[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10401-S10404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TRUCK WEIGHTS ON MAINE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the continuing 
resolution, H.R. 3082.
  My amendment will rectify an impediment to international commerce 
flowing through Maine, and protect Maine drivers and pedestrians. For 
the past year, Maine truckers have operated under a pilot program that 
allows trucks over 80,000 pounds to move from local roads to safer 
interstate routes, far from schools and homes. The pilot project has 
been a great success, and I seek to make it permanent.
  Unless we take action before December 17, trucks over 80,000 pounds 
traveling to or from the Canadian border or within upstate Maine will 
be forced onto secondary roads, many of them two-lane roads, which run 
through towns and villages. Trucks traveling between Houlton and 
Hampden, ME, on these local roads will pass more than three thousand 
homes, several schools, and hundreds of intersections. Tanker trucks 
carrying fuel will again be traveling past elementary schools and 
libraries, and competing with local traffic. Not only is this an 
inefficient method of moving goods, but it also unnecessarily increases 
risks on narrow local roads.
  What is the result of such truck traffic on local roads? According to 
a study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic 
fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times 
greater on secondary roads in Maine than on exempted interstates. 
Serious injuries are seven times more likely. The past year's pilot 
program has proved that Maine's rural interstate is a safer place for 
large trucks.
  Maine Department of Transportation officials strongly support this 
program. Extensive studies and infrastructure inspections have left 
State DOT officials confident that heavier trucks carrying interstate 
and international loads belong on the interstate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the 
tax legislation that will not only enable millions of American families 
to keep more of their paychecks, but will also provide a stable and 
predictable economic platform upon which American businesses can 
operate, and pull our economy from the economic morass of the past 2 
years.
  This legislation certainly cannot remedy all of our economic 
struggles, but it is essential that we provide necessary certainty in 
Federal tax policy, which is the foundation upon which our Nation's 
entrepreneurs make decisions about taking risks, investing in the 
future, and creating jobs. As the end-of-the-year deadline looms for 
the biggest tax increase in history, American employers have been 
retrenching and bracing for the possibility of Washington taking a 
larger share of taxes out of their businesses--and that is inhibiting 
our economic potential at a time when we can least afford to fetter the 
forces of our private sector.
  Frankly, the debate over whether extending these tax provisions is 
the right thing to do is now past. What we are experiencing right now 
is a jobless recovery, which isn't a true recovery at all if you cannot 
find a job or earn a paycheck. For 2 years of debating and legislating 
in Washington about how to fix the economy, our economy should be in 
more than just the ``holding pattern'' Harvard Economics Professor, 
Martin Feldstein, has described. I am afraid that at this historic 
juncture--with the unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, or roughly 15 
million people out of work, poverty in America is at its highest in 
over a generation, and we are experiencing historically low investor 
and consumer confidence--we do not have the luxury to take the gamble 
and increase taxes.
  A consensus has developed among economists and policymakers that 
extending these tax provisions will benefit the economy. Indeed, 
according to the White House, extending these tax provisions will 
result in more than 1.5 million jobs. Back in September, Mark Zandi 
released data indicating that increasing taxes from 33 and 35 percent 
up to 36 and 39.6 percent on small business and high-income taxpayers 
would reduce gross domestic product by 0.4 percent in 2011 and would 
reduce payroll employment by 770,000 jobs by mid-2012, precipitating a 
double-dip recession in the first half of 2011. Mr. Zandi is now 
estimating that this legislation will create 1.6 million jobs. Further, 
even the Center for American Progress estimates job growth at 2.2 
million jobs as a result of this legislation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has been stating since September that 
extending the tax rates through 2012, as this legislation would do, 
would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and between 
900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012. Further, CBO estimates that this 
legislation would enhance the gross national product by 1.1 percent. 
Also back in September, a group of 300 economists recognized this 
reality and sent a letter to Congress imploring an extension of the 
current rules. Perhaps the phrase ``better late than never'' is most 
applicable to the impending passage of this legislation that will avert 
the tax increases that loom a mere 3 weeks away and would lead to a 
double-dip recession, and drive our unemployment rate even higher.
