[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 166 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10244-S10256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 4853, which
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with an amendment to H.R. 4853, an act to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and
expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,
to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend
authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid/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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand that under the previous
order, I have 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. COBURN. I will attempt not to use that complete time.
Motion To Suspend
We have an amendment No. 4765, which is a motion to suspend the rules
[[Page S10245]]
and consider the amendment, and I will make that motion in a moment.
We have before us a bill. We are going to spend $136 billion more
than what we planned to spend before this agreement was made. We have
no opportunity under regular order to offset that with less priority,
less important items. So we have an amendment for the Senate to vote
on. It is not pain free. It is painful. But it cuts $150 billion from
Federal expenditures to pay for the additional Federal expenditures
that will go out the door as a result of this bill.
I actually believe every one of my colleagues in the Senate
understands the jam we are in. Where I am confused is that when we
bring cuts to the floor, not only do they not vote for the cuts, they
do not offer alternative cuts. And you really cannot have it both ways.
You cannot say you recognize the significant difficulty our country is
in and turn around and vote against somebody making an effort to get us
out of that jam and not offer other additional spending cuts for which
to pay. We do not have that privilege any longer. So either the
recognition of the problem is real or it is not.
Let me describe what has happened just in the last 2\1/2\ years. We
have run a budget deficit for now 27 straight months, including this
month. The 2009 budget deficit, as reported, was $1.4 trillion. It was
actually $1.6 trillion when you include the money we actually stole
from trust funds and other items--in 2010, $1.3 trillion. On the basis
of how we are going now, our budget deficit will probably be, in real
terms--not what is reported to the American people but the actual fact
of how much the debt will increase--probably $1.6 trillion to $1.7
trillion. How long can we continue to do that? As a matter of fact, the
largest monthly budget deficit ever reported was October--$291 billion.
The time to act is now. If you do not like what I have put up, then
put something else up. Let's have a debate about it. Let's have an
honest discussion about the problem and the possible solutions. That is
what the deficit commission was trying to do. That is what a group of
us, including the President pro tempore, are trying to do on a
bipartisan basis.
There is no longer a debate on whether we are going to have to cut
spending in our country. Almost everybody agrees to it. The question
is, When will we start? I will tell you, if this amendment passes, we
will send a notice to the world that we get it. The international
financial community will start seeing us acting as adults and no longer
delaying the time at which we will start chipping and stop digging. We
have a hole so deep we may not climb out of it now. The last thing we
want to do is make that hole deeper.
So, Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII, including any
germaneness requirements, for the purposes of proposing and considering
amendment No. 4765, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. COBURN. I will reoffer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask unanimous
consent to use the general time, not my own 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no general debate time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I ask to use my leadership time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have leader time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Then I will use 1 minute of my time out of the 10 I
have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
In just a few minutes--sometime before the hour of 12--I am going to
be asking for unanimous consent to correct a mistake that was made in
the final negotiations of this tax package, which contains, as you
know, $890 billion worth of items. It is a big bill. It was negotiated
with the White House and the Republican leadership primarily, and then
the Democratic leaders had some input into it as well.
What happened was--and, Mr. President, please stop me in a minute and
a half--there was a misunderstanding, a terrible misunderstanding when
it came down to the GO Zone housing credits. All of the GO Zone package
was put in the bill except for the $42 million--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used a minute.
Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. I will take 30 more seconds of my time--except for
the $42 million that applies to low-income housing tax credits. So the
entire GO Zone package--$800 million for the gulf coast--was put in.
This little $42 million was left out. It was a mistake. The only way to
fix that today is to get unanimous consent. I will be asking for that
in just a few minutes.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield back and reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the
motion to concur in the House amendment.
My amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top
estate tax rates to their 2009 levels of $3.5 million and 45 percent,
respectively. It would leave all the other modifications to the estate,
gift, and so-called generation-skipping transfer taxes the same as they
appear in the underlying amendment.
Raising the estate tax exemption level to $5 million and lowering the
rate to 35 percent is not the responsible thing to do given our current
fiscal situation, and it would only exacerbate widening wealth
inequality in America. Only 3 of every 1,000 decedents have estates in
excess of $3.5 million.
At a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting Social
Security, which is relied upon by so many millions of Americans, how
can Congress consider this action to benefit the top three-tenths of 1
percent of the population?
While we don't have an estimate of the savings to the Treasury from
this amendment, we do know it would save our Treasury tens of billions
of dollars, which we need to help continue unemployment insurance,
Social Security, and other critical programs.
Whether one agrees with this amendment or not, this is an amendment
which should be debated. The Senate should have an opportunity to
debate this issue. Unless we get unanimous consent, the way this is
currently structured, the Senate will be denied this opportunity.
Whether people support it, oppose this estate tax change or don't know,
the way the Senate ought to operate is we should have a chance to vote
on this amendment.
Unanimous Consent Request
So I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my
amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if at the end of
9\1/2\ minutes you could alert me, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by adding Senators
Whitehouse and Begich as cosponsors of this amendment No. 4809.
As I think many people know, I have been extremely critical of the
agreement struck between the President and the Republican leadership. I
have spoken out against it and I voted against cloture just yesterday.
It is one thing to be critical of a proposal; it is another thing to
come up with a better alternative, and I think I have done that today.
I believe the amendment I am offering is a significant improvement
over the agreement struck between the President and the Republican
leadership, and I hope very much we can get strong bipartisan support
for it. Let me very briefly tell my colleagues what it does.
First, as I think most Americans appreciate, at a time of a
recordbreaking deficit and a $13.7 trillion national debt, it makes
very little sense to be
[[Page S10246]]
providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. It
drives up the national debt and forces our kids to pay higher taxes in
the future to pay off that national debt. This amendment ends--it
ends--all the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans
beginning on January 1 of this year.
What does it do with the savings? That is perhaps the most important
point I wish to make. Over the long term, this amendment would devote
half the revenue raised by this provision--by eliminating the tax
breaks for the top 2 percent--to reduce the deficit. Half that money
goes to deficit reduction, which I hope appeals to many of my
Republican friends who have consistently and appropriately talked about
high deficits and the danger of those high deficits to this country.
Half the savings by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy goes to
deficit reduction. What does the other half go to? It seems to me that
while we should be and must be concerned about the deficit, we must
also understand we continue to be in a major recession. Millions of our
fellow Americans are unemployed. We have to do everything we can to
create decent-paying jobs and put those people back to work.
What the other half of the savings does is invests in our
infrastructure. I don't have to tell anybody here our infrastructure is
crumbling. So it will go to repairing our roads, our bridges, schools,
dams, culverts, housing, and transforming our Nation's energy sector.
We need to put billions of dollars into building a 21st century rail
system. When we do that, we not only create jobs now--and this is the
fastest way I know to create jobs--we make our country more productive
and internationally competitive in the future. If we do not build our
infrastructure, if it continues to crumble--and the engineers out there
tell us we need trillions of dollars of investment--we are going to
lose our place in the global economy. So we have to invest in
infrastructure. Half the savings does just that.
In addition, this amendment replaces the payroll tax holiday with a
1-year extension of the Making Work Pay credit. In other words, we are
giving targeted tax breaks to the middle class, not reducing payroll
taxes for millionaires and Members of Congress. This proposal would not
endanger Social Security and, in fact, it would go to the people who
most need it. It would be a lot fairer because lower income people
would do better. Upper income people would not get it.
It also addresses a concern I think many Americans have; that is,
diverting money away from the payroll tax endangers the long-term
solvency of Social Security. As Eric Kingson, the cochair of the
Strengthen Social Security campaign, an organization representing tens
of millions of senior citizens and workers, recently said:
Extending and expanding the Making Work Pay tax credit is
far superior to the payroll tax cut for most Americans. The
Making Work Pay tax credit is more stimulative, fairer in
distribution, imposes no new administrative costs to
employers and includes over 6 million public sector employees
who will receive nothing from the payroll tax cut. And it
doesn't run the risk of undermining Social Security's
financing and the economic security of working Americans . .
