challenge to the Democratic incumbent, Dennis Kucinich,
George overcame tough odds and won the race. Determined to bring the
city around and bring Cleveland out of the economic ditch, George
organized a series of coalitions and public-private partnerships to
bring Cleveland back from the brink. More importantly, I think George
would tell us he helped restore confidence and pride to the city.
His motto was ``Together, We Can Do It.'' And they did. He went on to
serve as mayor for an entire decade and helped close an ugly chapter in
Cleveland's history. It was a remarkable feat. Once called the ``buckle
of the rust belt'' and the butt of a lot of late night television
jokes, Cleveland underwent a renaissance under George's leadership. It
paid down a $110 million debt, added thousands of jobs, brought new
development and businesses downtown, and saw struggling sports
franchises transformed into contenders.
For George, it was never about him. He would never take full credit
for the growth and prosperity Cleveland enjoyed or the fact that he was
named one of the Nation's top mayors. It was always about the people of
Cleveland working together to make the city they knew and loved great
again.
George's outstanding work as mayor helped him win the Governor's
Mansion in 1990 where he served two terms. He faced a fiscal mess in
Columbus, too, and worked hard to rein in spending. One of his
signature achievements as Governor was education reform, and in
particular the Cleveland school voucher program which provided
thousands of low-income students with the opportunity for a better
education and ultimately greater opportunities in life. But his record
of success as Governor was deep and far-reaching. He helped restore
Ohio's economy, balanced its budget, and saw unemployment hit a 25-year
low. For a job well done, the voters of Ohio reelected George to a
second term as Governor in 1994 with a remarkable 72 percent of the
vote.
Blocked by term limits from running again for Governor, George ran
for the U.S. Senate in 1998. He took the values that earned him so much
success in Columbus and Cleveland to Washington. As a Senator, he has
been at the forefront of numerous important national
[[Page S8965]]
debates. He has been a leading advocate for an effective and efficient
Federal Government and for simplifying the Tax Code. He has been
involved in legislation to enhance America's competitiveness around the
world, to reform our energy policy and to ensure America's strength and
security.
George has always had my respect and admiration for his adherence to
principle and for his straight-shooting style. He always told you
exactly what was on his mind.
Today we honor our colleague and friend, George Voinovich, for his
nearly 4\1/2\ decades of public service. We thank Janet and the entire
Voinovich family for sharing him with us, and on behalf of the entire
Senate family, I wish to thank George for his service and wish him the
very best in the years ahead. He will indeed be missed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, might I just add a word to what the
Republican leader has just said. As the Republican whip, it is my job
to visit with Senators about their views on issues and votes that are
coming up. I didn't always like the answer George Voinovich gave me,
but I always knew that, as the leader said, it was a principled
response to a question that reflected his well-thought-out and deeply
felt views about the role of the government, issues on finance and
debt, and generally from his long experience as having been a public
leader at the State level, as well as the Federal level.
So I join my colleague in paying tribute to an incredible public
service career and especially the time I have enjoyed working with
Senator Voinovich in the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I would like to express my
appreciation to the minority leader and the minority whip for all of
the courtesies they have extended to me over the last number of years.
One of the things, Mitch, I have enjoyed doing is getting to know you
and Elaine. I watched you become the leader. I think you have done an
outstanding job of keeping your team together. I appreciate your
willingness to answer all of my telephone calls. Senator Kyl, the same
with you. I can't tell you how much I appreciated that, that we were
able to keep an open dialogue on many of the issues in front of the
United States of America.
I wish to applaud the minority leader for reaching out to the
President. As you know, I don't agree with the compromise on the tax
situation, but I think it is something that is important for the future
of our country. I have always found that when leaders get together and
spend time thinking about those things that bring them together rather
than those things that divide them, the people of the State and the
Nation benefit from it.
So, again, thank you very much for your kindness to me over the
years, both of you.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to make a unanimous-consent
request that after Senator Kyl has 10 minutes----
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I think I can do it in 12 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Fifteen minutes--I be recognized for up to 25 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the
tax legislation the Senate is debating and will be voting on before
long.
There has been some dismay on both sides of the aisle regarding the
merits of the package. I emphasize a point also made by others: Nobody
thinks this is a perfect bill. Most conservatives are upset about the
unfunded extension of unemployment benefits and the fact that the tax
rate extensions are not permanent. On the left, there are those who
dislike the death tax reform and would have preferred that the top
marginal income tax rates be increased. There are other concerns as
well.
I agree with some of the criticisms my conservative friends have
made. This is not the bill I would have written. There are some
provisions in the package I disagree with or would have written
differently. On the other hand, this is not the bill President Obama
would have written. He has made it clear that he doesn't like
everything in it either.
The package represents a true bipartisan compromise. That is
something we talk about a lot but seldom seem able to do. But political
circumstances will not allow either party to dictate its perfect bill.
So while neither party got everything it wanted, there are provisions
in the package to appeal to both sides of the aisle, and most of us
agree it would be very bad for Americans to allow taxes to be
increased.
The most important things this bill does, in my view, are to freeze
all existing income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates and reform
the death tax. Without legislation, taxes are set to go up for every
taxpayer in just 17 days. So by maintaining current tax rates and
instituting death tax reform, the bill will provide positive economic
certainty to families and to job creators. This is a very important
development for American taxpayers and for our economy.
In fact, according to new data from Morgan Stanley, this bill could
boost economic growth to 4 percent or more next year. That is a lot
better than the anemic 2 percent achieved in the third quarter of this
year.
Ironically, some commentators have argued that this economic growth
will benefit President Obama's reelection prospects and, therefore,
should be opposed. That is not clear thinking.
Some other conservatives say that if we wait until next year to pass
tax legislation, the GOP-controlled House could pass a better bill than
this one. That is true, from my perspective, but there is no guarantee
that the Senate or the White House would go along with such a bill or
that we could get any better compromise in the end. In the meantime,
every taxpayer would have been hit with a tax increase in the first
paycheck of the new year and for many weeks thereafter.
Tax increases would almost certainly hurt the economy. Look back to
1936, for example, when President Roosevelt raised taxes on high
earners. The shaky economy plunged back into depression and
unemployment skyrocketed.
Freezing the tax rates, on the other hand, has the potential to help
the economy and job growth. Some on the liberal left seem to think that
tax provisions in this bill should implement their particular
philosophy of class warfare. But the Tax Code is not a vehicle for
punishing certain taxpayers, as some on the left seem to think. I would
hope we all agree that we want to help the job creators as well as job
seekers. Ideology should not trump those concerns on either the right
or left.
The key thing is that tax rates matter to growth. Businesses must be
allowed to retain earnings so they can expand, invest, and hire new
workers.
As I have come to the floor to point out again and again, many
successful small businesses that create jobs pay taxes at the
individual rate and would be hurt by increases in the top marginal
income tax brackets. According to IRS data cited by economists Kevin
Hassett and Allen Viard:
Fully 48 percent of the net income of sole proprietorships,
partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went
to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.
That is the last year, incidentally, for which we have these figures.
Other businesses would have been hurt by skyrocketing capital gains and
dividend taxes. Raising capital gains and dividend tax rates would
greatly discourage the investment our economy so urgently needs.
Indeed, capital taxes are among the most distortive and least efficient
taxes the government collects.
In my view, any comprehensive tax reform package should include
significant reductions in capital taxation. For now, I am glad that
Members of both parties have decided to at least block a capital gains
tax increase, which would have a severe impact on job-creating
investment.
Death tax reform is another measure in this bill that will provide
certainty to job creators. I thank Senator Lincoln for her leadership
on this issue. We have spent a lot of time together over the last few
years working on this issue, and she deserves much credit for her
expertise and devotion toward crafting this plan, which will provide
relief to job-creating small businesses.
[[Page S8966]]
The result is a true compromise. There will be a large increase from
this year's zero percent estate tax rate--which is what I favor--to a
35-percent rate; but that is much less than the 55-percent rate that
will be in place on January 1. And the exemption is $5 million, which
is preferable to the $1 million exemption after January 1.
Should death tax reform not occur and the rate rise to 55 percent,
small businesses could be forced to reduce their payrolls by more than
500,000 workers over the next 10 years, according to a former CBO
Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Think of that. That is a half million
people whose jobs could be threatened.
The effect of the compromise will be to eliminate the death tax
liability for about 90 percent of estates that would otherwise owe
exorbitant sums. According to the institute for Research on Economics
and Taxation, the death tax proposal in this bill would add more than
$200 billion in annual economic growth relative to current law. So this
is not about ``giveaways to the wealthy,'' as some have asserted. Most
of the people helped by this measure are small business employers.
A final word about the deficit: It is true that extending
unemployment compensation without cutting other government spending
will add to the deficit--and there are some tax incentives in the bill
that are similar to spending, and should also be offset with spending
cuts. It is important to note that we should not raise taxes to provide
the revenue--that would just grow the size of the Federal Government--
and Democrats are unwilling to find spending cuts, so we are left
accumulating more debt instead. The political reality is that the
unemployment benefits would certainly pass both Chambers, and there are
not and will not be the votes in the Senate to cut spending to offset
the costs either this year or next.
I admit that I am surprised to hear some conservative commentators
lump the extension of current tax rates and death tax reform into the
same argument about the deficit. Congress has never offset theoretical
revenue loss from the annual AMT relief, for example, because we all
know there was never any intent to collect it. Likewise, Republicans
have always viewed the tax extender package and extension of other
rates as exactly that--extensions of existing law, not new tax cuts.
The left--and some commentators--delight in misrepresenting the
legislation as providing ``tax cuts for the rich.'' But these are not
tax cuts--only extensions of decade-old existing tax rates--for
everyone. The only new tax cuts are the expensing for businesses sought
by the President, with which Republicans generally agree, and the
payroll tax holiday. The actual revenue loss, therefore, is about $237
billion, not the $900 billion that some assert. While any increase in
the deficit is unwelcome, the overall merits of this bill--including
preventing a massive tax increase on each and every taxpayer--outweigh
that deficit increase, in my opinion.
In conclusion, Americans are looking for economic growth and
solutions to unemployment. Keeping tax rates where they are and
providing some certainty is a good place to start. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill and see to it that job-killing tax rates are not
imposed on anyone.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
California Service Members
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a number of issues I want to
bring up today for the record to explain a lot of the things we are
faced with here as we wind down before Christmas Eve--maybe.
The first thing I am going to do is ask to have printed in the Record
a list of the California-connected servicemembers who have died in
Afghanistan and Iraq. I have put their names in the Record continually.
And sometimes, if I have time, I read them. I want to say this: Since
August 5, 52 more California-connected servicemembers have died in
Afghanistan, and 2 more have died in Iraq.
I ask unanimous consent to have their names printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Afghanistan
Cpl Max W. Donahue, 23, of Highlands Ranch, CO, died August
7 of wounds received August 4 while supporting combat
operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Donahue
was assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters
Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Sgt Jose L. Saenz III, 30, of Pleasanton, TX, died August 9
while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Sergeant Saenz was assigned to 1st Battalion,
11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSgt Michael A. Bock, 26, of Leesburg, FL, died August 13
while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Bock was assigned to the 3rd
Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, based at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center Twentynine Palms, CA.
LCpl Kevin E. Oratowski, 23, of Wheaton, IL, died August 18
while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Oratowski was assigned to 1st
Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division,
I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Cpl Christopher J. Boyd, 22, of Palatine, IL, died August
19 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Corporal Boyd was assigned to the 2nd Battalion,
4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Sgt Ronald A. Rodriguez, 26, of Falls Church, VA, died
August 23 while supporting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Rodriguez was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Robert J. Newton, 21, of Creve Coeur, IL, died August
23 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Newton was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, based at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center Twentynine Palms, CA.