  It is simply long past time that we extend the 2001/2003 tax relief 
and expiring provisions such as the R&D tax credit and the child 
credit. It is incumbent upon this Congress to enact stable tax rules 
that will help Americans to get back to work and plan their lives--our 
political Hippocratic Oath of ``First Do No Harm'' should apply at this 
moment, just as there are glimmers that our national economy is past 
its low ebb. At this juncture we cannot veer onto a dangerous path and 
increase taxes, which is exactly what would happen if this legislation 
does not become law. Indeed, the tax increases scheduled to take effect 
in a matter of 3 weeks would be the biggest tax increase in history--an 
$800 billion tax increase that will be averted by this legislation.
  And the agreement on which this legislation is based is something 
that has been rare in Washington in the last 2 years--a hard fought 
consensus among the leaders of both parties. Both sides of the 
negotiating table were required to make concessions to reach this point 
and, as a result, a significant majority of 83 to 15 voted to move this 
legislation forward.
  Undeniably, one of the key components of this legislation is the 10-
percent tax rate that was a hallmark of the original 2001 legislation. 
While other tax rates have been the object of more heated--and highly 
polarizing--debate, it is undeniable that this 10 percent rate is the 
most significant. If this legislation is not enacted into law, roughly 
27 million tax returns will witness a 50 percent increase in taxes, 
from 10 percent to 15 percent. With consumer spending representing 70 
percent of gross national product, we must be cognizant of how this tax 
increase would eradicate any sign of economic recovery. This is not 
even an issue of individuals bracing for a higher tax bill--on January 
1 employers would withhold more taxes from paychecks leaving less for 
the rent, grocery bills, a tank of gas or utilities.
  Of course, all taxpayers benefit from the initial 10-percent tax 
rate, but for these low-income individuals and families, having the 10-
percent rate revert to a 15-percent rate would be particularly 
burdensome. For individuals making less than $8,000 per year and 
couples making under $16,000, this 10-percent rate is a lifeline. For 
taxpayers slightly higher up the income stream, having this initial 
portion of their income taxed at only a 10-percent rate can 
significantly help reduce their effective tax rate.
  Another hallmark of the 2001 tax legislation that would be extended 
is marriage penalty relief. The initial two tax rates, those at 10 
percent and 15 percent rates, allow for twice the amount of income for 
a married couple than is taxed for an individual, so individuals 
earning up to $34,000 are taxed at 15 percent and couples can earn up 
to $68,000 and still remain in the 15-percent bracket. This was 
certainly not

[[Page S10402]]

the case before the 2001 law, and thus an extension of this provision 
is nothing short of an imperative for low income and middle income 
married couples today.
  Indeed, if this legislation is not enacted, rather than having up to 
$68,000 taxed at a 15-percent rate, couples would face a 28-percent 
rate on family incomes over $58,200. For families where both the 
husband and wife are working, at a 28-percent rate rather than a 15-
percent rate, that second income starts to face diminishing returns all 
too quickly--especially if the second income involves placing children 
in expensive day care.
  And speaking of children and daycare, there are two more significant 
provisions in this bill that are being extended--the child tax credit 
and the dependent care tax credit. In 2008, the most recent year for 
which data is available, there were 25,287,874 children claimed for 
child tax credits. As the primary sponsor of the child credit in 2001, 
I am particularly proud of the fact that American families received an 
economic boost of $1,000 for 25 million children. The child tax credit 
benefits working parents and their dependent children and it is 
essential to note that the Maine Children's Alliance of my home State 
reports that, in Maine, 21.8 percent of young children are poor and 
16.5 percent of all children are poor. Currently, these families are 
eligible for a refundable credit--15 percent of earned income capped at 
a maximum of $1,000 per child--once they have earned at least $3,000.