.
So it addresses that issue as well.
Third, this amendment addresses another issue I know a lot of people
in this country have concern about; that is, the estate tax giveaway in
the underlying bill, by inserting in its place the 2009 estate tax rate
for 2 years. Let's be clear. The estate tax only applies to the top
three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are doing now is not lowering estate
tax and raising exemptions which only benefit the very wealthiest
people in this country; what we are doing now is bringing us back to
the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years.
Further, this amendment addresses an issue that, to me, is very
important, and I know to many Members here, because we had a lot of
support for it when I brought up this amendment last week. As the
Presiding Officer well knows, our seniors who are on Social Security
and disabled vets have not received a COLA in the last 2 years. A lot
of those folks are trying to get by on $14,000, $15,000, $16,000 a
year. What this amendment also includes is a $250 COLA for over 57
million American senior citizens, veterans, and persons with
disabilities. Without this provision, seniors, as I mentioned, would be
going through their second year without a COLA, and I think that is
unfair.
Further, of course, this amendment would keep all of what I consider
to be the positive aspects of the President's agreement with the
Republicans. Obviously, it would extend middle-class tax cuts for 98
percent of Americans. It would extend unemployment insurance for 13
months. It would extend the child tax credit, earned-income tax credit,
college tax credit expansions included in the Recovery Act.
So I think what we are doing is bringing forth a far better proposal
than the agreement struck between the Republicans and the President.
Let me summarize. It ends tax breaks for the rich, uses half that
money for deficit reduction and half that money to create millions of
jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It would replace the
payroll tax holiday, which many people have concerns about; diverting
money away from Social Security with a 1-year extension of the Making
Work Pay credit--much more targeted to low- and moderate-income people,
not to Members of Congress and the richest people in this country and
not threatening Social Security.
This amendment would strike the estate tax proposal in the underlying
bill, and insert the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years. That is a much
fairer proposal than giving even more tax breaks for the very
wealthiest people in this country.
Lastly, this amendment would provide a $250 COLA for over 57 million
American senior citizens and disabled veterans and people with
disabilities. It also includes an extension of the middle-class tax
cuts for 98 percent of Americans, an extension of unemployment
insurance for 13 months, an extension of the child tax credit, the
earned income tax credit, and the college tax credit expansion.
This is the alternative many Americans wish to see. It creates jobs,
cuts the deficit, and it is much fairer than the underlying bill we
will vote on.
Motion to Suspend
With that, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purposes of proposing
and considering amendment No. 4809 to the House message to accompany
H.R. 4853, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes under the
leader's time.
The Senate is about to pass a bill that should significantly bolster
our economic recovery. The bill we are about to pass will cut rates for
families. It will reauthorize unemployment insurance. It will extend
the child tax credit and the college tuition tax deduction. It will
extend the research and development tax credit and accelerate
depreciation for businesses. It will cut payroll taxes for workers.
These are important provisions. But the bipartisan leadership did not
include several other important items which I think deserve special
attention.
I worked hard to include these provisions in the bill we just passed.
But some on the other side of the aisle worked to prevent their
inclusion. These are commonsense provisions and, frankly, I cannot
imagine how any Senator could oppose them.
One provision I want to highlight this morning is the provision to
repeal the 1099 reporting requirements. Small businesses across America
were disappointed that this provision was not included in the bill. I
am talking about the repeal of the recently expanded form 1099
information reporting requirements. Surprisingly, some on the other
side of the aisle blocked inclusion of a provision to repeal these
requirements.
I included a repeal of these requirements in the tax alternative the
Senate voted on earlier this month. Senator Schumer included repeal of
this provision in his alternative, as well.
Several measures to repeal the new rules have received bipartisan
support. Frankly, repeal of this reporting requirement ought to be a
no-brainer.
The new rules take effect at the beginning of 2012. That means many
[[Page S10247]]
small businesses will soon begin spending money to gear up for them.
Small businesses in Montana and across this Nation should not need to
spend their time and money to fill out more government paperwork.
Instead, we should let them focus on staying in business, growing their
business, and creating jobs.
Many small business owners have contacted me about this provision.
Many are puzzled that some Republicans now appear to oppose repeal in
private, after having advocated repeal in public. I can understand why
small businesses are puzzled and, frankly, I don't see how any Senator
can oppose repeal. I intend to keep working on behalf of America's
small businesses to see that this unrealistic reporting requirement is
repealed.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4849
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be
discharged of H.R. 4849; that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; that the Senate agree to the Baucus amendment to repeal
the form 1099 reporting requirements, which is at the desk; that the
bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions
to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that this all occur without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the
Chairman knows, Senator Johanns of Nebraska has proposed a Republican
alternative on this issue. Would the Senator amend his request to
substitute the Johanns language?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Wyoming. I
cannot agree to amend my request in that way because of the excessive
cuts in appropriated spending in the Johanns amendment. It is way
beyond repeal of the 1099 requirements. It is a totally different
animal. Therefore, I cannot agree.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see Senator DeMint here. I know he has
time allocated to him. I also have 8\1/2\ minutes left. I want to make
sure I will be able to retain my 8\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 7 minutes
remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to retain that 7 minutes after Senator DeMint
speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in a moment, I will move to suspend the
rules for the purpose of offering my motion to permanently extend the
current individual income tax rates, finally repeal the death tax once
and for all, and permanently patch the alternative minimum tax.
I know a lot of work has gone into this tax compromise. I appreciate
the fact that both sides have worked so hard to strike a deal. While I
appreciate the efforts that have been made, I am concerned that the
bill currently under consideration does not permanently extend tax
rates and, thus, will have a marginal, if any, benefit to our economy.
Temporary rates make for a temporary, uncertain economy. My
substitute amendment ensures a long-term stable economic environment
for Americans to create jobs, buy a home, invest their assets, save for
retirement, and preserve their family farm or business.
We need to stop and consider what we are doing to our country and to
our economy. We are the premier free market economy in the world. Yet
almost all of our Federal tax rates are temporary. I have been in
business most of my life, and I understand a lot about how free markets
work, how businesses plan--usually in a 5- or 10-year window, looking
at their bottom line. How many people can they afford? Can they build a
new plant? Now they are looking at whether or not to do it in the
United States or all over the world.
But now in our country, we have a temporary, uncertain Tax Code that
makes it very difficult for businesses to plan. And it is not just with
the Tax Code. For the last several years, we have waited until December
to tell doctors what we are going to pay them to see Medicare patients
the next year. How do they plan their staff and their offices? We know
some have already laid people off, not knowing what they are going to
get paid next year.
Free markets, free enterprise works within a framework of a rule of
law, where people know what their taxes will be, what the laws will be,
what the regulatory environment will be. But in America today, if we
take this compromise, almost all of the tax rates are either 1 year or
2 years, and then people can expect them to go up or change.
We cannot operate the world's largest economy in this type of
environment. Washington does not have a tax revenue problem, it has a
spending problem. We must let all working Americans keep their hard-
earned money, not just for a year or two, but allow people actually to
look out and see, can they make those car payments for 4 or 5 years?
Can they make those house payments for 15, 20, or 30 years? They need
to know what their tax rates are going to be.
We must repeal the immoral death tax once and for all. It is zero
this year, but the proposed compromise will have it at 35 percent for
any estate over $5 million next year. That may sound like a much better
deal than we would have had. But even with that, the estimates are that
this could cost 850,000 jobs to let this tax re-emerge.
We must commit ourselves to recovering from our years of
overspending, overtaxing, and overreaching. The American people deserve
better. They told us so in the November elections.
Motion to Suspend
According to rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to
suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering
amendment No. 4804 to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 individual
income tax rates, permanently repeal the estate tax, and permanently
patch the alternative minimum tax. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take two of them now and then reserve the
remainder of my time. We only have, under the agreement arrived at
between Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, 15 minutes to correct this
mistake. At 12 o'clock, we are going to have to vote on several issues.