PO3 James M. Swink, 20, of Yucca Valley, CA, died August 27
while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Petty Officer Third Class Swink was a hospital
corpsman assigned to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC.
MSgt Daniel L. Fedder, 34, of Pine City, MN, died August 27
while supporting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Master Sergeant Fedder was assigned to the 7th
Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
GySgt Floyd E. C. Holley, 36, of Casselberry, FL, died
August 29 while supporting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Gunnery Sergeant Holley was assigned
to the 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics
Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Andrew J. Castro, 20, of Westlake Village, CA, died
August 28 in Babur, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when
insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive
device. Specialist Castro was assigned to the 2nd Brigade
Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY.
SSG Casey J. Grochowiak, 34, of Lompoc, CA, died August 30
in Malajat, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents
attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Staff
Sergeant Grochowiak was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 22nd
Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry
Division, Fort Carson, CO.
SGT Raymond C. Alcaraz, 20, of Redlands, CA, died August 31
in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy
forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive
device. Sergeant Alcaraz was assigned to the 173rd Brigade
Support Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team,
Bamberg, Germany.
Sgt Jesse M. Balthaser, 23, of Columbus, OH, died September
4 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Sergeant Balthaser was assigned to the 3rd
Combat Engineer Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine
Expeditionary Force, based at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center Twentynine Palms, CA.
Lt (SEAL) Brendan J. Looney, 29, of Owings, MD, died in a
helicopter crash September 21 during combat operations in the
Zabul province, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation
Enduring Freedom. Lieutenant Looney was assigned to a
Coronado, CA-based SEAL Team.
LCpl Ralph J. Fabbri, 20, of Gallitzin, PA, died September
28 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Fabbri was assigned to the
Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SGT Brian J. Pedro, 27, of Rosamond, CA, died October 2 in
Pol-e-Khumri, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents
attacked his unit with small arms fire and rocket-propelled
grenades. Sergeant Pedro was assigned to the 2nd Engineer
Battalion, White Sands Missile Range, NM.
SrA Daniel J. Johnson, 23, of Schiller Park, IL, died
October 5 of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his
unit with an improvised explosive device in Kandahar,
Afghanistan. Senior Airman Johnson was assigned to the 30th
Civil Engineer Squadron, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.
[[Page S8967]]
LCpl John T. Sparks, 23, of Chicago, IL, died October 8
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Sparks was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
PFC Victor A. Dew, 20, of Granite Bay, CA, died October 13
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Private First Class Dew was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Joseph E. Rodewald, 21, of Albany, OR, died October 13
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Rodewald was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Phillip D. Vinnedge, 19, of Saint Charles, MO, died
October 13 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Vinnedge was assigned
to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Cpl Justin J. Cain, 22, of Manitowoc, WI, died October 13
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Corporal Cain was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th
Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Irvin M. Ceniceros, 21, of Clarksville, AR, died
October 14 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Ceniceros was assigned
to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Joseph C. Lopez, 26, of Rosamond, CA, died October 14
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Lopez was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Alec E. Catherwood, 19, of Byron, IL, died October 14
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Catherwood was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Rafael Martinez Jr., 36, of Spring Valley, CA, died
October 14 while conducting combat operations between Moqur
and Darreh-Ye-Bum, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when
insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive
device. Specialist Martinez was assigned to the 7th Squadron,
10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry
Division, Fort Carson, CO.
LCpl James D. Boelk, 24, of Oceanside, CA, died October 15
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Boelk was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Sgt Ian M. Tawney, 25, of Dallas, OR, died October 16 while
conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Sergeant Tawney was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Cpl Jorge Villarreal Jr., 22, of San Antonio, TX, died
October 17 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Corporal Villarreal was assigned to
1st Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Francisco R. Jackson, 24, of Elizabeth, NJ, died
October 19 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Jackson was assigned to
the 1st Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division,
I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSgt Joshua J. Cullins, 28, of Simi Valley, CA, died
October 19 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Cullins was assigned to
the 1st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, 1st Marine
Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
Pendleton, CA.
SPC Ronnie J. Pallares, 19, of Rancho Cucamonga, CA, died
October 23 in Andar district, Ghazni, Afghanistan, of wounds
suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an
improvised explosive device. Specialist Pallares was assigned
to the 27th Engineer Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC.
SSG Aracely Gonzalez O'Malley, 31, of Brawley, CA, died
October 22 at Homburg, Germany, of injuries sustained in a
non combat incident October 12 at Mazar-e Sharif,
Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Gonzalez O'Malley was assigned to
the 307th Integrated Theater Signal Battalion, 516th Signal
Brigade, 311th Signal Command, Schofield Barracks, HI.
SPC Diego A. Solorzano Valdovinos, 24, of Huntington Park,
CA, died October 29 in Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered
when insurgents attacked his unit on October 27 with small
arms fire in the Yahya Khel district in Afghanistan.
Specialist Solorzano Valdovinos was assigned to the 1st
Battalion, 506nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team,
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY.
SPC Brett W. Land, 24, of Wasco, CA, died October 30 in the
Zhari district, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when
insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive
device. Specialist Land was assigned to the 2nd Battalion,
502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY.
LCpl Matthew J. Broehm, 22, of Flagstaff, AZ, died November
4 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Broehm was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Brandon W. Pearson, 21, of Arvada, CO, died November 4
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Pearson was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSgt Jordan B. Emrick, 26, of Hoyleton, IL, died November 5
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Emrick was assigned to the 1st
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, 7th Engineer Support
Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Randy R. Braggs, 21, of Sierra Vista, AZ, died
November 6 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Braggs was assigned to
the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division,
I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
2ndLt Robert M. Kelly, 29, of Tallahassee, FL, died
November 9 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Second Lieutenant Kelly was assigned
to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl James B. Stack, 20, of Arlington Heights, IL, died
November 10 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Stack was assigned to
the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division,
I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSG David P. Senft, 27, of Grass Valley, CA, died November
15 at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained
in a non-combat related incident. Staff Sergeant Senft was
assigned to the 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st
Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air
Assault), Fort Campbell, KY.
LCpl Ardenjoseph A. Buenagua, 19, of San Jose, CA, died
November 24 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Buenagua was assigned
to 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
1stLt William J. Donnelly IV, 27, of Picayune, MS, died
November 25 while conducting combat operations in Helmand
province, Afghanistan. First Lieutenant Donnelly was assigned
to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Matthew W. Ramsey, 20, of Quartz Hill, CA, died
November 29, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, of wounds
suffered when an insurgent attacked his unit with small arms
fire. Specialist Ramsey was assigned to the 1st Squadron,
61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY.
Cpl Chad S. Wade, 22, of Bentonville, AR, died December 1
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Corporal Wade was assigned to the 2nd Battalion,
1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Sgt Matthew T. Abbate, 26, of Honolulu, HI, died December 2
while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Sergeant Abbate was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSG Vincent W. Ashlock, 45, of Seaside, CA, died December 4
in Khost province, Afghanistan, in a non-combat related
incident. Staff Sergeant Ashlock was assigned to the 890th
Engineer Battalion, 168th Engineer Brigade, Lucedale, MS.
Cpl Derek A. Wyatt, 25, of Akron, OH, died December 6 while
conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Corporal Wyatt was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
PFC Colton W. Rusk, 20, of Orange Grove, TX, died December
6 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province,
Afghanistan. Private First Class Rusk was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Sgt Jason D. Peto, 31, of Vancouver, WA, died December 7
from wounds received November 24 while conducting combat
operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Peto
was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
Pendleton, CA.
Iraq
SGT Ryan J. Hopkins, 21, of Livermore, CA, died January 8,
at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, of
injuries sustained in a motor pool accident in Baghdad, Iraq,
on October 4, 2008. At the time of the incident, Sergeant
Hopkins was assigned to the 64th Brigade Support Battalion,
3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson,
Colo. At the time of his death, he was assigned to the
Warrior Transition Unit, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX.
SPC John Carrillo Jr., 20, of Stockton, CA, died September
24 in Fallujah, Iraq, of injuries sustained September 23 in a
non-combat
[[Page S8968]]
incident. Specialist Carrillo was assigned to 3rd Battalion,
15th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd
Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, these heroes, these Americans have
sacrificed and given it all for this Nation. I am humbled by their
service. I am humbled by the service of their families, because this is
a family commitment. I am so proud, along with Senator Burr, to be
cochair of the Military Family Caucus. I pledge to continue what I can
do to make sure that our commitment to our military families is
constant and that we are fulfilling our role to make sure they get
treated with honor and respect and that we lessen their hardships. We
cannot take away the pain of their loss.
I also want to say I am working in every way I can to end this war in
Afghanistan. I support bringing the troops home in 2011. There is some
talk it might be extended another year. I don't support that. As
someone who voted to go after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and go
into Afghanistan, we lost a lot of years because President George W.
Bush turned and focused his attention on the Iraq war, a war I did not
support because I didn't think it was based on truth. It turned out
that it wasn't. History will speak to that. We have been in Afghanistan
a long time and they are going to have to stand up and defend their own
country, as all nations have to do to defend themselves. We have given
so much, and today 52 more California-connected servicemembers since
August 5--that is an ongoing sacrifice.
We heard yesterday about a tragic explosion against NATO forces there
on a headquarters in southern Afghanistan, where we lost six. I support
that withdrawal and doing it in a way that makes sense. We are not
going to do it in 1 day, or 6 months, but we should start it.
Remembering Richard Holbrooke
Connected to that, the second issue I wanted to bring up is the
passing of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke--someone I considered to be a
friend, adviser, a brilliant mind, a warm personality, a man who lived
for his work and his family. It is so ironic, in a sense. I saw him
twice last week because he and his wife had gone to the Kennedy Center
awards. He seemed fine, so engaged, and so well. It was a shock to read
about what happened.
I send my love to his family, his wife, and his children. He will be
missed so much, because he had a very unique approach to diplomacy.
There was a love of what he did that you can't create. When you talked
to him, he engaged you because of his deep commitment and love of his
work, and his understanding that diplomacy is the answer, not war, and
that you had to be tough. As he pointed out, you had to meet with
people you would not want to be in a room with. But he had to do that
as he negotiated the end of the war in Bosnia.
I will miss him both personally and certainly as a member of the
Foreign Relations Committee with the occupant of the Chair.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I want to talk about a couple of other issues, to express my
disappointment that because of an artificial line laid down in the sand
by our colleagues on the other side, they would not vote on a civil
rights matter to end don't ask, don't tell, which is a policy that
makes our Nation weaker, not stronger. It is a policy that brings pain
to so many of our fellow Americans. They have to keep a secret as to
who they are and how they live their life, and that runs counter to
what this country is all about.
The thing is, when you are in the military and you are side by side
and you are in trouble, whether you are gay or straight has nothing to
do with the mission you are facing. There is a very strict code of
conduct in the military that says whoever you are, you cannot abuse
your rights and privileges, whether it is about sexual harassment or
anything else. That is very clear. So we already have a code of conduct
that can apply to everyone.
I was proud that in the survey that was taken, our military said they
didn't think it would harm us in terms of our ability to have a strong
defense. Good for them. I read into the Record a number of cases of
heroes who have been run out of the military because of their sexual
orientation--heroes. A couple of them have been reinstated. The courts
are going to do away with don't ask, don't tell. So I would
rhetorically ask my colleagues: Why on Earth would we leave this to the
courts when we could have the pride in standing for civil rights? It is
unfortunate.
