[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.

                          ____________________