This is not one of them because this is not an amendment; this is a
mistake. I only have 15 minutes to correct it. I will try to explain
again how important it is.
There are $890 billion worth of amendments and projects in the bill
we are about to vote on. Within that, there is a package of $800
million in GO Zones, which was put together by me and my colleagues
from the Gulf Coast. We fashioned it and created it. We are proud of
it. It was supposed to be part of this much larger package. Lo and
behold, all of it found its way in--except for $42 billion for low-
income housing. That was the only thing left out of the GO Zones.
Senator Vitter, myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, Senator
Wicker, and Senator Cochran have cosponsored a one-line provision. This
isn't an amendment to the bill; it is a provision to fix a mistake that
has been acknowledged by the Finance chair, and actually by the
Republican negotiators. They meant to include it, but they didn't
because in order to include it, the low-income housing tax credits to
build these units have to go to 2012. Everything else in the bill is
2011. But they knew if they didn't extend it to 2012 that we can't
build these projects, and these projects and their financing will be in
jeopardy.
There are 77 projects across the gold coast for seniors, for the
disabled, and for the working poor. These projects are transforming the
city of New Orleans, the gulf coast, Waveland, and Biloxi, not just for
the people living there
[[Page S10248]]
but for the neighborhoods surrounding them.
Finally, Mr. President, Tim Geithner supports this as does Secretary
Donovan support it.
Mr. President, I will reserve my time in hopes that before my time is
up we can get this fixed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana, the Finance Committee
chair on the Senate floor, along with Mr. Kyl, the Senator from
Arizona, who has been one of the chief negotiators on the package, and
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. Before we get to the time
allotted for voting, I would like to say again how important it is to
try to get this provision and the underlying bill corrected. It is a
technical correction that we are asking for to allow a placed-in-
service date to be extended from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2013--a
1-year extension to finish the low-income housing projects that are
underway not only in New Orleans but along the gulf coast.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a Times-Picayune editorial dated today in support of this and a New
York Times editorial of March 2, as well as a letter of support from
Secretary Donovan and Secretary Geithner testifying to the importance
of these projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Times-Picayune, Dec. 15, 2010]
Extend Go Zone to 2012
New Orleans and other parts of South Louisiana will likely
lose important recovery projects, including thousands of
prospective housing units, if Congress fails to extend the
Gulf Opportunity Zone tax credits for two more years.
The credits, which were created after Hurricane Katrina to
foster investment in our region, require housing financed by
Go Zone bonds to be ``placed in service'' by Dec. 31. But the
collapse of credit markets in 2008 and delays in public and
private financing meant that many important projects could
not get under way early enough to meet that deadline.
The tax compromise negotiated this month by the Obama
administration and congressional Republicans would extend
portions of the Go Zone credits, but only for one year That's
not enough to make many projects viable.
Metro area officials and housing advocates say about 2,800
housing units could be at risk in metro New Orleans alone if
only a one-year extension is granted. That includes plans to
redevelop some of the former Big Four housing projects, which
have been demolished and are set to be replaced by mixed-
income, lower-density housing. That would not only leave many
low-income New Orleanians without housing options, it also
would cost construction jobs.
Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter are trying
to change the extension in the tax compromise from one year
to two. The White House and congressional leaders from both
parties should support their efforts.
President Obama and congressional leaders have pledged to
support the rebuilding of our region, and our region needs
the two-year extension of Go Zone credits to make sure
important recovery projects get done. The White House and
Congress need to make sure the extension to 2012 is approved.
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 2010]
An Essential Fix
The recession dealt a devastating blow to the post-Katrina
rebuilding effort in the Gulf states, where scores of
affordable housing projects have been placed in jeopardy.
Congress can revive the rebuilding effort by extending the
deadline for a tax credit program that is supposed to
encourage developers and investors to take on these
desperately needed projects.
Nearly all affordable rental housing in this country is
built with federal tax credits. After Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, Congress allotted Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama
more than $300 million in low-income housing tax credits,
slightly more than two-thirds of which has been used. At
first, these credits, and projects, were hotly sought after.
Demand dropped sharply as corporate profits fell and
businesses had smaller and smaller tax liabilities.
As the economy has improved, interest in the credits seems
to be picking up in many places--but not in the Gulf. That's
partly because of a provision in the Gulf Opportunity Zone
law that requires projects in the region to be ready for
occupancy by the end of this year. That leaves just 10
months--instead of the 18 months that investors like to see--
for the deals to be sealed and the housing built. Projects
that miss the ready-for-occupancy date, because of all-too-
common weather delays or construction problems, would lose
the tax credit.
Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat of Louisiana, has
introduced an amendment that would extend the occupancy date
by two years. Unless Congress moves quickly to pass it, the
Gulf states could potentially lose financing for more than 70
housing projects and 6,000 units of affordable housing. The
loss would be especially devastating for New Orleans, which
is desperately short of housing for the low-income workers
who are essential to the city's service economy.
The more Congress dithers, the more likely it becomes that
tax credit investors will look outside the Gulf states for
places to put their money. This is an easy fix--and a
critical one.
____
March 2, 2010.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: Thank you for your letter of
February 25, 2010, regarding the extension of the Gulf Coast
Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) placed-in-service date. Please be assured that the
Administration understands the critical need for the
extension of the GO Zone tax credits, and also the negative
impact that failing to extend the credits would have on New
Orleans and other communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita as they continue recovery efforts. You should also
be assured that the Administration supports an extension of 2
years to December 31, 2012, of the GO Zone placed-in-service
date and is committed to working with Congress to see that
the extension is enacted as soon as possible.
As you mentioned in your letter, the economic activity
spurred by the GO Zone credits has played an important
simulative role in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. These
tax credits have fostered development in devastated areas and
have enabled the return of people who love their communities
and who are the drivers of local economies throughout the
Gulf Coast. GO Zone projects have created jobs and stimulated
the economic recovery in these areas. In New Orleans,
specifically, the tax credits have played a central role in
leveraging the financing needed to complete the rebuilding of
the Big Four public housing developments: St. Bernard, C.J.
Peete, Lafitte, and B.W. Cooper. The revitalized developments
have not only spurred activity surrounding construction and
will restore essential affordable housing, but have also
encouraged the establishment of new businesses and improved
civic life around these developments.
Since the beginning of the Administration, President Obama,
Vice President Biden, Dr. Jill Biden, 13 other members of the
Cabinet, and numerous agency heads, assistant secretaries,
and other senior level administration officials have visited
New Orleans and the wider Katrina- and Rita-impacted area to
see firsthand the scale of the recovery challenges that
remain. Our respective agencies have made significant
investments of staff and funding to support the recovery
efforts. Many of these programs continue to provide
meaningful resources to disaster survivors and the
communities being rebuilt. Through these visits, we have come
to recognize the dire impact that failing to extend this tax
credit would have on Gulf Coast communities and individual
families, many of whom were the hardest hit by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and the recent recession. Not extending the
GO Zone placed-in-service date would result in a major
setback for the recovery, and would impact public housing
residents, business, and communities. It would be
unconscionable to let the work that has created so much
progress, and so much hope, go unfulfilled.
We will continue to urge members of Congress to extend the
GO Zone placed-in-service date and stand firmly behind such
an extension. We are confident that with your help we will
see the extension signed into law, and with it, continued
economic activity and community revitalization in the Katrina
affected Gulf Coast.
Sincerely,
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Shaun Donovan,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to ask at this time if
Senator Baucus and then Senator Kyl and then Senator Vitter might
comment--I see them on the Senate floor--about the importance of
getting this fixed and the likelihood of us doing it today and what
might happen as we move forward.
Senator Baucus.
Mr. BAUCUS. I think our colleague has the floor to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair, and I certainly join my colleague from
Louisiana in stressing the importance of this second year of a GO Zone
extension and look forward to continuing to work with all of these
folks in getting that done absolutely as soon as possible in 2011.