Some on the other side have flip-flopped on this issue and said: Oh,
well, when the military leaders say it is OK, I will be there. But now
they are not. They set the bar every day at a different height. It is
wrong and we should get this done. There was an excuse that, well,
let's do the tax cut first. OK, we did the tax cut. So I am hoping they
will let us go to this and vote on this so we can be proud as Americans
here, across party lines, that we can put aside partisan differences
when it comes to civil rights.
I was watching a TV special on the civil rights law that passed in
1964, and the beautiful part of it was the coming together of the
parties, at the end of the day, on an issue that was so right for this
country. I hope we can do this again. I just hope we can do this again.
If not, I say to the courts: Do the right thing. You are doing it, but
keep it up, because we are not any stronger as a Nation, we are weaker,
when incredibly talented, dedicated, patriotic Americans are turned
away for absolutely no reason.
DREAM Act
I wished to talk about that as well as the DREAM Act--another area
where this country is made stronger. This act focuses on a child who
may have been brought here by their parents. Their parents broke the
law, brought a child here, say, at 3 or 4 months, and the child grows
up and doesn't even know they do not have their papers until they get
to be 18 years old. This is their country. They love their country. A
lot of them are presidents of their student body. Since when do we pin
the crimes of the parents on a child? We don't do that here. Again,
what are we gaining? We are losing.
So the DREAM Act, which started off with huge bipartisan support,
suddenly has gotten to the place where don't ask, don't tell has
gotten, where we are moving away from justice. Everybody has their
reason--oh, it can't be part of the military bill. If it is not part of
the military bill, they say: Why isn't it part of the military bill? It
seems to be a moving bar.
I read about this big meeting called ``No Labels,'' where people got
together and said we are tired of the two parties not working together.
It was sort of interesting because it was on the day when the two
parties did work together and we got over 80 votes for a tax bill. But
be that as it may, let's set that aside, here are two issues that have
nothing to do with partisan politics because they are good for the
country--they help our young people and they make sure people can serve
in the military if they are qualified and their sexual orientation
essentially has nothing to do with it. We have a chance to come
together for the good of the country on these things.
9/11 Heroes
I still hold out hope that we can do that, and we can also take care
of those heroes of 9/11 who went to that toxic pile in New York and
looked for the survivors and then looked for remains and breathed in
that toxic air, which in those days the EPA said was safe. Well, it
wasn't safe, and now they are sick. Yet we can't seem to get the votes
to help them. But I don't give up. I think we can do this. So let's
work together on all these things.
Transportation
Another area where we have been able to work together in the past--
and where I hope we will continue to work together--is the
Transportation bill. We usually enact our highway trust fund programs
for about 4, 5 or 6 years at a time. The last time we extended it for 1
year, and now the extension is ending. So we need to extend again the
existing transportation authorization. I am optimistic on this one
because in the House it didn't seem controversial. They added it to the
continuing resolution and extended it to the end of fiscal year 2011.
September 30 is the date.
It is important to note that 900,000 jobs nationwide depend on this
highway trust fund and the reauthorization of it and all those
programs--with 85,000 jobs in my home State of California. It is very
important we do this work, whether it is through an omnibus budget or
through the continuing resolution, however it ends up.
[[Page S8969]]
This is an area again where the political parties have come together.
My ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and I have been working very closely on
this and we support this extension. It has the support of the members
of the Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition--and I will name
some of them: The American Public Transportation Association, the
American Road and Transportation Builders, the Associated Equipment
Distributors, the Associated General Contractors, the Society of Civil
Engineers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers
International, the National Asphalt Paving Association, National Stone,
Sand & Gravel, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Listen, that is quite a group. When you have unions and you have the
employers and you have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--which is negative
on so many things, unfortunately, but positive on this--that is a good
matchup.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the letter from the Americans for Transportation Mobility.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Americans for Transportation
Mobility,
Washington, DC, December 8, 2010.
To the Members of the United States Congress: The Americans
for Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition strongly urges
you to extend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) as
well as expenditure authority for the Highway Trust Fund
through the end of FY2011 as included in H.R. 3082, the
``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.'' While
the Coalition continues to support Congressional efforts to
enact a well-funded, long-term surface transportation bill,
the absence of such a bill makes this extension essential to
creating and sustaining jobs and maintaining America's
transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, this extension
provides much needed certainty for the construction industry,
states, and localities as they plan for the 2011 construction
season.
SAFETEA-LU expired last September and has since been
operating on a series of short- term extensions--the latest
of which expires at the end of this month. The uncertainty
created by the lack of a multi-year federal commitment to
improving America's highway and public transportation
facilities is contributing to a slowdown in transportation
development activity in many states. The jobs impact of this
situation has rippled throughout the economy. Workers at
design and engineering firms, construction companies,
equipment manufacturers, and materials providers have lost
their jobs and even more positions are on the line due to
uncertainty in federal funding, at a time in which the U.S.
unemployment rate remains at record highs.
Congress must not delay in passing a robust, multi-year
highway and transit reauthorization in the 112th Congress.
While reauthorization entails a host of challenging policy
and revenue issues, this effort should be viewed as a key
opportunity to move U.S. infrastructure into the 21st
century, bolster economic recovery efforts, and improve all
Americans' way of life. If local, state, and national leaders
continue to ignore this important issue, commerce will
suffer, fatalities will rise, congestion and pollution will
grow unabated, and the United States will find itself further
and further behind its rapidly expanding international
competitors.
To help prevent further job loss and ensure vital
transportation investments continue, the ATM Coalition
strongly urges you to extend SAFETEA-LU and expenditure
authority for the Highway Trust Fund through the end of
fiscal year 2011.
Sincerely,
Americans for Transportation
Mobility.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this extension will save jobs not only
in the short term, but it gives certainty to our States. We know our
Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems need to be in good
repair.
I will say this: With the construction industry still in a downturn,
it is tough for them because of the housing crisis. Construction jobs
are few and far between, and we have a very high unemployment rate in
the construction industry. This extension is important. It gives
certainty. It will save hundreds of thousands of jobs, it will improve
our infrastructure, and provide that foundation we need for a solid
recovery. So I look forward to taking that up.
The last topic I wished to talk about--and I ask how much time
remains in my 25 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
The last topic I wish to talk about is my vote yesterday to move
forward on a tax bill, the framework of which was sent to us by
President Obama. There were negotiations with our Republican colleagues
and then one very important addition was made to the bill. Many of us
in the Senate wanted that--and I am grateful for that addition--and it
was the 1603 program, which is critical to our clean energy businesses
and will result in tens of thousands of jobs.
This will allow companies that are moving forward with solar, wind,
and geothermal projects--clean energy projects--to essentially get a
tax credit up front. That is essential because there are a lot of plans
on the drawing board. If this hadn't been renewed, we would have lost
those plans, and we would have lost those jobs. So I am very pleased
about that.
So much has been said about this tax bill, and I don't know that I am
going to say anything that is going to add to the debate, but I wished
to lay out some of what compelled me to vote yes to move that bill
forward. It is kind of summed up in a San Jose Mercury News editorial,
where they say:
More than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle-
and lower-income families through tax cuts, tax credits for
working families, and unemployment insurance.
That is the San Jose Mercury News. One could quibble that maybe it is
50 percent, more than 50 percent or maybe 60 percent, but the fact is,
this bill will be a help to the middle class.
When I was a kid in school, we had a big lecture on how a bill
becomes a law, and it sounds so easy. You start in a subcommittee in
one House or the other, the subcommittee marks up the bill, the full
committee marks up the bill and then it goes to the other House and
they do it. If there are differences, they all meet happily in a
conference and chat a little bit, they find the differences and resolve
them and the bill then goes to the White House. The President either
signs the bill and everybody celebrates or he vetoes it and you have to
get three-quarters of the Chambers to override.
It doesn't exactly work that way in real life. In real life--which
you can't explain in a textbook--the different parties bring different
passions to the table, and those passions are held deeply. If I tell
you where I see the passion coming from on either side, it is my view.
There is no science to this, it is just my view. But I think the
passion the Democrats brought to the table was that we needed to make
sure, first and foremost, the people who have been desperately hurt by
this slow economic recovery aren't left in the lurch for the next year.
Because technically, even though the recession has ended in terms of
GDP growth, the fact is, it is a very painful, agonizingly slow
recovery that is going on. Yes, jobs are being created--up to now about
900,000 since January--but it is not enough to make up for the millions
of jobs that were lost in the recession. So it is painfully slow, and
we are worried about it.
So we brought that passion we had to make sure middle-class families
who lost their jobs didn't lose everything else--they didn't lose their
homes, didn't lose the ability to send their kids to school, and they
have this bridge of unemployment insurances, which, by the way, they
pay for. They have to be actually looking for work in order to get it.
That is the passion we brought to the table.
The other passion was to make sure the middle class didn't get a tax
increase. We were passionate on that point, and we wanted tax credits
for businesses that resulted in jobs. Those were the passions we
brought to the table.
I think it is fair to say the passions the Republicans brought to the
table were to help make sure the very wealthiest got taken care of in
any deal. Why do I say that? It is a fact in evidence. Their
nonnegotiable terms included the extension of the tax cuts to
billionaires and millionaires. That was it. Passionate. Passionate.
Just as we were passionate about helping the middle class, they were
passionate on this point, and they were passionate--and they have
been--about the largest estates in America. A lot of them don't even
think estates ought to be in any way taxed.
In America, for many years, we have had what I would call an ethic
that this American dream is crucial. We want everyone to have it. We
are proud
[[Page S8970]]
when people get to be multimillionaires and billionaires. But we have a
Defense Department to run, we have an education system to help, we have
roads to be build, our national security costs money, our domestic
security costs money. Social Security has to be taken care of, people
pay into the system, and health care--therefore, we believed for years,
and it was bipartisan, that for the wealthiest estates to have an
estate tax was something that worked.
Frankly, somebody who inherits, let's say, a $7 million estate from
their parents, they are going to be OK. By the way, that is a very
small percentage. Democrats believe 99 percent of estates would not
have any tax under our plan. But Republicans were passionate about
this. They wanted a $10 million estate, and they wanted a lower tax
rate.
Were I to write the book, ``How A Bill Becomes A Law,'' I would have
a different way of writing it. I would say: Technically, this is what
happens to get it to the President, to get the bill. But what you need
to know is what the passions are. I think at the end of the day both
sides could come away with this, saying what we felt passionate about
in this bill was good.
The one thing that was not addressed in this bill is the deficit. A
lot of us on both sides are passionate about that. But I think at the
end of the day there was a decision, perhaps not voiced but certainly
understood, that this is a stimulus bill, and we are going to have to
do serious deficit reduction. Anyone who thinks we will not have to pay
the piper for these tax cuts is living in another world. Of course we
are. The question is, Do we do it now or do we do it when this economy
truly turns around?
Then there will be another passionate debate about who is going to
help solve the deficit. I have a feeling you are going to see the same
thing. The Democrats are going to say: The middle class are not
responsible for this; let's look to the upper income. Our Republican
friends are going to say: It is class warfare. Don't look to the
wealthy.
We are going to have this battle again. But I voted for this bill
because I think our economy continues to be in a fragile state when it
comes to job growth, and I think we had to move forward on this. I am
glad we did because this has been the worst recession since the Great
Depression.
I hate to remind people of what it was like, but when George Bush was
President, he came to us with Hank Paulson, then-Secretary of the
Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, and they said to us: This economy is going
to collapse. Nobody is lending. Capital is frozen. We are in desperate
shape.
I have to tell you when the stock market went down--at one point it
was almost 50 percent down--those were tough times. We took many steps
to get this economy back on track. I have to say things have
stabilized.