  The legislation we are debating will maintain the threshold--set in 
2009--at $3,000 rather than allowing it to triple to roughly $13,000, 
which would nationally result in millions of low-income working parents 
being excluded from receiving the refundable portion of the tax credit 
altogether, or having their benefit significantly reduced.
  In Maine, for example, the Maine Children's Alliance reports that 
34,651 children who were members of 21,346 families in Maine benefitted 
from this expansion in 2009. This $3,000 threshold is an extraordinary 
one, which was not and is not envisioned to be permanent. Senator 
Lincoln and I have supported bringing the $13,000 threshold down to a 
more sustainable $8,500 level and then indexing that for inflation. In 
the next Congress, when we address tax reform and enter into a full 
negotiation about income tax burdens, I will be attentively working to 
ensure that tax policies for working families with children are 
progressive and mindful of these families' needs.
  The dependent care tax credit is also extended in this legislation. 
This year, the provision allows a taxpayer a 35-percent credit, rather 
than just 30 percent, of child care expenses for children under 13 and 
disabled dependents. The 2001 tax bill increased the amount of eligible 
expenses from $2,400 to $3,000 for one child and from $4,800 to $6,000 
for two or more children.
  Under this legislation, these policies on dependent care will be 
extended for an additional 2 years, through 2012. Again, with Senator 
Lincoln, we have introduced legislation that would have improved rather 
than just maintained the dependent care credit. The most significant of 
these changes would be to increase the thresholds so that up to $5,000 
per child or $10,000 for two or more children would be creditable. The 
legislation would also amend the flexible spending account rules for 
dependent care to increase the amount of pre-tax income that can be set 
aside for dependent care so that it is $7,500 for one dependent and 
$10,000 for two or more.
  Another major component of the legislation before us is relief from 
the alternative minimum tax--or AMT. In fact, the AMT relief in this 
legislation makes up roughly one quarter of all the relief--roughly 
$137 billion for just the 2-year ``patch''--that effectively holds 
harmless taxpayers from the unintended consequences of this alternative 
tax system. This is not taking into account the additional relief that 
holds harmless taxpayers who would otherwise have their child credits 
reduced as a result of the AMT.
  The onerous AMT is tax policy run amok--and I can find no 
policymakers who defend the manner in which it would be imposed on at 
least an additional 21 million taxpayers. AMT is essentially a flat tax 
at 26 and 28 percent tax rates for couples with combined incomes as low 
as $45,000 per year. Perhaps this is the understatement of the year, 
but these are not the super wealthy who were the intended targets of 
this tax. When the 112th Congress addresses the question of fundamental 
tax reform, this reckless component of tax policy must be our top 
single priority to be repealed and rationalized so that the tax rate is 
the tax rate, and we cease to have a parallel tax system that is simply 
out of control.
  As the former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Small 
Business Committee and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
the issue of how individual tax rates affect small business is of 
profound concern to me. Whether it is on Main Street tours or from 
other constituent contacts with businesses large and small, the 
uncertainty of the Tax Code is the primary issue on the minds of 
business owners and managers. At that December 2 hearing on tax reform 
in the Finance Committee, we were presented data regarding the growth 
in the number of ``flow through'' businesses--those businesses that pay 
tax at the individual tax rates rather than at the corporate rate. 
Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, but particularly since 2001, the 
growth in this form of ownership has been expanding. Further, we 
learned that S Corporations have supplanted C Corporations as the 
preferred form of business other than sole proprietorships.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has reported that 50 percent of all 
income in the top two individual income tax brackets is attributable to 
flow-through businesses. These are the entrepreneurial firms that are 
generating the jobs necessary to pull us out of this recession, and it 
is imperative that we not increase taxes on these businesses from 33 
and 35 percent up to 36 and 39.6 percent. According to the National 
Association of Manufacturers, over 70 percent of U.S. manufacturers 
file as S Corporations or other pass-through entities and NAM reports 
that most would be significantly and adversely impacted by increasing 
tax rates to 39.6 percent. Moreover, this legislation will reduce tax 
rates on capital gains and dividends that will boost capital investment 
and economic growth.