[[Page S10249]]
I emphasize one major point, which is that this is not a new benefit
to fund new projects which were never envisioned when the GO Zone was
initially created. This is simply an extension to fund those crucial
projects which were at the center of this provision from the very
beginning and that have taken longer than was initially forecast
because of labor and other shortages after Hurricane Katrina. So this
is simply a time extension to get the very same crucial projects done,
not to add on to that list.
These projects are extremely important, including the wholesale
renovation and reconstruction of four major housing projects in New
Orleans post-Katrina that are being done using a dramatically different
and better model--mixed income, lower density--not the old-style
housing projects from the 1940s and 1950s which were, in my opinion, a
horrible social experiment.
So I certainly join this effort, and I have been working with all of
these folks to try to get this second year extension in this tax bill.
Unfortunately, we weren't able to do that because of a general decision
that was apparently made that none of the extenders would go beyond the
end of 2011. But working with these folks, and particularly Senator
Kyl, we came to an agreement that we would absolutely work to include
this in the first possible technical corrections or other measure that
would be keyed up in early 2011.
I thank everyone, particularly my Republican colleague, John Kyl, for
that willingness and that commitment, and I look forward to getting
that done at the earliest possible moment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like that time charged to the
other side.
Senator Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, both the Senators from Louisiana have
stated the case very well and, frankly, this is not a typical extender.
This is just a very important proposal where the placed-in-service date
has to be changed because projects beyond the year could not be put in
place the second year. So it is not a traditional extender where we
extend for 1 or 2 years some other provision. This is more in the
nature of what was started in the first year gets accomplished in the
second year, and that is why this 1-year add-on is so important.
I will work with the Senators and the Finance Committee, when we
bring up legislation next year, to do our very best to make sure this
provision is included so we can help these people who are desperately
in need of housing in Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Does the Senator have any idea about the time? I would
like to see if Senator Kyl can say a word on this because his views are
very important.
Mr. BAUCUS. I will add that my view would be at the earliest possible
opportunity. I don't know when that is exactly, but it is something
that should be placed high up, near the very top.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Sometime in January or February?
Mr. BAUCUS. Well, I hope. The Senator knows how this place operates,
but it is certainly very, very, very early.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Kyl?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to the
attention of the Senate. Senator Vitter brought this matter to my
attention as the bill was being wrapped up, as a matter of fact, and I
told him at that time that while we could not provide an extension
longer than the one in the tax bill, I would work with him early in
2011 to help these projects obtain the necessary extension. I say the
very same thing to the senior Senator from Louisiana today.
I also share the confidence of the chairman of the Finance Committee
that we will find an appropriate tax bill early in 2011 to include this
change, which I agree we all view as a technical change, that will
allow this special financing to be used as Congress intended it.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a question for Senator Kyl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Is it his understanding now, having had several
conversations with Senator Vitter and myself, that this technical
correction is perceived only to be limited to the 77 low-income
housing, mixed-income projects through the gulf coast? Is that his
understanding?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana
that I don't know technically whether it is 77 or 42 or whatever, but
we have all discussed the fact that it is limited to those projects
that are started but couldn't be completed within the 1-year extension
and, therefore, would require the second extension, and it is limited
to this area, yes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. And is it the Senator's intention to push for a tax
bill? He was so successful in pushing this tax bill forward. Is it his
intention to do that in early January, mid-January, early February?
Mr. KYL. I would say to my colleague that I asked the chairman of the
Finance Committee: How quickly do you think we could do this? He gave
me the same answer he just gave you: Yes, as soon as we can, but it is
hard to make a commitment about a tax bill coming to the floor.
As I also told the senior Senator from Louisiana, there are some
other reasons we have to act quite quickly next year in dealing with
some technical fixes to other aspects of the tax bill. So there are
other reasons to act quickly as well as this particular situation.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I would just say--with about 30 seconds left--
that I am encouraged, Mr. President, from what I have heard from the
Senate Finance Committee chair and the chief negotiator on tax issues
on the Republican side that they recognize this is a technical
correction. They recognize it is limited to low-income housing. They
recognize the importance of these projects, and they have committed to
working on fixing this as early as possible in the next Congress. I
think that gives it a glimmer of hope.
We would not get unanimous consent today because there remain
objections on the other side of the aisle, but I think we can move
forward with confidence knowing Senator Kyl is good on his word and
Senator Baucus is good on his word and they will try to fix this at the
earliest possible date.
I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Motion to Suspend
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII, including any
germaneness requirements, for the purposes of proposing and considering
amendment No. 4765, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's motion is pending. Is there a
sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all
subsequent votes after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration;
further, that prior to the vote on the motion to concur there be 2
minutes for debate equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on the absurd
premise that the unemployment insurance benefits piece alone must be
paid for, lest we contribute to the deficit. Never mind that this
entire package contributes $858 billion to the deficit, of which only
$51 billion is accounted for by the UI extension provision. It is clear
that this amendment is not about deficit reduction; rather, it is about
attacking programs that make a real difference to the everyday lives of
our constituents. Meanwhile, this amendment leaves the tax benefits to
the wealthiest Americans, those who need the least assistance,
completely intact.
Let me be clear. There are a few ideas proposed in this amendment
that make some sense. However, as part of the Appropriations
Committee's annual and ongoing oversight responsibilities, the
committee has already rescinded unobligated balances from those
programs or reduced their funding for fiscal year 2011 as part of the
fiscal year 2011 omnibus, which the Senate will consider this week.
Every recommendation in the omnibus was made in collaboration with
Republican
[[Page S10250]]
members of the Appropriations Committee, based on a detailed analysis.
These decisions were not made rashly, nor because they might sound good
in a press release.
Too often when the Senate debates cuts in unobligated balances, the
proponents want to ignore the consequences of their recommendations and
focus on broad generalizations. But in reality these cuts can cause
serious problems. Accordingly, let me highlight the impact of a few of
the programmatic cuts proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma.
For example, this amendment would require each Department to cut its
workforce by 10 percent over 10 years, without considering the impact
of the cuts. It seems as though Federal workers have become the newest
punching bag for a few of our colleagues. FDA staff, necessary to
ensure that the food we eat and the drugs we take are safe and
effective, would be cut by nearly 1,000. The staff of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service would be cut by an additional 1,000. These cuts
are irresponsible and would put the American public at unnecessary risk
at a time of breakthrough medical research when important new drugs are
being produced and must be monitored. When more of our food supply is
coming from around the world, preventing contamination is more
important than ever.
More than 95 percent of the 280,000 employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs either work for the Veterans Health Administration or
the Veterans Benefits Administration. To reduce the VA's overall
employees by 28,000 over 10 years would mean that doctors, dentists,
hospital administrators, and benefits claims processors would have to
be reduced. As more and more of our veterans are returning home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be cutting their service
providers.
This amendment would require a reduction of 600 to 800 Government
Accountability Office staff, as well as a reduction in travel that is
necessary for the GAO to conduct audits and evaluations. Travel is
critical to GAO's ability to meet the requirements of Congress.
Rescinding funds from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals will not
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, cutting funding for these
agencies means cutting agents who are serving on the front lines
keeping our Nation safe from terrorist threats and cyber attacks,
reducing the flow of drugs, and combating gun-related violence along
the southwest border, strengthening immigration enforcement, and
keeping children safe from sexual predators. That is the real impact of
this proposal.
The 15-percent budget cut to the Executive Office of the President
might sound reasonable, but it would cut key staff of the Council of
Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Homeland
Security Council. This would severely hamper the President's ability to
coordinate critical economic security and national security programs
across the entire Federal Government. It would be particularly
devastating considering that the rest of the Federal Government would
also be shedding a significant number of staff under the Coburn
amendment, leaving agencies currently managing the economic crisis and
our national and homeland security programs not only short-staffed but
also in chaos due to minimized leadership.
The Coburn amendment also would eliminate the State grant for the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The Congressional Budget Office has
previously recommended this action. However, this suggestion comes a
year too late. The Committee on Appropriations removed $295 million in
funding for the State formula grant funding from the 2010
appropriations bill. There is no funding for the State grants program
in the 2011 bill. The Appropriations Committee has already made this
cut.