Since January 10 we have added 937,000 jobs to this economy. But
because 8 million jobs were lost in this great recession, that is just
not enough. The President knows this. That is why he knew he needed to
come to us with a framework that basically said we are not going to put
a burden on the middle class. They have suffered enough. He had to
swallow hard to do things that we know he did not want to do.
I will reiterate what the San Jose Mercury News said:
More than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle-
and lower-income families.
That is an important point.
I have talked about the importance of the extension of unemployment
benefits. In my State of California more than 400,000 workers will lose
their UI benefits by the end of December, 2 million workers nationwide.
I have to say Mark Zandi, who was one of John McCain's top advisers,
clearly says when you extend unemployment benefits, you get the best
bang for the buck.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 more minutes, and then I will stop.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. This tax bill I voted on will help our working families.
There is a 2-percent cut in payroll taxes. I know some say: Is that
going to hurt Social Security? We have a statement from the executive
vice president of the AARP, the Association of Retired Persons, saying
the proposal has no financial impact on Social Security because the
trust fund is made whole. That is critical. When we had the
administration at our caucus we made sure of that.
There is the extension of the child tax credit from the Recovery Act,
the earned-income tax credit, the childcare tax credit, there is
education relief and refundable tax credits for college, again, those
clean energy incentives which were critical, the 1603 provisions, job
creation tax incentives, R&D tax credit, bonus depreciation, veterans
work, opportunity credit, small business capital gains exclusion.
In closing, do I feel passionate that the people who earn over $1
million do not need a tax cut? You bet I do. I am passionate. To me, to
add to a deficit while we are in two wars to help people when so many
of them say don't even do this--we had a letter put in the Record from
90 millionaires saying this is ridiculous.
I am passionate about that. That fight will go on. Frankly, it is a
disagreement between the two parties. That is fine. We cannot be
expected to agree on everything. But I think moving ahead with this was
very important. Most economic forecasters estimate the legislation will
increase GDP growth, and I think that is critical at this time. My
State is struggling with 12.4 percent unemployment, and I did not agree
with two major provisions--the estate tax, which is a giveaway to
estates over $10 million, and it is a giveaway to the wealthiest few.
It adds to the deficit because of that, and there is no reason to do
it.
But on the whole I think this is something we should do, and I look
forward to getting it done so maybe my colleagues on the other side
will join us as we finish up a whole list of things we need to do
before we leave for the holidays.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to say I think the
President of the United States and our Senate minority leader, Mitch
McConnell, have done a great job. As I hear the talking heads and the
pundits and others talk about this compromise, this way forward, I am
sure of it because no one is completely happy with it. People who think
we should have a death tax are not happy with this bill. People who
think, as I do, the unemployment provision goes too far, is not paid
for and should have been are on the other side.
But we are now faced with a choice. Are we going to allow the taxes
for every single individual in our country who pays taxes to go up on
January 1? We could talk all day about how we should have addressed
this much earlier. Yes, that is true. But we are where we are. It is
now mid-December, and it is long past time when we should have told the
American people--every family, every business in this country--what the
tax policy is going to be for 2 years.
I come here with a business background. I wish more of my colleagues
had real business experience because sometimes when I hear the
academics and the talking heads talk about what we ought to do--some
say: Let's just wait. We can do this better next year. Are you kidding
me? Have you ever been in the real world trying to make a decision
about whether you can add one more piece of machinery to your factory
floor and hire people to run it? You are not going to make the decision
if you do not know what your commitments are going to be in taxes and
in the health care bill that is looming before every business in this
country.
Not only did I come from a business background, but I talk to
business people throughout my State. They are not hiring. Two-thirds of
the jobs in this country are created by small business. That is exactly
what we should all hope for. We don't want jobs to be created in the
government sector. That is a cost you cannot recoup. We need to cut
down on government sector jobs and make sure people in the private
sector are working because this is how to build a strong and vibrant
economy.
As I mentioned, two-thirds of private-sector jobs are in small
business, and small businesspeople are operating,
[[Page S8971]]
generally, at low margins. They are not hiring people when they are
seeing estimates on the cost to them of the health care bill enacted
this year, including estimates that their taxes are going to go up next
year. At every level, taxes will go up if we do not pass this tax bill
this year.
Capital gains and dividends are going to go up. Seniors have saved
their lifetimes to be able to retire, and they know they cannot live on
Social Security. Social Security was never meant to be a complete
retirement plan. It was meant to be a cushion, a help with savings that
would allow people to maintain a standard of living.
Talk to seniors today who have saved, and they are not earning one
penny on their savings. They certainly are not going to do well if we
raise the tax on capital gains and dividends. What are we thinking? To
raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, that is the level that
allows many seniors to live at a decent standard.
What about the tax rate? Every person who pays taxes faces an
increase on January 1 if we do not pass this bill because they would go
into a higher bracket, and face a higher rate at each level.
Let's go back to small business. NFIB, the National Federation of
Independent Business, which is the largest small business organization
in America, says 75 percent of the small businesses in this country are
taxed at individual rates. If their taxes go up it will present a
barrier to their being able to plan for the future and hire.
People in business want predictability and stability. That is why
having at least 2 years is so very important. Doing it now so they can
plan for next year is so very important because they are looking for
predictability.
If I had written this bill with nobody else's opinions, I would have
made them permanent because I know small business would much rather
have certainty for 10 years of what is going to happen, or at least 5
years. But I did not get to write it by myself--neither did Senator
McConnell, or the President.
We have all sponsored bills to make the tax cuts permanent because we
want jobs to be created in the private sector knowing these are the
good jobs of the future that can be sustained and grow our economy. If
we allow these tax cuts to expire, the marriage penalty is going to
come back. The marriage penalty is my amendment that was put into the
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. My amendment was to relieve the marriage
tax. A policeman and a schoolteacher who marry go into a higher bracket
just because they got married, not because they increased their
incomes. That is wrong. Two schoolteachers who marry would go into a
higher bracket, but the marriage penalty relief bill I sponsored
relieves them to the greatest extent. It doubles the standard deduction
instead of paring it back, and that is what we need to have.
What about the AMT? The AMT relief in this bill goes to the very
lowest income earners in this country.
If we do not pass this bill, 21 million American taxpayers will have
to pay an alternative minimum tax because the government says they are
not paying enough. Now, I think it is a fair question--at what point
does the AMT kick in? Today, the AMT kicks in for a single person who
makes $33,000 and a married couple who makes $45,000. If we don't pass
this bill through this Congress and let the President sign it, a
married couple making $45,000 will have to pay the alternative minimum
tax.
Our bill gives relief. The bill that is on the floor gives relief so
that the exemption from the AMT would go up to $72,000 for a married
couple before the alternative minimum tax kicks in and to $47,000 for a
single payer.
So the bottom line is, if you think a single person making $33,000
ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax, then I cannot explain
it to you. I do not think a single person making $33,000 should be
subject to an alternative minimum tax because they are not paying
enough tax. The AMT relief in the bill will push it up to a level that
is more reasonable--$47,000 for a single person and $72,000 for a
married couple.
The estate tax relief--I think this is a significant advance for the
real world. Again, for small businesspeople, farmers, and ranchers, a
$1 million exemption will force farmers and small businesspeople whose
equipment is valued at more than it can produce to sell--what happens
is that the heirs to that estate will have to sell the equipment or the
business or part of the farm or all of the farm to pay taxes to the
government. And the irony is that the money in an inheritance tax is
money that has been taxed and taxed and taxed again. People pay taxes
on their earnings, people pay taxes on their profits in a business,
they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings.
The death tax does not make sense in the American dream because we
have always said this is a country where you can work hard and give
your children the fruits of your labor. But because of the death tax,
family businesses are cut by 50 percent in this country because heirs
have to sell the business to pay the taxes. That does not affect just
the family; it affects the people who work for the family business.
I want to keep the American dream alive. I think the inheritance tax
should be done away with completely because it is money that has
already been taxed; it has been taxed in the system again and again and
again. Every time something is earned, you pay a tax. So there is no
policy reason for a death tax.
I did not get to write the bill by myself, and neither did Senator
McConnell. We would have made estate tax relief permanent. But it is
not going to be permanent, and it is not going away. It is going to be
a 2-year extension, with a $5 million exemption and a 35-percent rate
after that.
I believe this bill provides some relief and helps people to plan for
their estates. I hope we can make it permanent so people will be able
to plan into the far future so that their small business, their farm,
their ranch can be held by their heirs and keep the jobs those family-
owned businesses have produced.
So I think it is important, when we get down to the bottom line--do
we pass this bill or not?--that there are alternatives. We could say:
You know what, I want to write it differently. Let's wait until next
year.
First of all, if we do that and we open up what I think is a very
balanced approach, then we are going to talk about this a whole lot
longer. It is going to take a while, and in the meantime people are not
going to be hired because small businesses will not know what their tax
liabilities are going to be, and we will not have this settled, these
concerns for at least 2 years.
Next, we can work on long-term tax reform. I thought the fiscal
commission that just reported had some very good ideas for tax reform
where everyone would pay more of a flat tax. It would be slightly
higher at the higher levels, bring in more revenue at the higher levels
and lower the tax on everyone. It would bring in more because it would
be simpler and more fair. I think we ought to look at that. We may need
to make changes in one way or another, but it was a good starting
place. But if we wait until next year to pass a bill, we are going to
throw this economy into upheaval, and we will certainly not create the
jobs that are the motivation behind this agreement.
The President and the Republicans agreed on one thing; that is, the
goal should be to spur the economy and create jobs. How we get there,
we have differences, but at least there are some parts on both ends
that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the
small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of the jobs so
that they can start hiring. That should be the dispositive part of the
decision we all need to make to vote for this bill.
You would have written it differently, Madam President, I would have
written it differently, the President would have written it
differently, and so would Senator McConnell, if we were the king and
queen of America. Fortunately, we are in a democracy, not a monarchy,
so we cannot have everything exactly the way we want it. This is a good
start.
Let me end by suggesting that once we make this decision--and I hope
we will make the decision to move forward, and I hope the House will
join us--then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for 2 years. People
will know what they are going to owe for 2 years, and they will be able
to start making plans on that.
[[Page S8972]]
But the argument that is being made--that this is going to add more
in the deficit--does need to be addressed, and once this bill is
passed, we must get about the business of cutting overall spending by
this government. And that is not just the discretionary part, which is
a minor part of our budget, it is also the entitlements. What can we do
to make the entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to
pay for them in a reasonable economy? We must get the debt down, we
must get the deficit down, and we have to concentrate on that if we put
the tax cuts to bed.
One of the things we need to address is the implementation of this
health care bill, which is the other factor in jobs not being created
right now. I hope we can repeal what we have passed and start all over
so that the businesspeople know that what we passed is not going to
work. It is going to be in the courts for a long time because of the
constitutional issues.
Let's go about planning for a health care reform that doesn't put the
fines and the penalties on businesses and individuals. Let's give them
options so that affordable health care is there for them. We don't have
to do that with a hammer; we can do it with options that are incentives
for people to get health insurance because it will be affordable. Let
them make choices for what fits their family, not a big, government-
prescribed one-size-fits-all.
Let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cut the
spending and cut the debt and cut the deficit.
Let's set some parameters around extending unemployment so that more
people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable for
people to start giving back to the community if they are able-bodied
and have been unemployed for 2 years and more.
If we are creative and we work together, we can do this. But tearing
this package apart and saying: Well, I want it all my way, means we are
not going to have the stability and predictability that will create
jobs starting next year. That is our stated goal on both sides. I hope
the Members of the House will realize that anything we do next year is
going to have to be with a Democratically controlled Senate and a
Republican-controlled House, and that means everything is not going to
be our way.