  According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses 
employ half of all private sector employees, and generated 65 percent 
of net new jobs over the past 17 years. These flow-through small 
businesses employ 20 million Americans and it is these business owners 
who must reinvest the profits of their businesses to continue serving 
as the economic engines of this Nation. The reinvested profits from a 
business are the lifeblood of these entrepreneurs and, at a time when 
access to capital from lending institutions is still difficult, current 
earnings must be available to business owners rather than sending those 
funds to Washington. Indeed, in the National Small Business 
Association's 2009 Year-End Economic Report, 38 percent of respondents 
to their survey noted Federal taxes as one of the most significant 
challenges to the future growth and survival of their businesses--a 
category trumped only by the ongoing economic uncertainty pervading our 
Nation. Small business owners across America can better deploy this 
capital than can policymakers in Washington.
  Although I believe that this package will demonstrably enhance GDP 
growth and critically lower unemployment, regrettably this package also 
unnecessarily adds to our Federal debt by retaining energy tax policies 
that are quite simply an ineffective use of taxpayers' money. 
Specifically, instead of considering the effectiveness of individual 
energy tax policies scheduled to expire this year, the Tax Relief, 
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 
simply extends all policies that had Congress extended previously. By 
that standard the legislation conveniently continues subsidies at their 
current levels for ethanol, biodiesel, refined coal, natural gas and 
oil production--all at a cost of more than $11 billion in lost revenue 
for the Federal Government at a time of record deficits.
  These tax policies were enacted years ago, are extremely costly to 
U.S. taxpayers, and the merits of their extension have not been 
demonstrated to the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, according to a 
July 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the ethanol tax 
credits cost taxpayers $1.78 for each gallon of gasoline consumption

[[Page S10403]]

reduced, and $750 for each metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent 
emissions avoided. The continuation of this tax credit is an 
ineffective method at reducing our consumption of foreign oil and will 
unfortunately cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion.
  In addition, the legislation extends the 1603 grant program for 
qualified renewable energy projects. While I support renewable energy, 
this program is far from standard tax policy and was developed to be 
timely, targeted and temporary in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act as a direct result of the paralysis of the tax equity 
markets in 2009. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee has not reviewed 
the effectiveness of this policy and, as a result, I am not supportive 
of providing an additional $2.9 billion without government analysis 
demonstrating that this program's extension is an effective use of 
taxpayers' money.
  Again, the decision to include these costly energy provisions was 
made without Finance Committee hearings, mark-ups, discussions, or 
analysis. Energy markets are dynamic and technology develops rapidly--
Congress must demonstrate our capacity to end obsolete energy tax 
policies, and develop effective policies that will improve America's 
energy security.
  It is regrettable that the Middle Class Tax Relief Act includes these 
costly and misguided policies and hope that next year Chairman Baucus 
and Ranking Member Hatch hold Finance hearings to assess the best use 
of tax policy to reduce energy prices in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Finally, I have been an ardent supporter of extended unemployment 
benefits during this economic calamity. At a time when the official 
national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent and 7.4 percent in Maine, and 
many industries and States clearly are experiencing rates that are 
alarmingly higher, it is imperative that we provide a safety net for 
these individuals. Rather than the halting, short term and month to 
month extensions that we have managed this year, the legislation before 
us would provide extended unemployment benefits through 2011--
recognizing that these unemployment numbers are not expected to rebound 
as quickly as any of us would hope.