The Coburn amendment would also rescind $4 billion in fiscal year
2011 for U.S. development and humanitarian programs in the world's
poorest countries, from Haiti to Afghanistan. This would cut funding
for programs for refugees and victims of natural disasters from Darfur
to Pakistan; it would affect global health programs including HIV/AIDS
prevention and treatment that mean life or death for millions of
people; and it would weaken programs to support food security and
nutrition, clean water, sanitation, and basic education, and to combat
human trafficking, in countries where 95 percent of new births are
occurring and over 2 billion people barely survive on less than $2 per
day. The short-term effects of such a reduction in funding would be
severe, the long-term effects would be devastating, and ultimately it
would exacerbate global problems that directly affect U.S. security.
The amendment proposes to rescind funds focused on returning
contaminated sites to productive use. The Brownfields Program has a
track record of successfully restoring damaged properties--often in
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods--to sources of
economic growth, creating jobs for lower income people in the process.
Many of our cities are among those communities hardest hit by the
economic recession. Now is not the time to stall the cleanup of
brownfields.
This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Army in consultation
with other Federal agencies to determine the definition of ``low
priority'' Army Corps projects. This appears to be code for those
projects not requested in the President's budget. Since when has the
administration been the only source of wisdom for determining funding
decisions? If there is surplus funding available, we should ask the
Corps to identify those funds and propose them for rescission. However,
it would become quickly apparent that this strategy is penny wise and
pound foolish. These are all ongoing projects, previously funded by
this or prior Congresses. It would not make economic sense to stop
these projects. Demobilization costs and costs to make these
construction sites safe for the public could end up costing more than
continuing the projects.
These are just a few examples of the damage that would be done if
this reckless amendment was actually agreed to. But I would conclude by
saying that every Member of this Chamber who supports the tax cut deal
should vote against the amendment being offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma for the simple reason that it seeks to change the tax package,
which reflects an agreement between the Republican leader and the
President of the United States. The Republican leadership signed off on
this deal because many of the provisions they wanted were included in
exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment insurance benefits
with no offset. I would certainly hope that they will stand by their
agreement.
Mr. President, this amendment would do serious damage to many
necessary government programs. Unobligated does not mean excess or
unnecessary. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Coburn amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am voting for the Coburn motion to
suspend the rules to allow the Senate to consider his amendment to
offset extension of unemployment benefits because we must be able to
discuss ways to start bringing down the deficit. Senator Coburn's
amendment provides a fiscally responsible way to extend unemployment
insurance for out-of-work Americans and to pay for other costs
contained in the tax bill.
With the underlying agreement in the tax bill to extend current tax
rates for 2 years, individuals and businesses will have more certainty
on tax policy. This is needed to spur economic growth and job creation.
Senator Coburn's amendment takes the next important step to begin
reducing spending to deal with the deficit. The Senate deserves an
opportunity to debate and vote on the Coburn amendment so that we can
begin this process.
I spoke with Senator Coburn about an item in his amendment that would
rescind NASA funding for Constellation systems. I strongly oppose this
provision, which would significantly disrupt the authorization law we
passed in September. NASA is expressly continuing some elements of the
Constellation program such as the crew exploration vehicle in order to
shorten the time for building the new launch vehicle that will propel
human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Terminating those contracts
before they can be transitioned to support the new direction Congress
has mandated would force NASA to start over, delaying development of
the new launch vehicle, greatly increasing its costs to
[[Page S10251]]
the American tax payer. It could also jeopardize the full use of the
space station for scientific research. Senator Coburn has agreed to
revisit this provision in the future, in an effort to assure scientific
integrity.
All time has expired. The question now is on agreeing to the Coburn
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4765. The yeas and nays
have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kirk
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Begich
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the DeMint
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4804. The yeas and nays
have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--63
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). On this vote, the yeas are 37,
the nays are 63. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being
present, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Sanders
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4809. The yeas and nays
have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Begich
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--57
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are
57. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, amendment No. 4754 is withdrawn.
Vote Explanation
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to provide a brief
explanation of my absence during the vote on the motion to proceed to
the Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization
and Job Creation Act of 2010 on December 13.
I was not in the Senate Chamber for the vote because I was traveling
back from Oregon, where I had a previous commitment earlier in the day
to participate in a major summit of the leading businesses and
political leadership of Oregon looking at ways to revive the Oregon
economy.
As I stated publicly prior to the vote, had I been present I would
have voted against moving forward on the tax cut proposal under the
circumstances. The package that was brought to the floor will add
nearly $1 trillion to the national debt and includes major components--
particularly bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires--that the
Congressional Budget Office has found to be one of the least effective
means of creating jobs. I could not support moving to this flawed
package without an opportunity to offer amendments to fix it.
I continue to strongly support tax cuts for working families and the
reauthorization of unemployment benefits, and other provisions in this
bill that would be useful to create jobs and help families and small
businesses. But I cannot support a bill that forces those same working
families and small businesses to shoulder responsibility for billions
more in debt while continuing too many of the policies that drove our
Nation into record deficits and caused financial distress for millions
of working families.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have always pledged to the people of
Utah that I would fight any tax increase that gives Washington more of
their hard-earned money to spend. Allowing middle-class families, small
businesses, and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying
this government hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is
the right thing to do.
Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases
that threatens our economic future. If this tax relief expires, Utah
would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year and household disposable
income would drop by $2,200. Over 150,000 Utah families would be hit
with the alternative minimum tax. Small businesses would see their
marginal tax rates go up by as much as 24 percent and our GDP would
take almost a 2 percent hit.
I say to my colleagues in the House who want to change this proposal
to impose more taxes on American families, you act not only at your own
peril, but that of the American people. You had 4 years to stop these
tax hikes, but refused. If you change this package for the worse now,
with only 2 weeks left in this Congress, I will do everything in my
power to ensure your changes never pass the U.S. Senate.
[[Page S10252]]
Some argue, why not wait until after January when Republicans control
the House to get a better deal. I appreciate that position, but that is
a gamble I am not willing to take. Democrats will retain control of the
White House and the Senate they will simply drag their feet while
blaming conservatives. The collateral damage of inaction will be hard-
working families who will see lower paychecks starting on January 1.
Experts point to the damage to the economy, but I am as concerned about
the damage to the budgets of Utah families. In this case, tax relief
denied to all those families, if delayed indefinitely, could be tax
relief denied.
I also want to mention the death tax--an insidious tax that
disproportionately hits small businesses and family farms. This year it
was fully phased out. From my viewpoint, that is the right policy. But,
if we don't act, on January 1 it goes back up to what it was in 2000--a
$1 million threshold and a top rate of 55 percent. The proposal before
us today includes the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise.
That bipartisan proposal puts in place a $5 million threshold--$10
million per couple--and a top rate of 35 percent. When Republicans were
in control in 2006, we couldn't even get this proposal through
Congress. So this is a pretty good deal and to my friend from Arizona,
Senator Kyl, I applaud his efforts. If Congress fails to act, on
January 1, 10 times the number of estates will be hit, including 13
times as manner farm-heavy estates.
If I had my way, all the income tax rates would be made permanent--
that is the kind of certainty our economy and job creators need.
Furthermore, I would never extend some of the so-called temporary tax
provisions that look like tax relief, but in reality are little
different than welfare through the Tax Code. Far too much new spending
is mislabeled as tax relief. Thankfully, some of those provisions were
dropped, like the so-called build America bonds tax credit. We also
should pay for this extension of unemployment insurance so it doesn't
add to the debt.
Lastly, to those who believe that instead of this proposal, we should
be undertaking wholesale tax reform: you are absolutely right. We need
to reform our Tax Code to broaden the base while lowering rates to make
our economy more competitive. But we don't have time to reform the code
before January 1. As the next lead Republican on the Senate Finance
Committee, I will lead the fight to simplify the Tax Code, and cut back
on out-of-control Washington spending. Once we stop these tax hikes, we
can then begin the long-overdue national discussion about how best to
overhaul our overly burdensome and inefficient tax system.