I would not have written this agreement exactly this way, and neither
would Senator McConnell. I am sure the President would not either. But
Senator McConnell and the President have done what leaders need to do:
they have come together on a bill that will move this country forward,
and it will not increase taxes on anyone who is paying taxes today. How
can anyone believe it will be good for the economy of our country to
raise taxes in a recession?
I am sure we are going to hear a lot of debate on this floor about
what individual Senators would have done differently, but the bottom
line is, this Senate will overwhelmingly pass this package.
I hope that when all of the debate is finished, this bill will be
signed by the President and we will move forward in a joint effort to
reduce the debt of this country, as adult leaders should do. That
should be our goal for the next 2 years, as we now have settled the tax
cut issue. Hopefully, we will go with a vengeance against the debt and
some reform in the entitlement programs. We can do it. It will not be
easy, but it can be done. That is why we ran for these offices--to be
the leaders when our country needs leadership.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Richard Holbrooke
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night I was at home and received a
message on my BlackBerry that Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had died. I
felt very sad about that. He was such a nice man. He was the epitome in
his dealings with me of a gentleman. Everyone who worked with him knew
how hard he worked. I join many thousands of people who mourn the
passing of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a champion diplomat and my
personal friend.
Ambassador Holbrooke dedicated his entire life to foreign service, to
keeping America safe through tough, sensible diplomacy. I will miss
him, his friendship, his counsel. Our Nation will miss his tireless
leadership and steady guidance of our foreign policy.
I had the opportunity to work with him closely on a number of
occasions during my tenure as majority leader. I appreciated our many
conversations as insights into the central national security issues of
the day. The world bears the imprints of Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts
to bring peace and security to places torn by violence and conflict.
From his early days in the Foreign Service to his leadership
negotiating the Dayton Accords to latest efforts at stabilizing
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Holbrooke was always at the center
of the toughest security challenges of a given era.
America is safer and more respected around the world because of
Richard Holbrooke. Our Nation mourns his passing. I offer my
condolences to his family and loved ones during this most difficult
time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tributes to Retiring Senators
Kit Bond
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my old friend,
Kit Bond, a man who has dedicated the better part of four decades to
public service, and who has never failed in all those years to put the
people of Missouri ahead of himself.
As Kit puts it:
Serving Missouri has been my life's work. . . . I have
walked the land, fished its rivers and been humbled by the
honesty and hard work of our people. The highest honor is to
receive and safeguard the public trust.
But Kit also knew when to leave the field to somebody else. As he put
it in his retirement announcement last year before a packed Missouri
House Chamber:
In 1973, I became Missouri's youngest governor. . . . I do
not aspire to become Missouri's oldest senator.
It may have been the one ambition Kit did not pursue.
Born in St. Louis, Kit is a sixth generation Missourian. He grew up
in Mexico, MO, where his grandfather founded the A.P. Green Fire Brick
Company, the largest employer in town. Kit and Linda still call Mexico
home.
Kit has always been an overachiever. He graduated cum laude from
Princeton University and first in his class from the University of
Virginia School of Law. After that, he moved to Atlanta to clerk for
one of the great pioneers of the civil rights movement, Judge Elbert
Tuttle of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
After that, Kit went home to Missouri to practice law. In 1968, he
ran for Congress and lost, but he did not lose his taste for politics.
A year later, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General, where he ran
the Consumer Protection Division under Attorney General John Danforth.
The future Senate colleagues would become close friends, political
allies, and dominant figures in Missouri politics for more than a
generation.
In 1969, Kit was elected State auditor, and in 1972, at the tender
age of 33, he was elected as the youngest Governor in the history of
Missouri, and its first Republican Governor in 32 years. It was an
extraordinary achievement, followed by an equally extraordinary series
of events. Four years after winning the seat, he lost it to a Democrat
named Joe Teasdale. But 4 years after that, he won it back from the
same guy.
As Governor, one of Kit's greatest accomplishments was working with
the Democratic legislature to take the Parents as Teachers pilot
program statewide--a program that was designed to help parents prepare
their children for the classroom and help them score higher on
standardized tests.
As a young father and Governor, Kit saw how important the program was
for his own son Sam. ``As a parent
[[Page S8973]]
looking for an `owner's manual' to care for a new baby,'' Kit said,
``[Parents for Teachers] was my lifeline.'' So in 1984, Kit signed a
bill requiring all Missouri school districts to provide Parents as
Teachers services.
Since its inception in the mid-1980s, this program has been immensely
successful and helpful to parents all across Missouri, serving 3
million children in the State. Today, the Parents as Teachers program
includes 3,000 programs and has expanded to all 50 States and seven
countries.
As Governor, Kit was also a strong advocate for biotechnology and the
expansion of community health centers to underserved areas.
After his success as a two-term Governor, Kit decided to follow his
former boss, Senator Jack Danforth, to Washington. He won his first
term with 53 percent of the vote, becoming the only Republican that
year to capture a seat previously held by a Democrat. For the last 24
years, Kit has been a leader of this body.
There is no stronger advocate for the men and women of our Armed
Forces than Kit Bond. He has worked hard to ensure that our Nation's
veterans get the care they need and deserve. He has become an expert on
Southeast Asian affairs, last year coauthoring a book on Southeast Asia
and Islam entitled ``The Next Front: Southeast Asia and the Road to
Global Peace with Islam.'' ``It is not difficult to convince a senator
to write a book,'' Kit said. ``The hard part is convincing people to
read it.''
The Senate is indebted to Kit for his service as vice chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has worked tirelessly to
conduct responsible oversight of our Nation's intelligence community.
He worked closely with former Chairman Rockefeller and our current
chair, Dianne Feinstein. In doing so, they showed all of us the
importance of working together in a bipartisan fashion on matters of
national security.
Kit was instrumental in the passage of the Protect America Act and
the subsequent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act of 2008.
He worked tirelessly behind the scenes and across the aisle to combat
widespread misinformation about these bills.
Regarding the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Kit said:
There is nothing to fear in [this] bill, unless you have Al
Qaeda on your speed dial.
Over the years, Kit worked hard to improve Missouri's transportation
and infrastructure. Legend has it that his staunch protection of
Missouri's highway funds even led to a physical altercation one day
with our former colleague, Senator Moynihan. The details are a little
murky with the passage of time, and Pat denied it ever happened. But
Kit claims to have been the last Senator to be ``slugged'' on the
Senate floor. The rest of us learned an important lesson that day:
Don't mess with Missouri's highway funding.
I think anyone who knows Kit well will tell you the last 10 years
have been some of the happiest for him. Linda has made Kit a new man. I
understand she has improved his diet, his fitness routine, and, thank
heavens, his wardrobe. He has proudly watched his son Sam stand up and
defend the Nation Kit has served his entire life. First Lieutenant Bond
served two tours in Iraq, the last as a scout-sniper platoon leader,
where he conducted close reconnaissance and surveillance operations in
order to gain intelligence on the enemy. We all thank him for his
courage and his sacrifice in defending our freedom and security.
Now, I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge another one of
Kit's loved ones--his dog Tiger, who has become sort of a YouTube
celebrity around here. Tiger is, of course, named after Kit's beloved
University of Missouri Tigers, and her favorite past time is lying
under Kit's desk and destroying a stuffed University of Kansas Jayhawk.
Tiger may not be the kind of dog one would imagine for the vice
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Even Kit admits she is a
little bit of a froufrou pet. But in Tiger's defense, Kit likes to
point out that the last time she saw FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, she would
not stop barking. Chairman Bair has not one but two degrees from the
University of Kansas. ``I think she sniffed it out,'' Bond said.
Kit has had a tremendous career in public service. He has been
elected seven times in Missouri from State auditor to his four terms in
the Senate--more than anyone else in the history of the Show-Me State.
Looking back, Kit says his political adversaries kept him nimble, and
the media kept him humble. Whatever the formula, Kit has been an
outstanding Senator, and we will miss him terribly. I am sure it is
hard for Missourians to imagine Kit outside of office. It is no easier
for his colleagues to imagine the Senate without Kit. As his fourth
term draws to a close, history will show he has served the people of
Missouri and the people of this Nation with passion, honor, and
integrity. He will be missed.
Let me just add, back in the mid-1980s, I started off in the very
last seat back there, and then, 2 years later--these were not great
years for Republicans. We had two freshmen my first year, and two
freshmen 2 years later, Senator Bond and Senator McCain. So seniority
being what it is in the Senate, I got to move out of the very last
chair, moving over two more chairs, and Bond and McCain came back there
and joined us.
We were such power players in those days, we referred to ourselves as
the ``Not Quite Ready for Prime Time Players.''
But I must say to my friend from Missouri, you have come a long way
from those early days. You have made an enormous difference in the
Senate, and we will all miss you greatly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Thank you, Leader McConnell, for your very kind and
generous words.
Since I announced I was not running for reelection, I have been
overwhelmed by the nice things folks have been saying about me. There
is nothing like being eulogized while you are still breathing. But to
my good friend Mitch, it has been a long time since we sat back in the
corner as the ``Not Quite Ready for Prime Time Players,'' but while I
never made it to prime time, except, of course, one appearance as a
very less-than-best-selling author on the ``Jon Stewart Show,'' you
certainly have arrived.
You have led us through many difficult and protracted debates.
Through all of it, you have been an agile, disciplined, and courteous
negotiator, with a good sense of humor. You kept us together on many
tough votes, at least as much as is possible to keep 40-something
different, independent minds all together or, as I like to say, 40
frogs in a wheelbarrow. But I thank you, Mitch. While I have
occasionally caused you heartburn--I realize that--I have always
appreciated your intelligence, your leadership, and your friendship.
You and Elaine are very close friends of Linda and myself, and we wish
you both the very best for the future.
Farewell to the Senate
Two years ago I announced my retirement from the Senate, and that
time has come. I have to begin by thanking all my colleagues and my
constituents for making this job one of the best a person could hold.
There is no greater honor than being given the trust of the people at
home to represent them. I have done my best to keep faith with my
constituents on every vote I have cast and every issue on which I have
worked.
Through more than two decades of membership in this world's greatest
deliberative body--sometimes delaying body--I have participated in my
share of debates. When I first came to the Senate, the Cold War was a
conflict some thought we would never win. Thanks to the courage and
resolve of former President Ronald Reagan, millions of people now live
in freedom. During this last term especially, it seems many debates
will have history-shaping consequences.
America has faced many challenges in the past 6 years: the longest
recession since the Great Depression, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the
continuing battle against terrorism, the fight to be competitive in a
global economy, and many more. As I look back, the successes we have
achieved during my time here have come because people of good will were
willing to work across the aisle for the common good of our Nation.
As I address the floor today, I am filled with memories of the many
colleagues with whom I have worked over the years. One stands out in my
memory--the one who was my best friend
[[Page S8974]]
and mentor in the Senate, who took me under his wing and treated me and
my family as close friends, and that, of course, is the late Senator
Ted Stevens. He was unflagging in his support of his principles, and
everyone clearly knew where he stood. Yet he was a very effective
appropriator because he knew how to compromise. I can only hope my
colleagues and constituents know where I stand, and I, too, know that
working across the aisle is the only way to get things done in this
body.
Right after I arrived, I had the pleasure of working with the late
Senator Robert Byrd, who achieved the acid rain trading compromise and
passed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. I also joined with former
Senator Wendell Ford to establish a National Guard caucus, and now it
is a pleasure to work with Pat Leahy to ensure that our dual-mission
National Guard is adequately prepared to serve emergency needs on the
homefront and participate in our national security issues abroad.