  I support this legislation to extend current tax relief for two 
additional years. But it is critical to understand that this is merely 
a short term patch and that our Tax Code is woefully outdated, 
mercilessly complicated, and wildly out of control. While the extension 
of these tax rates is a step in the right direction, let us not forget 
that it is only a first step in a long journey to overhaul our broken 
Tax Code as our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world--Japan 
is reforming their tax system--and the Tax Code is so horribly complex 
that, according to the August 2010 report from the President's Economic 
Recovery Advisory Board, that taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and 
shell out about $140 billion trying to comply with tax filing 
requirements in 2008, which is roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the 
GDP. Further, the Treasury Department testified at the recent Finance 
Committee tax reform hearing that the instruction book for the primary 
individual income tax form has grown from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 
pages for 2009. The income tax regulations have doubled, from less than 
7,500 pages in 1980 to nearly 15,000 pages today. Between 1980 and 
2008, tax returns filled out using paid preparers have increased from 
38 percent of returns to 58 percent of returns. When software users are 
added in, about 85 percent of individual income tax returns rely on 
some form of assistance, either software used by the taxpayer or a 
practitioner.
  That, my colleagues, is what awaits us in the 112th Congress. I urge 
you to pass this legislation now so that we can focus on the big 
picture in the new year and the new Congress. Indeed, this legislation 
will provide the much needed building blocks for our future efforts.
  The legislation we will pass today gives us a brief but realistic 
window to address the multitude of flaws in the current Tax Code, and I 
have stated that my guiding principles for reform are as follows--
  First, we should establish a progrowth Tax Code with the fewest 
number of economic distortions that raises sufficient revenue to 
finance our Nation's spending priorities.
  Second, our Tax Code should be simplified to reduce the burden of 
compliance.
  Third, we must end the fiscal ``shell game'' where we extend tax cuts 
for only a year or two at a time or make them temporary to mask their 
true long-term costs.
  Fourth, the Tax Code should promote savings and investment, the 
drivers of long-term growth.
  Fifth, the Tax Code must not be a barrier to American business 
competitiveness in the global economy. We have the second highest 
corporate tax burden in the industrialized world today.
  Finally, our Tax Code must remain progressive and distribute the tax 
burden fairly.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to extend existing tax relief--and 
plan to move expeditiously to enact a sustainable tax system very soon.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on the tax bill 
compromise that was fashioned by the President and Republican leaders 
in the Congress.
  I voted against the compromise.
  I recognize that the Republicans in Congress put the President in the 
position of having to agree to things in the compromise that he 
strongly objected to. And I also realize that compromise is essential 
to move forward and to try to fix what is wrong with our economy.
  But here is the dilemma. We have two very serious problems that can 
undermine America's economic future. First is the crushing debt in our 
fiscal policy. Our debt is currently over $13 trillion with a yearly 
deficit of over $1 trillion. This proposal will substantially increase 
that debt which I believe will continue to undermine the confidence 
people have in this country's future.
  The estimate that this agreement will increase the debt by over $1 
trillion is far short of what will actually happen. The tax cut 
extensions are for 2 years and I am certain that in 2 years, in the 
middle of an election campaign, the tax cuts will be further extended. 
The total cost of those tax cuts for a decade will be to add $4 
trillion to the Federal debt. Again, I think that will undermine any 
confidence the American people or, for that matter, others in the world 
will have about our ability to rein in a fiscal policy that has us 
borrowing 40 percent of everything we spend in the Federal Government.
  The second serious problem that we face is the slow rate of economic 
growth that is unlikely to create jobs at a pace that we need. I 
understand that in order to address this problem we would want to have 
a further economic stimulus to extend the growth of the economy. 
However, this economy has been about as stimulated as any economy in 
history. Adding more stimulus through borrowing seems to me is not the 
way to promote confidence or economic growth.
  Earlier in the week I voted for cloture because I did not want to 
block a compromise on these matters. However, the specific compromise 
which we voted on yesterday I believe falls short of what the country 
needs, especially in dealing with what I believe is the controlling 
issue of a crushing Federal debt and therefore an erosion of confidence 
in our economy.
  The fact that this agreement was flawed was not the President's 
fault. Rather, it was due to the position of the Republicans insisting 
on the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Without that 
concession, the Republicans made it clear they were going to block any 
compromise.