The bottom line is that this package is not perfect. But it does at
least one very important thing it allows the American people to keep
more of their hard-earned money and not hand it over to the Federal
Government.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the debate over the bill we have before
us can be boiled down to one simple thing: jobs. Extending middle-class
tax cuts will help create jobs. Not extending middle-class tax cuts
would cost jobs. Jobs must be our No. 1 priority. And so we must pass
this bill.
We know cutting taxes for middle-class families is one of the most
effective ways to grow our economy. When working folks keep more of
their hard-earned money, they pump it back into our economy and support
jobs.
This bill also includes a number of other important provisions
designed to create jobs, and I would like to take a moment to focus on
one of those provisions--the 1603 grant program that makes resources
available for renewable power development.
The 1603 grant program provides renewable energy companies with money
up front to cover 30 percent of the costs of renewable power
facilities, such as wind farms and solar projects, and that means jobs.
According to a study by the independent Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, the 1603 grant program is responsible for saving 55,000
American jobs in the wind industry alone.
It is estimated that 1603 is responsible for helping to produce as
many as 2,400 megawatts of wind power--about a quarter of all wind
power installed in 2009. This includes projects such as the Glacier
Wind Farm near Shelby, MT.
Before 1603, producers had to rely on Wall Street investors to fund
their renewable energy projects through a complex system known as tax
equity financing. Through tax equity financing, Wall Street firms would
invest in renewable power projects in exchange for tax credits. When
Wall Street collapsed in 2008, this system of financing collapsed along
with it, threatening the future of American renewable power.
So we created 1603 grants in the Recovery Act to bypass Wall Street
and provide cash directly to renewable power developers. As a result,
most experts have credited the 1603 program with saving the wind
industry--and the good-paying American jobs that go along with it.
The tax equity financing market has begun to recover. But tax equity
financing is still much more expensive than that provided under 1603,
and 1603 also provides a greater bang for our taxpayer buck. By cutting
out expensive Wall Street middlemen, 1603 provides grants directly to
energy developers to support energy projects and jobs. And 1603
supports smaller projects that wouldn't have otherwise been financed by
Wall Street.
Industry experts predict that extending the 1603 grant program will
result in 45,000 new American jobs in 2011 in the wind and solar
industries alone and many more in the geothermal and biomass.
Supporting renewable power also helps put America back in control and
puts the United States on a path toward energy independence. And
supporting renewable power projects today supports even more jobs
manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels tomorrow. That is why I am
working hard with leaders in my State to bolster long-term growth in
the wind sector by bringing wind manufacturing jobs to Montana. Today,
Montana is poised to begin a significant expansion of the generation
capacity of our wind resources. Montana's wind energy resources rank in
the top 5 in the United States, but our State is ranked No. 18 in
installed capacity. The extension of the 1603 grant program will make
Montana's wind-generation expansion possible, creating an ideal
situation for a wind turbine or component manufacturing facility.
Madam President, we need an energy policy that puts America back in
control. Extension of the 1603 grant program is just one example of a
commonsense policy that will create jobs, ramp up American energy
production, and help us build a wind energy industry in Montana, and
across America, that will be a cornerstone of our Nation's energy
independence.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, when the Senate invoked cloture on this
bill yesterday evening, and adopted the procedure used after cloture,
those of us who oppose portions of this bill lost any opportunity to
address the problems we see and seek to repair them. I voted against
the motion to invoke cloture because I hoped that, if the cloture
motion failed, the Senate would have a chance to consider a better
bill, and to improve it through the traditional method of debate and
amendment.
That did not happen.
I have spoken, as have others, about the defects of this proposal.
Its tax cuts are unwisely skewed toward the wealthy, including an
estate tax provision that would benefit a few thousand of our most
fortunate taxpayers at great cost to the Treasury. These benefits for
the wealthiest among us will not, despite the claims of our Republican
colleagues, help our economic recovery. Nearly everyone says that
should be our top priority, and it should be. As a host of economists
across the ideological spectrum have demonstrated, tax cuts for the
well-to-do have little impact on economic growth.
It is not just that these benefits for the wealthiest will have no
positive impact on our economy. What is worse, the upper income tax
cuts and estate tax provisions that Republicans support would add more
than $100 billion to the national debt over the next 2 years.
Republicans in this Chamber repeatedly tell us that the 2010 election
was a call for more fiscal restraint. Yet their most significant action
following that election has been to insist upon tax cuts for the
wealthy paid for with billions of dollars in borrowed money.
It is not just the inconsistency of our Republican colleagues that I
find so
[[Page S10253]]
troubling. It is that in pursuit of their goal, they are holding
hostage progress for the American people, not just on tax cuts, but on
a range of other crucial issues. They tell us they will not support tax
provisions that help working families unless we also include huge
giveaways for the wealthy. They tell us we cannot continue emergency
unemployment benefits unless we also give several times the cost of
those benefits to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They tell us
we cannot provide tax relief to help businesses grow and add workers
unless we also give away more borrowed money to the wealthy.
And there is more. Republicans have filibustered the defense
authorization bill, crucial legislation for the good of our troops and
their families, because we have not yet passed tax cuts for the
wealthy. They blocked consideration of the New START treaty, a treaty
supported by past presidents and secretaries of state of both parties,
a treaty that will make our Nation and the entire globe safer and more
secure. In an extraordinary letter, all 42 Senate Republicans have said
they will not allow the Senate to consider any legislation, no matter
how important, until we give billions in borrowed money to the wealthy
in the form of tax cuts.
Despite the flaws in this bill and the process by which it comes
before us, it has a number of strengths. Greatest among them is the
extension of emergency unemployment benefits. In my State and others,
thousands of Americans are without work through no fault of their own,
and they and their families are depending on us to give them the
support they need. These benefits are not just critical to those
families, but they also have a highly stimulative impact on the
economy. Extending the UI program is the right thing to do. We need to
do it, and we can do it yet this year, if we stay here and continue
working, as we should, right through to the new year.
But even some of the positives in this legislation have significant
drawbacks. The 2 percent payroll tax cut would be welcomed by working
families, and could help the economy grow. But it would also cost the
Treasury more than $110 billion in borrowed money next year. While some
argue that might still be an acceptable price for boosting economic
growth, I believe it is very unlikely that Congress will have the will
to let that tax cut expire next year. Already, some of our Republican
colleagues are talking of making the cut permanent. That money,
otherwise lost to the Social Security trust fund, must come from
somewhere, and I am concerned that it will come from cuts to Social
Security or other essential programs.
We can support middle-class families, job-producing businesses and
the unemployed without unleashing the damage this legislation would do
to our budget and to economic justice.
I cannot accept the price Republicans want to extract from us. We
need not accept it if we have the will to debate and amend this
legislation and are willing to stay through the end of this year to do
it. The damage to our fiscal situation and to Social Security, and the
damage done by continued inequality these tax cuts would perpetuate, is
unacceptable. Beyond that, I believe it would be a mistake to allow
Republicans to succeed in their irresponsible brinkmanship, blocking
aid to working families and the important other business before the
Senate in order to secure benefits for the wealthiest Americans.
I fully expect that my Republican colleagues will soon be urging this
body to rein in the debt. Already, we have seen proposals that would
seek to remedy our Nation's fiscal crisis by dramatically cutting
crucial programs, including Social Security. It is not a stretch to
suggest that the cost of this bill alone will lead some to argue that
Congress must enact more and deeper cuts to essential programs,
including Social Security--all so that we can give away money the
government does not have to the wealthiest few.
We must stand up and fight against an approach that would sacrifice
aid to the vast majority of Americans on the altar of unaffordable tax
cuts for the wealthiest among us. I believe that time should be today.
And so I will vote against this legislation.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on Monday, the Senate took an important
step toward extending critical tax relief for all Americans by
approving cloture on the Reid-McConnell amendment, by an overwhelming
vote. This bipartisan vote is encouraging and demonstrates that Members
of this body can work together, with the President, to do what is
reasonable and right to address the economic challenges our Nation
continues to face.