On the Appropriations Committee, I have enjoyed the successes I have
had working first with Barbara Mikulski and now Dianne Feinstein to
ensure that public housing meets the needs of the people it is supposed
to serve and the communities in which they live, providing supportive
assistance for the homeless--particularly veterans--and stopping lead
paint poisoning of children in old public housing buildings across the
Nation. Barbara and I also gave a boost to what I believe will be the
job-creating technology of the 21st century: agricultural
biotechnology. We did that with congressionally directed spending in
the National Science Foundation budget.
With Senator Dianne Feinstein as chair of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, we have put, I believe, the Senate Intelligence
Committee back on a path of bipartisanship and achieved passage of the
first Intelligence Act Reauthorization in 6 years.
I especially owe my Republican colleagues my sincerest thanks and
appreciation for sticking with me as we negotiated our way through some
tough compromises, such as the fights we have had on FISA. But when the
Help America Vote Act came to the Senate floor in 2001, ostensibly to
cure problems with punchcard voting in Florida but which most of us
Republicans thought was an effort to discredit the election of former
President Bush, I urged my colleagues not to block the bill but to use
it, not only to make it easier to vote but tougher to cheat. When we
moved to the floor, I brought to the Senate floor a picture of a
springer spaniel, Ritsy Meckler, who had been registered to vote in St.
Louis, MO, to make the point that if we had positive identification, it
would have been much more difficult for Ritsy to register or certainly
to vote. My friend, Chris Dodd, with whom I had worked on many children
and family issues and who worked with us on the HAVA Act, told me he
never wanted to see a picture of that dog again, so I autographed the
picture and gave it to him. I trust he still has it in his trusted
memory box.
Right now we are engaged on the Senate floor in passing a bill that
will stop historic tax increases from hitting most American families
and the entire economy next year. I truly hope the House will be able
to pass a bill for signature by President Obama so we can begin getting
the economy to work again and preventing even more job losses. Assuming
we can do it, the new Congress has to put our economy back on a sound
footing. We must end the recent trend of the push for government
overspending and passing the burdensome mandates on States and the
private sector. Excessive regulations that go beyond reasonable safety
and environmental restrictions are costing us jobs in agriculture,
energy, and many other areas of the economy, and stopping badly needed
developments that we in this country need.
The size of the debt has become an increasing concern for my
constituents and others across the Nation. We have a debt problem that
is caused by spending, not by having taxes too low. I am encouraged to
see there has been more discussion of having a flat tax with lower
rates, eliminating a wide range of deductions, credits, and other tax
bill earmarks. Doing so would make it easier for all of us, as
Americans, to fill out tax forms, eliminating the time and effort of
figuring them out, and I think it should enable us to put more of those
resources into what we need, our top priority: job creation.
Speaking of job creation, I think there are tremendous opportunities
in export trade. I applaud President Obama's call for expanding trade
to create jobs. I look forward to seeing his continued leadership and
to seeing Congress move forward promptly to adopt the trade agreements
with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. For our intermediate-term future, it
is essential the United States participate in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership with countries on both sides of the Pacific to take down
barriers to trade and increase export job opportunities.
As most of my colleagues know, I have been particularly interested in
expanding trade with Southeast Asia, which I believe is not well
understood by too many Americans. But the entire Asian region, however,
provides huge opportunities for better American jobs through trade and
investment across the Pacific.
In addition to expanding economic growth and jobs, trade is also an
important element in SmartPower, the fight against terrorist
insurgencies threatening other countries and ultimately those of us
here at home. As I mentioned in the book the leader was kind enough to
speak of, we can and must use trade, investment, and education
interchanges to build strong economies as a necessary step as we use
military action to stop imminent, violent threats. The combination can
make stronger, stabler allies.
I think SmartPower was no better demonstrated than in the efforts of
the Missouri National Guard Development team in Nangarhar Province in
Afghanistan. These military-trained Guard men and women went to
Afghanistan with strong private sector expertise in a wide range of
agriculture activities and helped reestablish a profitable, legitimate
agriculture in Agatha, while they were maintaining security.
By the end of the first 10-month growing season, illicit poppy
production had dropped to zero in Agatha, which had been the second
leading poppy producer in the Nation. I think we have to expand that
model with more National Guard units deployed but also a better
coordination of not only our military forces overseas but civilian
assistance that must go with them. We must continue our efforts to
avoid giving al-Qaida and its related terrorist allies an unchallenged
place to develop recruiting and training camps, command and control
units that threaten us.
One of the greatest challenges, however, is the publicly announced
summer of 2011 withdrawal date from Afghanistan.
It has told our enemies they only need to wait until next summer to
put our allies in the Karzai government on notice that we may not be
there to protect them after the summer of 2011. As important, it tells
the shura or local community leaders we will not be there next year to
protect them from the Taliban, so they are less likely to cooperate
with us. There must be a message, I believe, from the White House,
widely disseminated, that we will pull out of Afghanistan only when
conditions on the ground indicate there will be security.
A high point of my legislative career got an impetus in 2007, when I
went with Senator Bayh on a congressional delegation, a CODEL, to
Afghanistan. We were told that the limitations in the old Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act were a great threat to our troops as well
as to those of us on the ground. I worked, as the leader said, from
that point until the summer of 2008, with the strong support of my
Republican colleagues, and a workable compromise across the aisle was
developed which gave the intelligence agencies the access they needed
and, at the same time, extended the protection of rights of Americans
overseas from unwarranted interception of messages by telephone or e-
mail.
As a result, we currently have that ability, but we must go to work
quickly to make sure other provisions of vital intelligence collection
measures and authorizations do not expire without legislative
extensions. For the United States, our homeland, our defense against
terrorist acts from prisoners of war is essential, and we must prevent
the release of Gitmo detainees
[[Page S8975]]
to other countries, where they will return to the battlefield. The fact
that one in four detainees already has come back is a frightening
figure because we believe there are many more who will come back, and I
fear one of those may conduct an attack on the United States. We need
to have a law of war which allows us to hold them.
As a final thought on intelligence, however, the recent WikiLeaks
scandal has shown us what damage the Internet can do to our diplomatic
efforts as well as the safety of those in dangerous places with whom we
have worked. The even greater threat we see is the continuing cyber
attack on military intelligence and private sector critical
infrastructure. With my colleague from Utah, Orrin Hatch, we have
introduced a cyber security bill which will establish a cyber defense
alliance to allow private sector entities to cooperate with government
agencies to protect our critical financial systems, our utilities and,
most of all, our communications systems from attack. The battle is
underway, and we will need every effort to stay ahead of the developing
attacks as well as helping the private sector protect their
information.
In closing, I will tell my colleagues I have worked in all possible
party combinations. I have been in the majority and minority. I have
been fat and thin, and being thin and in the majority is a whole lot
better. In my two terms as Governor, with a 70-percent Democratic
majority in both the house and the senate general assembly, they
explained to me how bipartisanship works. I figured it out during my
second term, which enabled us to do better. It was my most successful
term in any office, and the general assembly and I both achieved
passage of all the legislative priorities we had.
So now if my colleagues will permit a little parting advice from an
old bull: Work together, play nice.
I would follow up on the leader's comment about a little scuffle I
had with Pat Moynihan. I never talked about it. We never said anything
publicly until now. Later on, as we became fast friends, he used to
tease me about setting up boxing matches so we could raise money for
charity. But when I looked at his height and his reach, I didn't take
him up on that.
In a world today where enemies are real--the kind who seek to destroy
others because of their religion--it is important to remember there is
a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy. In
government, we expect spirited and principled debate where ideas
compete and the best ones prevail. There will be issues where people of
good conscience cannot come together, but let us never let what cannot
be done interfere with what can be done. Events in the world and
threats will continue to challenge us--terrorism, the economy, and
growing debt.
Nearly 24 years ago, I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. Since that
time, I have been honored to work with you and others on all the
priorities facing our country and many more. Public service has been a
blessing and a labor of love for me. Little in life could be more
fulfilling.
But I look forward to the next chapter in my life. I am neither shy
nor retiring. There are ways to serve, and elective office is only one
of them. I plan to continue fighting for Missouri and national
priorities from a different vantage point.
Throughout 40 years of public life, I have met many wonderful people.
I have visited every area of the State every term I have served in
office. The people I have met in office and the people I have worked
with have made the job so rewarding I decided to stay longer. The
people of Missouri have been my most trusted and valuable advisers and
I thank them for giving me support and helping me to identify not only
the challenges but the solutions.
In addition to my colleagues and friends, there are too many others
to thank, but let me give you the first one. First, to my patient
family--my wife Linda, the light and love of my life; my talented,
charming daughter-in-law Margaret, and my son Sam, whom I regard as my
personal hero for his service as a marine ground-intelligence officer
in Iraq.
Thanks to all who have worked for me in my office, on my committees,
and those who have helped me with political activities--hundreds and
thousands over the years. Some were not born when I started, others
have passed away. Fortunately, many are still here.
As Mitch said, I thank my political adversaries for keeping me nimble
and the media for keeping me humble. Most of all, I thank the voters of
Missouri for sending me to Jefferson City three times and Washington,
DC four times to represent them. There is no greater honor. I have been
truly blessed to be entrusted by them with the responsibility of public
office. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Tributes to Retiring Senators
Kit Bond
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I think it goes without saying there
are things Senator Bond and I might disagree on, but today is not a
time to talk about those things. I rise for a few minutes to talk about
Senator Bond and the things I most respect and admire him for. It could
be a very long list, and I don't want to take too long, but I am going
to hit the high points of the things I think demand that anyone who has
paid attention to Missouri needs to respect and admire this man for.
For 42 years, he has served the State of Missouri. Let us start
there. He loves the State we call home. I would say that he knows it
better than any living person in the world. He understands it, he is
dedicated to it, and he has made Missouri his life's work. For that, he
deserves my respect and admiration.
Secondly, he has made major sacrifices to serve. As the leader said,
he graduated first in his class from the University of Virginia Law
School; a graduate from Princeton. I don't need to explain to anybody
in the Senate what that could mean in terms of one's career, in terms
of making money. Christopher Kit Bond could have been wealthy beyond
anyone's imagination. He had the intellect, he had the personality to
succeed in any business that he decided to engage in, and certainly in
the practice of law.
I think in today's world there is so much cynicism about the people
who choose a career of political service. This is a great example for
civics classes throughout this country, to see that this is what we are
talking about--someone who chose not to make big bucks, not to travel
the halls of power in the private sector, but to toil in the fields of
being a public servant. Yes, there are many things about being a public
servant that are grand and glorious, but there is a lot that is not.
I would challenge anyone to go to as many farm bureau picnics as my
colleague has gone to and not admit a little bit of fatigue. I would
challenge anyone to have attended as many State fairs as my colleague
has attended and not confess a little fatigue. I would challenge anyone
to go to what my dad used to call the ``slick ham suppers'' in small
communities across the State after a long week of work, because he knew
there were people there who were going to be rewarded by his presence
and that it was part of his job. He realized that was very important.
So I am very respectful and have great admiration for the fact that he
has toiled in the field of public service for all these years.
The third thing I respect and admire about him is how proud he is of
his family and how devoted he is to his wife. It is wonderful to behold
when someone exudes love and admiration and devotion to those people
who are most important to all of us--our families. I have watched
Senator Bond as he began to immerse himself in foreign policy, and I
know it was because he went to bed every night and woke up every
morning thinking of Sam, and Sam's service and what Sam was doing and
feeling, that compelled him to do as much as he could in the Halls of
Congress to help men and women such as Sam Bond throughout our world.