  If our country is going to remain a world economic power we need to 
make good decisions and courageous decisions to fix the things we know 
are wrong. In order to do that, the President is going to need help. It 
requires more willingness to compromise on the part of the Republicans 
than they have shown recently.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate took an 
important vote to prevent the largest tax increase in American 
history--and help get America's job creators off the sidelines.
  I voted for this bill for one simple reason: raising taxes during a 
recession on anyone is not a good idea.
  This bill prevents tax increases on every American who pays income 
taxes, because it keeps the lowest

[[Page S10404]]

bracket at 10 percent; keeps the highest bracket 35 percent; preserves 
relief from the marriage penalty--as well as the $1,000 per child tax 
credit; blocks higher taxes on capital gains and dividends; protects at 
least 21 million families from the alternative minimum tax; and reduces 
the ``death tax'' by 20 percent from what it would have been on January 
1.
  Some of my fellow conservatives have reservations about this bill, 
and I share them. This bill certainly falls far short of what I think 
we would see if Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and 
the White House. I think we would see a permanent extension of all the 
2001 and 2003 tax relief; a much lower estate tax; and zero new 
spending or tax breaks for special interests.
  But given that President Obama will hold the veto pen for at least 2 
more years--and given all the class-warfare rhetoric that the President 
and the majority have indulged in over the last few years--I consider 
an extension of tax relief for every American taxpayer to be a 
remarkable legislative achievement for Republicans. One pundit summed 
up the agreement this way: ``If someone had told me, the day after 
Election Day 2008, that tax rates on income and capital would not 
increase for the next four years, I would have laughed at them. Now 
it's about to come true, and Presidents Obama and Clinton are helping 
make it happen.''
  The only thing I would add to that statement is that several of my 
colleagues deserve credit for making this agreement happen--especially 
Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, and Senator Grassley.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also raised 
objections to this legislation--and I would like to respond to just one 
of those objections: the claim that it is hypocritical to say you are 
concerned about the deficit but then vote to keep taxes low on American 
families and small businesses.
  Let me set the record straight on what actually happened to the 
deficit once the tax relief Congress originally passed in 2001 and 2003 
began to kick in to our economy. As our colleagues remind us 
constantly, deficits did go up during the first years of the Bush 
administration--in part due to the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the 
recession, and 9/11. In fact, by fiscal year 2004, the deficit was up 
to $413 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP.
  But then, just as the 2001 and 2003 tax relief started to kick in, a 
strange thing happened to the deficit: It went down to $318 billion in 
fiscal year 2005, then down again to $248 billion in fiscal year 2006, 
and then down to $161 billion in fiscal year 2007. By then our deficit 
was only 1.2 percent of GDP.
  Now why did the deficit go down in those years? One big reason is 
that tax relief helped grow the economy; got about 8 million more 
people on the payroll between 2003 and 2007; and therefore generated 
more tax revenue.
  I think the person who said it best was Austin Goolsbee, the chairman 
of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. On ``Meet the Press'' 
Sunday, he had this to say: ``You cannot reduce the deficit if the 
economy is not growing, period.'' I agree.
  Now I also agree that preventing a massive tax increase is not the 
only thing we must do to get our national debt under control. We must 
cut government spending--and that means killing the $1.3 trillion 
omnibus spending bill the majority introduced yesterday. We must study 
the proposals of the President's Debt Commission--and take action to 
prevent the looming fiscal catastrophe that they described. We must 
address head-on the need for reform in our entitlement programs like 
Social Security and Medicare--and put them on a sustainable path. And 
we must pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  We can begin addressing all of these tough decisions in just a few 
weeks--once the new Congress elected by the American people is sworn 
in. Today, our urgent decision is whether we want taxes to go up on 
January 1, or rather extend the tax relief and remove a huge element of 
uncertainty among our job creators.
  I believe the choice is clear, and so do the American people. 69 
percent of the American people support this legislation, according to a 
poll released yesterday by the Washington Post and ABC News.
  As usual, the American people have got it right.

                          ____________________