As with any compromise, however, the bill is not perfect, and I would
like to note for the record several--although not all--of the items I
believe should have been handled differently.
First, I am concerned about the failure to include an extension of
the production tax credit for existing open-loop biomass facilities.
This credit is critical for preserving renewable energy and forestry
jobs in Maine and across the United States, and an extension of this
credit was included in previous tax proposals. According to the
American Forest & Paper Association and the Biomass Power Association,
since the start of 2008, at least 35 paper mills have permanently
closed and more than 75 other facilities have experienced market-
related downtime. In the biomass sector this year, six facilities have
closed, three in Maine and three in California, and more are under the
threat of closure.
The bill would be improved by extending the tax credit period for
existing open-loop biomass facilities, as called for by Senator Bill
Nelson's amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment would
allow these facilities to remain competitive with other forms of
renewable energy, saving jobs that are seriously at risk.
Second, I am concerned that the decision by the drafters to strike
language added to the Tax Code by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act could lead to unnecessary confusion regarding certain
wood stoves.
For example, the bill strikes language that I sought in ARRA to
clarify how the thermal efficiency of residential wood and wood-pellet
stoves should be measured for purposes of the tax credit in section
25C. That tax credit was created by the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008, which did not specify a methodology for
determining thermal efficiency. The IRS has issued guidance directing
that the ``lower heating value'' methodology should be used, which is
consistent with industry practices and with our intent to ensure that
the credit is available for efficient and clean-burning wood and wood-
pellet stoves.
Removing the reference to the ``lower heating value'' from the code
serves little purpose. Certainly, however, it does not mean that this
commonsense methodology is precluded, nor does it require the IRS to
revisit its methodology. I hope that my comments today will help avoid
confusion about the use of the ``lower heating value'' methodology with
respect to this tax credit.
Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not hold the line on a
tax credit for corn-based ethanol and some other special interest
provisions. The corn-based ethanol tax break is extraordinarily
expensive, costing some $6 billion in subsidies from taxpayers annually
according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over recent years we have
also seen food and feed prices rise as crops have been diverted to
first generation biofuel production. In addition, corn-based ethanol
mandates present an environmental concern as they could result in
energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants,
because mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of
emission control devices and systems installed on engines.
Of course, a bill without these flaws would have been preferable, but
with the economy still weak, and with unemployment persisting at nearly
10 percent nationally, now is not the time to be raising taxes, and
this bill averts one of the largest tax increases in history. America
needs jobs--not higher taxes.
In September, I first urged my colleagues and the administration to
come together around this 2-year compromise that will get us through
the recession and send a strong signal to the business community to
invest and create jobs. I am pleased that the Senate has acted to give
families some confidence and business owners some certainty.
I encourage my colleagues in the Congress and the President to use
this
[[Page S10254]]
2-year period to undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our system
fairer, simpler, and more progrowth.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to support the tax cut package
before us today to help middle-class families and workers hit hardest
by this economy, and that is exactly what this bill will do. It will
ensure that middle-class taxes don't go up January 1, that laid-off
workers can provide for their families while they continue to look for
work, that an average household in my home State will receive $1,400 in
payroll tax relief, and it will protect 1.6 million middle class New
Jerseyans from a surprise alternative minimum tax hike of up to $5,600.
This is an important moment for the middle class in America.
This is a time to come together, like the Senate did last night, to
ensure this bill passes and our economic recovery continues. Many
families are sitting around the kitchen table at night wondering how
they can afford to feed and clothe their children, much less buy gifts
for them during this holiday.
Middle class families are wondering how they are going to pay the
mortgage. How they are going to pay the tuition for their college-bound
children next semester.
I will vote for this package, not because I agree with every
provision, particularly those that give bonus tax breaks to the
wealthiest and most able to sacrifice during this economic recession,
but because it will help families in my State and across this country
who really do need our help.
I will vote for this package because, at its core, it is a middle-
class tax relief package.
I will vote for it because it extends tax relief of more than 3,000
for a typical working family and doubles the child tax credit from $500
to $1,000.
I will vote for it because the $120 billion payroll tax cut is an
effective way to create jobs and increase the consumer demand sorely
needed by our Nation's businesses.
I will vote for it because it includes a 2-year extension of the
alternative minimum tax relief legislation, which I sponsored, so 1.6
million New Jerseyans will not face an additional tax bill of up to
$5,600.
I will vote for this package because it preserves transit benefits to
New Jersey commuters. This provision, which was not included in the
original deal, but I worked hard to restore, will allow commuters to
receive up to $230 in transit benefits tax free.
It extends the low-income child tax credit and earned-income tax
credit to ensure that a working family with three children could
continue to receive a tax cut of more than $2,000.
It helps students and their parents by extending the partially
refundable American opportunity tax credit, worth up to $2,500, that
helps 8 million students and their families cover the cost of tuition.
It helps save and create green jobs by extending what's known as the
1603 Treasury grant program, widely credited with maintaining strong
growth in the renewable energy sector in 2009 and 2010, despite the
severe economic downturn, and has saved tens of thousands of jobs in
the wind and solar industries.
I worked hard to restore this particular provision because it has
provided more than $66 million in grants to fund 155 solar projects in
New Jersey alone.
And most importantly, for those who are unemployed, it includes a
long-overdue 13-month extension of Federal support for 99 weeks of
unemployment insurance for workers who have lost their jobs during this
economic downturn, something our Republican colleagues fought against
all year, a helping hand they refused to extend unless the rich got
even more in tax cuts, even though extending unemployment benefits is a
policy that most economists agree is one of the most effective measures
to create jobs.
It helps small business owners by creating the largest temporary
investment incentive in American history by allowing businesses to
expense all of their qualified investments in 2011.
Estimates from the Treasury Department indicate this could generate
more than $50 billion in additional investment in the U.S. next year.
The bill includes a provision I cosponsored to incentivize restaurant
owners to upgrade their facilities by extending for 2 years a provision
that allows them to write off their costs much faster than they could
otherwise, 15 years as opposed to 39 years.
And it helps small business owners by extending for 2 years the
research and development tax credit which incentivizes companies to
create jobs in America by giving them a tax credit for qualified
research spending.
The R&D tax credit is truly a jobs credit with 70 percent or more of
the credit attributable to salaries and wages of U.S. workers
performing research in the United States. I have cosponsored
legislation to make this credit permanent, and I hope we will.
Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle decided
that if we were going to pass a bill to help the middle class, it could
not move without additional benefits for the wealthiest.
In order for us to help the middle class, we are being asked by our
Republican colleagues to give millionaires an additional windfall.
In order to pass an extension of desperately needed unemployment
benefits as emergency spending, we must also pass a windfall for
estates worth more than $5 million.
Yes that is correct, apparently now Republicans believe you must
offset help for laid-off workers with estate tax cuts for the heirs of
millionaires and billionaires.
Now, people who have worked hard and built personal wealth should be
applauded for their success. Their hard work, their creativity, their
ingenuity should be applauded and admired.
People who work hard and prosper, they love their country too, and
they are in the best position to be helpful to our nation in this tough
economic time.
Many of them are willing to contribute if we ask, and we know from
experience that reverting to the tax rates the wealthiest and most
successful paid during the Clinton era of prosperity did not hurt our
economy.
This package certainly is not ideal. Let me be perfectly clear, I do
not think we should be giving the wealthiest Americans, those who are
the most able to share in the sacrifice needed in today's economy, even
more in tax cuts just to keep taxes from increasing on the middle
class. But that is the hand we have been dealt. We had votes on
extending middle class tax cuts, and we could not garner enough
Republican support to pass them.
Now the decision is not whether or not to support tax cuts for the
wealthy. The decision before us today is whether we are going to stand
up for the middle class and protect them from the tax increase that is
looming 2 weeks from now.