Fourth, and maybe this is the best one, Senator Kit Bond is not
afraid of a fight. I think that is terrific. You know, Missouri is a
tough State. It is a tough State in that anybody who tells you their
reelection is certain does not know or understand Missouri. Every
election is a battle in Missouri. He has a record of nine and two in
those elections. And for our beloved team, the Missouri Tigers, he and
I would take that record any year in football. He has
[[Page S8976]]
had three campaigns for Governor and four campaigns for the Senate from
the State of Missouri, and his record is nine and one in those
elections. Let me tell you, that is one remarkable achievement because
in Missouri we have some strong-minded folks. We have a bunch of folks
on one end who are very loud and very opinionated, and they are not
going anywhere, and we have a bunch of folks on the other end who are
just as loud and just as opinionated, and they are not going anywhere.
But in the middle we have a grand and glorious group of very stubbornly
independent people.
I like to point out to people that the State of Missouri elected John
Ashcroft Governor and Harriett Woods Lieutenant Governor in the same
election. Now, many of you may not know who Harriett Woods is, but I
can assure you my colleague and I both know these two people--John
Ashcroft and Harriett Woods--and they had absolutely nothing in common.
They had completely divergent ideological views of the world, yet
Missourians elected both of them. Why? I will tell you what that grand
and gloriously stubborn streak of independents want in Missouri--they
want someone with a smile.
Check for Kit Bond. When you think of Kit Bond, you think of him
smiling. Even if his teeth are gritted, and he is telling you something
you don't want to hear or you can tell he is angry at you, he is still
grinning. They appreciate his intellect. He has always been an
intellectual giant, and that is important when you are toiling the
fields of public service. His integrity. There was never a doubt in all
of these years of Kit Bond's service that this was not a man of the
very highest integrity. And finally, a work ethic. And gee howdy,
Missourians want a work ethic. They want somebody who understands that
they are working hard and they want to see you working hard, and that
is exactly what Senator Bond has done for these 42 years. He has worked
very hard, even down to planting his chestnut trees himself on the farm
in Mexico.
So the magic formula of a ready smile, intellect, integrity, and an
amazing work ethic has put him in the same category as some of
Missouri's very greatest. From Thomas Hart Benton to Senator
Christopher Kit Bond, he has shown the world and shown our country what
hard work, what somebody who loves the middle of America and all that
it represents can do in the Senate.
He has been a wonderful role model for many of us in Missouri, even
if we don't always agree on every issue. And by the way, I will tell
this story today: When I took my desk in the State auditor's office,
there is a tradition in the State auditor's office in Missouri that all
the previous State auditors' pictures are around your office on a photo
rail at the top. I sat down at my desk on the first day having been
elected State auditor, and I looked up and who was directly across from
me--Kit Bond and John Ashcroft. I will confess I moved the order so I
didn't have to look at both of you every single day. But you were a
reminder to me that there are many different ways to serve.
It is with a great deal of reluctance that I say farewell to Senator
Kit Bond in the Senate. He has served here well, he has served his
State well, and I hope he remains a colleague and friend of mine for
many years to come.
With the utmost admiration and respect, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also want to add my voice in respect and
recognition for the service of Senator Kit Bond. He has been a terrific
colleague. We have jousted over issues such as water policy affecting
our two States, but he has always conducted himself with honor and
integrity and he will be missed in this Chamber.
Remembering Richard Holbrooke
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for a moment, I also want to note the
passing of Richard Holbrooke, a distinguished ambassador, somebody who
has played a key role in working on the policy towards Iraq and
Afghanistan. Richard Holbrooke was a giant in American diplomatic
history. Richard Holbrooke was a friend. I actually was with him the
Sunday before he passed away and was shocked to learn that he had been
stricken; even more shocked to learn that he passed away on Monday.
Richard Holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace
and for advancing the interests of this country. Richard Holbrooke will
be missed.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the tax extension
package before us. I support this package because it will provide, I
believe, a significant boost to the economy next year. It is necessary
because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millions
of middle-class families in just a matter of weeks.
I recognize this package will increase the deficit over the next 2
years, but we need to distinguish between what is the right economic
policy short term and longer term. Short term, I don't think there is
any question that this economy remains weak, unemployment stubbornly
high, and that means we need to do more to provide liquidity in the
short term. That does not mean that we should ignore the growing debt
that is all around us. That is a longer term challenge, but it requires
our urgent attention.
We need to put together a plan this year to deal with our deficits
and debt. That is what the fiscal commission was all about that Senator
Gregg and I pushed for, which has just recently concluded its work,
with 11 of the 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt by $4
trillion.
Just as with that package, I do not agree with all elements of this
package. In fact, part of this tax package I strongly oppose.
Most notably, I am opposed to those provisions that give overly
generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax
area. But I understand that the President did what he had to do to get
an agreement. This economy clearly remains in a fragile state and we
can't afford to wait until we get everything we want. We cannot let the
perfect be the enemy of the good. Too often in this Chamber, in this
Congress, people insist on having it their way or take the highway.
Unfortunately, that prevents us from doing things that are absolutely
essential for the Nation.
Economists project that a failure to pass this package could reduce
economic growth next year by as much as 50 percent. That would mean
millions of jobs. So those who say, well, let's just scuttle this, have
to think very carefully. What is the risk to the economy of the United
States?
Just to review where we have come from, I believe the Federal
response to the recession and the financial crisis has successfully
pulled this economy back from the brink. I believe we were headed for
financial collapse. Economic growth has returned--not as robustly as we
would have liked, but nonetheless it has returned. In the fourth
quarter of 2008, lest we forget, economic growth was a negative 6.8
percent. In the most recent quarter, it was a positive 2.5. That is a
remarkable turnaround.
The same can be seen on the job front. In January of 2009, the
economy lost over 800,000 private sector jobs in 1 month. The next
month we lost another 700,000 jobs; the next month, another 700,000;
the next month, almost 650,000. Now we fast forward to today, November
of 2010, and 50,000 jobs were created. That is a dramatic turnaround,
and we can see for month after month after month that we now have
positive job growth. This economy has turned in the right direction and
has done so in quite a dramatic way.
We have also seen the rebound in the markets. The stock market hit a
low of 6,547 back on March 9, 2009. We are now well over 11,000. So in
economic growth, job creation, and the stock market, we have seen
dramatic improvement as a direct result of TARP and the stimulus
program.
This economy still remains too weak, too fragile, with unemployment
stubbornly high at 9.8 percent. By the way, without TARP, without
stimulus, the best economists in this country, including Alan Blinder,
the former deputy chairman of the Fed, and the chief economist at
Moody's, Mark Zandi, said without TARP, without stimulus, unemployment
today would be 15 percent--8 million more people would be unemployed.
Despite some who say they haven't worked, TARP and stimulus, I believe
the evidence is quite clear they have worked.
[[Page S8977]]
But more needs to be done. As we enter the holiday season, we can't
forget that one in six Americans are now unemployed or underemployed
and so we must do more to create jobs.
In a recent speech to the European Central Bank, Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke went as far as he could go on the question of
fiscal policy, and he urged Congress to do more to help the near-term
economy, while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-term
deficits. This is what he said:
On its current economic trajectory, the United States runs
the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or
underemployed for many years. As a society we should find
that outcome unacceptable. Monetary policy is working in
support of both economic recovery and price stability, but
there are limits to what can be achieved by the Central Bank
alone. A fiscal program that combines near-term measures to
enhance growth with strong confidence-inducing steps to
reduce longer term structural deficits would be an important
complement to the policies of the Federal Reserve.
I think the Chairman has it right. He is clearly saying the Fed alone
and its actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. Congress
also needs to act. It needs to act in the near term by taking steps to
generate economic growth, and it needs to act on the long-term
challenge by putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in
the immediate term and in the longer term.
This package, the one before us, will ensure that middle-class
taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of the year. It
extends for 2 years all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. By the way, by
far the most important thing for the economy is the middle-class tax
cut. That is what is critically important to the economy. The tax cuts
for the high end--we can either do or not do--in effect are mildly
stimulative but, according to CBO, they have pretty low bang for the
buck in terms of economic growth. That is the high end tax cuts--pretty
low bang for the buck, according to the CBO.
This package also has the expanded child credit and earned-income tax
credit for families, the American opportunity tax credit for college
expenses, an alternative minimum tax fix--otherwise millions of people
would be getting a tax hike completely unintended--and the R&D tax
credit and other expiring provisions. This package, according to the
best economic advice we can get, will help economic growth, will help
job creation, creating additional jobs in the private sector next year.
The package also includes three critical measures to help the
economy. It includes a payroll tax cut for working families. This will
provide a 2-percentage point reduction in employees' Social Security
payroll taxes; a worker with $40,000 in income would save $800. This
measure is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways to boost
near-term growth.
In fact, I asked CBO last year: What are the most effective steps we
could take to promote economic growth. No. 1, interestingly enough,
extend unemployment insurance. That is in this package. No. 2, a
payroll tax holiday. That is in this package.
In fact, as I indicated, this package has an extension of
unemployment insurance benefits at their current level for 13 months.
This will prevent 7 million workers from losing unemployment in 2011.
Economists also rank this measure as high on bang for the buck, as I
indicated.
It also includes a business expensing provision allowing businesses
to write off 100 percent of capital purchases in 2011. This is a useful
incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate
more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011. And, again, CBO
rated this measure as high on bang for the buck.
Here are some of the examples of the tax cut benefits provided by
this package. A mother with one child with $20,000 in income will
receive a $1,100 tax cut, a married couple with $40,000 of income will
receive a tax cut of almost $2,000, and a married couple with two
children with $60,000 of income will receive a tax cut of more than
$3,300.
Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's and a former adviser to
Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, has examined the potential
economic impact of this package. This is what he concluded:
The fiscal policy compromise will be good for the economy
next year. The mandatory tax cuts and spending increases will
provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that
the still fragile economic recovery evolves into a self-
sustaining economic expansion. The deal's surprisingly broad
scope meaningfully changes the near-term economic outlook.
That is according to Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.
For those who are concerned about the deficit, as I am, job one is to
get this economy growing more strongly. That is job one. Then we have
to pivot and deal with the long-term plan to deal with the deficit and
the debt. As I noted previously, the one provision in this package that
I particularly am unhappy with is the estate tax provision. I support
the continuation of the 2009 level with an estate tax exemption of $3.5
million for an individual, $7 million for a couple, and a rate of 45
percent. At those levels only one-quarter of 1 percent of estates would
be subject to any estate tax in 2011--one-quarter of 1 percent of
estates would be affected. That means 99.75 percent of estates would be
exempt from any estate tax under the provisions I am proposing and did
propose in the budget.
Unfortunately, under the compromise package certain of our colleagues
on the other side insisted that the exemption level be raised to $5
million for individuals, $10 million per couple, with the rate of 35
percent. This will reduce the number of estates subject to the estate
tax to one-seventh of 1 percent. It adds about $20 billion to the cost
of the package over 2 years, and it will do absolutely nothing to
generate economic growth and to create jobs.
If made permanent, this provision would add $100 billion in lost
revenue to the Treasury in the next 10 years--$100 billion more than
the package that I proposed. I don't think that is fiscally
responsible, I don't think it is wise, and I don't think it should be
approved.
While we need to pass the overall package to give a near-term boost
to the economy, we must also now pivot and deal with the Nation's
growing debt. Gross Federal debt is already expected to reach 100
percent of the gross domestic product of this country in 2011--well
above the 90 percent threshold that many economists see as the danger
zone.