The bottom line is that this package meets our priority on this side
of the aisle, of making a real difference in the lives of middle class
families affected by layoffs, families struggling to make ends meet,
and, in the process, help further stimulate our fragile economy, rather
than allow it to slide back into recession.
If we can achieve that, then this compromise is well worth it.
I hope that those on the other side who have shamelessly stood for
putting more money in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires
regardless of the cost, regardless of the fact that doing so has failed
to create jobs, will not come back a year or 2 years from now and have
the audacity to blame this administration or members on this side of
the aisle for fiscal irresponsibility, that we will never again be
lectured about deficits by those who demand billions of dollars in
deficit spending for the heir of estates worth more than $5 million.
That is what a Republican world looks like. It is a world of blue
smoke and mirrors in which they tell us we can see castles, kingdoms,
an economy that is not real and jobs that are not there.
The negotiations to get to this point revealed much about the
priorities of each party, and frankly the tactics employed by my
Republican colleagues do not sit well with me and many of my fellow
Democrats.
But the bottom line is that most of my colleagues recognize, as I do,
that this package will make a real difference in the lives of middle
class families struggling in difficult economic circumstances.
And I believe it will have strong support, that it will benefit
millions of average Americans who simply want us to do what is right
for them.
[[Page S10255]]
It is my hope that this package is the last time we will be forced to
cut a deal for the wealthy just to protect middle-class families.
I listened with great interest to the words of the President when he
spoke about tax reform recently. We have an opportunity to reform the
Tax Code, to simplify what has become a nightmare for millions of
Americans, to get rid of so much preferential treatment for special
interests currently in the code, and to lower income tax rates for
everybody.
We should have a Tax Code that reflects the general interests of the
American people, not one that forces the less politically connected to
pay more in taxes than those with powerful allies.
And I expect that the next time this issue comes up, we will not be
discussing whether or not to extend the failed tax policies of the Bush
administration, but how to best simplify the Tax Codes so tax rates for
everybody can be reduced permanently and responsibly.
Mr. REID. Madam President, in times like these, we cannot afford to
play games with the economic security of middle-class families in
Nevada, and across America.
This bill is not perfect, but it gives those families the boost they
so desperately need. It will create 2 million jobs, according to an
estimate by the Center for American Progress. For Nevadans, the energy
tax cut provisions will create as many as 2,500 jobs in Nevada alone,
at a time when jobs are so badly needed.
This bill will cut taxes for middle-class families and small
businesses. It contains a $120 billion payroll tax reduction, which
will give the average middle-class family a tax cut of $1,200. It
extends the college tax credit to help more Americans get the education
and skills they need to compete. And it will ensure that Americans who
are still looking for work will continue to have the safety net they
rely on to make ends meet.
It is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues drew this process out
so long. While we ultimately were able to reach a compromise, there was
one point that Republicans refused to compromise on: they were dead set
on delivering huge tax breaks to people who do not need them, no matter
what.
Warren Buffett recently came forward and said, I don't need a tax
cut. Give it to the person who's serving lunch. This is just common
sense. In tough times, we should concentrate our efforts on helping the
people who need it most. Not only will it help them more, but they are
more likely to spend the money and help grow our economy.
Unfortunately, this debate also revealed that my Republican
colleagues would rather talk about the deficit than actually do
anything to bring it down. The giveaways to millionaires that they
fought for will add $700 billion to our deficit. My Republican friends
love to talk about the deficit, but when it came time for them to make
a decision, cutting the deficit took a back seat to giving tax breaks
to people who do not need them.
In the future, I hope my Republican colleagues will match their
actions to their rhetoric, and start working with us to bring down the
deficit.
Clearly, we Democrats disagree with our Republican colleagues about
where we should be focusing our efforts in this tough economy. We think
we should be focusing on the middle class, they think we should be
giving more benefits to the wealthiest among us, even if those benefits
add to the deficit.
But despite our disagreements, we were able to reach a compromise.
Because that is what the American people want us to do: find common
ground, and reach solutions that will benefit our middle class.
The framework agreed upon by President Obama and Senate Republicans
might not be the approach I would have taken. But with millions of
American families still struggling to make ends meet, it is our
responsibility not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know
our counterparts in the House will pass this bill quickly so that we
can get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, and give
middle-class Americans a little more peace of mind this holiday season.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Michigan.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as we proceed to this important final
vote, there are two provisions I strongly believe ought to be in this
bill. They are bipartisan provisions. I came to the floor yesterday to
offer a unanimous consent on both of those. Unfortunately, our
Republican colleagues were not on the Senate floor, so out of a
courtesy I did not proceed. But I will now at this point.
The advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, 48C--a strong
bipartisan effort to make sure we are making things in America,
creating over 17,000 jobs in 43 States across the country, leveraging
$7.7 billion in private investment,--should be included in this bill so
when we talk about energy and new innovation, we are making it in
America.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree
amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer amendment No. 4775,
an amendment to extend the 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax
credit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I have a second unanimous consent
request. I also spoke last night about the urgent need to fix an IRS
reporting provision for small business----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent for another 10 seconds to offer
a unanimous consent request in order to set aside the second-degree
amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer an amendment No.
4773 that would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement for small
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion
to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853
with amendment No. 4753.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--19
Bingaman
Coburn
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Feingold
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Merkley
Sanders
Sessions
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, with our vote today on the Tax Relief,
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,
we have passed legislation that will have profound short- and long-term
consequences for our nation. I supported
[[Page S10256]]
this measure once it became the only available option to provide much-
needed help to American families. I, however, have deep concerns with
other aspects of this bill, and I extend my support for it with strong
reservations.
Our economy has not yet recovered from the downturn that began over 2
years ago. Hawaii's foreclosure rate in October of this year was the
12th highest in the Nation. In November, Hawaii saw a 49-percent
increase in consumer bankruptcy filings compared to the same month in
2009, the second largest increase in the country. These are strong
indications that people in Hawaii cannot sustain an increase in their
tax obligations. We cannot allow taxes to rise on the workingclass when
so many homeowners are already unable to afford their mortgages and
consumers are unable to meet their outstanding debt obligations.
One major cause of these problems is unemployment, and I would not
have been able to support this legislation had it not included a 13-
month extension of unemployment benefits. Families and individuals
across Hawaii and the Nation need these benefits to help pay their
rents and mortgages while they search for a job, and parents need this
assistance to put food on the table and provide for their children. I
refuse to abandon these people. That is why I supported this bill.
I regret that we were unable to provide permanent tax relief for
working-class Americans, families, and small businesses because their
financial well-being has been haplessly tied to tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires since the beginning of this tax debate.
Earlier this month, we considered two fair and reasonable tax
proposals--one to permanently extend the expiring tax cuts for families
earning under $250,000, followed by a compromise that included
Americans earning up to $1 million a year. These were good-faith
efforts to provide help where it is most needed--to families and small
businesses that, unlike the millionaires and billionaires out there, do
not have the financial security to weather the recession.
Unfortunately, both were defeated by a minority of my colleagues and
instead we have been forced to maintain fiscally irresponsible Bush-era
tax policies through the legislation that we have just passed.
When these tax cuts were enacted at the beginning of this decade, I
called it ``irresponsible fiscal policy.'' I correctly predicted that
the upper income tax breaks would lead to an explosion of the deficit
and leave a mountain of debt for future generations. At the time, I
lobbied for targeted tax cuts that would stimulate economic growth and
employment while preserving fiscal discipline.
The national debt now stands above $13.8 trillion. Our budget
surpluses have long since turned into deficits. Difficult budget
choices are now before us. We will have the opportunity to reexamine
these tax cuts for the richest Americans that we have just imprudently
extended, as well as the temporary estate tax and payroll tax holiday
provisions in the bill. Fiscal discipline must be maintained. I am
prepared to make hard choices to restore and preserve our country's
long-term economic security. Until then, I am pleased that we were able
to help the unemployed and working-class through this extension of
expiring tax provisions and unemployment benefits, and that is why I
supported this bill.
____________________