One of our Nation's leading economists, Dr. Carmen Reinhart, came
before the President's fiscal commission. She had recently coauthored a
study of the impact of debt on more than 20 countries over the last 200
years. She concluded that when government debt as a share of the
economy exceeds 90 percent, economic growth tends to be about 1
percentage point lower than if debt levels were not so high. But don't
be misled by 1 point lower. That sounds like nothing. The economy is
growing typically at 3\1/2\ percent. One point less would be about one-
third less economic growth. So we need to understand--the consequences
of debt are lower economic growth for the future.
Our long-term debt outlook is even more serious. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, Federal debt could rise on the current
trend to almost 400 percent of GDP by 2054. That is a completely
unsustainable course. I personally believe the deficit and debt
reduction plan assembled by the President's fiscal commission, on which
I served, could prove a way forward. Even though the plan did not
receive the necessary 14 of the 18 votes on the commission to guarantee
a vote in Congress, it did receive the support of 11 of the 18
commission members, which is more than 60 percent of the panel. With 60
percent here, we can pass anything. But on our Commission we required
14 of 18 of the Commissioners to agree to assure a vote in Congress
this year.
By the way, among the 11 who supported the plan, it was completely
bipartisan: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That outcome
proved that Democrats and Republicans can come together to solve this
challenge.
Here is a quick overview of the fiscal commission plan: It provides
nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. It
lowers the deficit from 8 percent of GDP in 2011 to 2.3 percent in 2015
and 1.2 percent in 2020. It stabilizes the debt by 2014 and then lowers
it to 60 percent of GDP by 2023 and 40 percent of GDP by 2035. It
reforms Social Security to ensure its solvency for
[[Page S8978]]
at least 75 years and puts the program on a more sustainable path
beyond the next 75 years. And it includes fundamental tax reform,
making the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more efficient, while also
raising more revenue for deficit reduction.
Now that we have a responsible and realistic bipartisan plan on the
table and national attention is focused on the issue, it is up to
Congress and the President to finish the job.
Tax reform may be the most important component of the fiscal
commission plan. Here are the key elements included in the fiscal
commission plan: It eliminates or scales back tax expenditures that are
currently running $1.1 trillion a year and lowers tax rates. That will
promote economic growth and dramatically improve America's global
competitiveness. And it makes the Tax Code more progressive. The
Commission's illustrative tax reform plan demonstrates how scaling back
tax expenditures can lower rates.
This plan is a beginning. It has to become law in order to have its
full effect. I hope very much our colleagues will consider supporting
this plan, the tax plan before us, and the deficit reduction plan that
needs to be an integral component of a long-term fiscal plan for the
Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the second-degree amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to
offer amendment No. 4763.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ISAKSON. I object.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow, Democrat from
Michigan, Senator Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, and I bring
this amendment to the floor to extend for 1 year modest enhancements to
the Health Coverage Tax Credit Program. I am going to throw a slight
curve ball and start with the cost of this amendment, which will help
place its benefits into context.
While we are awaiting a final score, based on some preliminary
numbers, this amendment should come in under $50 million. That is less
than .006 percent of the cost of this legislation. It is $50 million
out of roughly $800 million.
Now let's look at who the amendment helps.
It helps Americans who took a kidney punch when the companies for
which they worked either packed up and moved their operations overseas,
or when the companies for which they worked went bankrupt and turned
their pension obligations over to the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation.
I probably do not have to tell you what it means when an American's
pension goes over to PBGC. It means that American's pension is
slashed--often dramatically.
So these are Americans who either lost their jobs and their health
coverage, or lost large chunks of their pensions and their health
coverage.
As I stated earlier, this amendment would extend modest enhancements
to the health coverage tax credit or HCTC.
The HCTC was established 8 years ago to help these workers and
retirees purchase private health coverage to replace the employer-
sponsored coverage they lost.
Unfortunately, because of the modest size of the tax credit and other
limitations, many credit-eligible individuals have remained uninsured.
And as too many Americans know, the combination of no health
insurance and a dramatically reduced pension spells financial hardship.
Dramatic financial hardship, particularly for people forced into early
unplanned retirement.
These are Americans who worked hard, were loyal to their companies,
earned their pensions and employer-sponsored health coverage day after
day after day until the day they watched it all evaporate.
Americans like Mike, from Brookville, OH, who wrote me to let me know
how important the tax credit is and how worried he is that it will
revert back to covering only 65 percent of premium.
Mike is a Delphi retiree, thousands of who were left high and dry
when the new GM abandoned them.
Larry from Miamisburg, OH, is another Delphi retiree.
In his letter to me, he said: I am writing to ask for help for us the
Delphi retirees. First for the HCTC increase and ultimately for the
loss of our retirements. Sir, they have taken everything from us, even
now our dignity.
Larry and Mike are victims of what can only be called a myopic
pension deal cut by the new GM during its bankruptcy proceedings.
The new GM clung to an agreement signed back in 1999 in order to
provide full pensions to some union Delphi retirees and allow other
nonunion and union retirees to receive deep pension cuts.
Both groups of former employees--those who received their full
benefits and those who did not--devoted most of their careers to GM
before Delphi was spun off.
Both groups of former employees earned their pensions by working hard
for GM year-in and year-out.
But Mike, Larry, and others like them were forced to live with
financially devastating pension cuts, while their counterparts received
their full pensions.
And now these same retirees may once again lose access to health
coverage.
To prevent it, we need to extend the enhanced HCTC provisions.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRA, the health
coverage tax credit was increased slightly and the rules surrounding it
were made more flexible.
These modest changes enabled tens of thousands of trade-affected
workers and retirees to use the tax credit and purchase private health
coverage to replace the employer-sponsored health benefits they lost.
Specifically the tax credit now covers 80 percent, rather than 65
percent of coverage costs; rather than 65 percent of coverage costs;
beneficiaries are allowed to use the coverage to purchase coverage for
themselves and their spouses; and they are allowed to apply the credit
to less expensive coverage under a Voluntary Employee Benefit
Association VEBA.
Since these provisions were put into place, the number of displaced
workers and retirees using the health coverage tax credit has more than
tripled, increasing from about 14,000 to approximately 50,000.
But the health coverage tax credit provisions are set to expire at
the end of this year.
We can not let that happen.
It does not matter where the enhanced health coverage tax credit
provisions come from. It could have been the Recovery Act. It could
have been a bill the minority championed. The vehicle does not matter.
But the merits of these provisions do matter. That is why Senators
Stabenow and Wicker and I bring this amendment forward.
These provisions have merit. They will keep Americans insured in an
environment where the lack of coverage, coupled with pension cuts,
could mean impoverishment. If we do not extend these provisions, the
spouses of former workers will definitely lose their coverage, and
those former workers themselves likely will. That is in no one's best
interests.
As I mentioned earlier, approving this amendment would likely
increase the cost of this bill by less than .006 percent.
That is a small price to pay for a lifeline. It is a small price to
pay to keep middle class Americans from slipping into poverty.
This should not be a matter of debate. This should not be the focus
of a partisan divide. This should be a small step all of us take
together on behalf of Americans who did what we asked them to do.
They deserve our respect, they deserve our consideration, and--as our
economy continues to pose challenges even before the hardships these
Americans face--they deserve this modest extension of tax credit
benefits.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment, No. 4805, be
printed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. It will
be printed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 7
minutes.
[[Page S8979]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rose yesterday afternoon when we opened
the vote and voted in favor of going to a final vote today on the tax
package before us. Like many have expressed in this body, there are
things I like and things I dislike about it, but I come to the floor
today to talk about the things I like about it and to make a particular
point with regard to scoring.
First, I want to point out that 41 days ago the people of the United
States went to the polls and voted. In the State of Georgia they voted
for me. I ran a campaign on the basis that we do not have a tax
problem; we have a spending problem. I ran a campaign based on the
American people wanting us in Washington to do what they have had to do
in the last 3 years: sit down at the kitchen table, reprioritize, and
spend within their means. We must do that.
I commend what Senator Conrad from North Dakota said, and I commend
the courage of the others who voted for the deficit reduction
commission report because it is the kind of shared sacrifice and tough
love that all of us need next year to rein in spending in this country
and get our balance back. But in the immediate future, in the next 3\1/
2\ weeks, America's taxes are going up at a time of protracted
recession and high unemployment. That doesn't make any sense.
In 2003, when I was in the House, I didn't like the idea of putting a
sunsetting on the Bush tax package because I feared exactly what is
happening now--protracted uncertainty, 2-year renewals, American
business not knowing what to do. While I will vote for this package
today, I hope we will learn the lesson that 2-year incremental sunsets
or things such as that are not good for the economy and not good for
America. We, as Members of this Congress and this Senate, must deal
with challenges when they confront us--not by arbitrarily setting times
for sunsets and sunrises that make us make policy under duress and
difficult circumstances.
But on the scoring issue I want to point out two things about the tax
rates and about the estate tax. There are those who say by extending
the existing tax rates we cut revenue that would have come in.
Hypothetically, that is correct, but in reality that is not correct
because, historically, from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W.
Bush, Republicans and Democrats who were confronted with difficult
economic times, when they changed tax policy and lessened the burden,
they increased the revenue. So my forecast based on the next 2 years is
we will see for the first time a clear example of dynamic scoring and
hopefully change a little bit of CBO's mind on how they look on tax
policy. I think we are going to see more employment, we are going to
see more risk capital put out by business, and we are going to see a
sense of certainty and a sense of optimism, which certainly our country
needs.
As far as the estate tax--and I love very much the Senator from North
Dakota, but I disagree vehemently on his explanation about the estate
tax. Let me tell you the reality of the estate tax. I have dealt with
it. I have dealt with it for 33 years as a real estate broker in the
State of Georgia.
The assets of most American families are real estate, whether it is
farmers and landowners or whether it is simply a homeowner. Other
wealth in America is by people who have a small business. With the
confiscatory tax rate of 55 percent, which is what it would be January
1, and an inordinately low deduction or unified credit of $1 million,
most American landowners, most American business owners who had an
estate worth anything over $1 million would have had to liquidate their
estates to pay their taxes.
A little known fact about the IRS Code that a lot of people don't
realize but we all suffer from is that when you die, you have 9 months
to file your taxes and pay your taxes with the government. They have 3
years to say whether they will accept it. So in a 9-month period of
time, a family at a point of bereavement, with some assets, find
themselves at a rate of 55 percent. That is confiscatory, and it is not
right. If they have to liquidate their property or sell their business
that asset no longer produces income; therefore, income taxes go down.
I can demonstrate on a graph or chart or blackboard that an asset
that has to be liquidated and paid at a tax rate of 55 percent one time
does not, over 10 years, pay as much as would have been paid over the
earned income that small business or land would have created. So the
estate tax 2-year deal is a good deal, and it should be permanent. Five
million dollars is a lot of money, but in the scheme of things for a
small business, a family farm, a cooperative, it is not a lot of money.
But it is the lifeblood of a lot of families. If we confiscate that
business or confiscate that land because the tax rate forces a sale,
then we are actually hurting ourselves in the long run, and we are
hurting families in the long run.
Last, there is a spending component, and we are going to have to,
next year, sit around the kitchen table of the Senate and deal with our
spending because it is out of hand. But I do believe the tax policy we
are extending for the next 2 years will bode well for our economy. I
agree with Senator Conrad it will probably help increase productivity
by about one-third, which will be good for our country. It will be good
for our tax rates. If we can combine that with a fiscal policy that has
shared sacrifice and tough love when it comes to spending, we can
regenerate the American dream and the great American engine of
entrepreneurship and return our country to the prosperity we all hope
and desire it will have.
With those remarks, I yield the floor.
____________________