[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 151 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6382-S6384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN JOBS ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 5
minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to S. 1660.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we would yield back our time and use leader
time for a colloquy between the two of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have done a lot of sparring back and
[[Page S6383]]
forth over the last week trying to get a vote on the President's so-
called jobs proposal, and now we have before us cloture on the motion
to proceed to the second version of the President's so-called jobs
proposal. It strikes me it would be appropriate to try one more time to
see if we could get a vote on the actual proposal. So I have indicated
to my good friend the majority leader that I am going to ask unanimous
consent that we vote on both the original President Obama jobs proposal
and the revised Obama jobs proposal upon which we currently have
pending cloture on the motion to proceed. It strikes me this would
expedite the process. The President has been out on the campaign trail
asking us to vote on his proposal and vote on it now without change. If
that is a vote our friends on the other side do not want to have, we
would be happy to have a vote on the President's proposal as changed,
which I gather he also supports.
So bearing that in mind, I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1660, the newly introduced jobs
act, be vitiated, the Senate proceed to its consideration, the bill be
read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the
bill, with no intervening action or debate; provided further that if
the bill does not receive 60 votes on passage, the bill then be placed
back on the calendar.
I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following that vote,
the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1549, the President's job
package; that the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to
vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate;
provided further, that if the bill doesn't receive 60 votes on passage,
the bill then be placed back on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, everyone
should understand, on Thursday, on this side we agreed to a vote on the
President's jobs bill. There have been a number of things that have
occurred since then.
We seek today, with this motion, to proceed to get to the jobs bill--
a good jobs bill. We seek to begin a legislative process. Senators from
my side and Senators from the other side--the Republican side--have
said they want to be able to get a bill where they can offer ideas to
create jobs. I think that is commendable. That is what we seek to do to
get on this bill.
I ask my colleague, the Republican leader, if he might modify his
request to allow the Senate to proceed to the bill so we might begin
consideration of an amendment to the bill. I also say, in response to
modification, I have said to my friends on the Republican side of the
aisle and on the Democratic side, as I said last Thursday, the
President's original package we have talked about for some time. If
people want to vote on that, they can vote on that. I think it would be
to everyone's best interest to move to proceed to this so we can make
this legislation even better than it now is. I ask for that
modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Republican leader so modify his
request?
Mr. McCONNELL. I have been trying for a over a week to get a vote on
the President's so-called jobs proposal, which he has been asking us to
give him repeatedly. Our friends on the other side are not only
objecting to voting on the President's original jobs proposal but his
jobs proposal as modified.
The practical result, however, of voting for cloture on the motion to
proceed, rather than going on and voting on the bill, as the President
has asked us to do on 12 occasions out on the campaign trail, is we
will not be able to proceed to one of the things that is rare here--we
actually have a bipartisan agreement to go forward on these important
trade agreements, pass them tomorrow night, and then have the President
of South Korea address a joint session of Congress. South Korea is one
of our most important allies--probably the most important ally in Asia.
Why would we not just want to vote on the proposal tonight? I am sorry
we will not be able to do that.
I will continue to look for opportunities to give the President the
vote he has asked for repeatedly--not a procedural vote but a real vote
on the matter he requested.
I object.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will continue to work with my friend to
get on the jobs bill, so the Senate can work its will and provide to
the American people jobs. I object to my friend's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 187, S. 1660, the American Jobs Act
of 2011.
Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Schumer,
Sherrod Brown, Robert Menendez, Mark Begich, Barbara
Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Bernard Sanders, John F. Kerry, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Jeff Merkley, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin
L. Cardin, Patrick J. Leahy
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call
has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1660, a bill to provide tax relief for American
workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding
and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for
Americans looking for jobs, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and
nays are mandatory under the rules.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--49
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Coburn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, nays are 49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I strongly oppose S. 1660, the American
Jobs Act of 2011.
I am eager to work with Members of both parties to find common ground
on policies that will help grow the economy at a time when our nation
continues to struggle with high unemployment and low economic growth.
To be clear, there are certain proposals in the American Jobs Act that
I would support individually, including an extension of the payroll tax
cut, allowing businesses to fully expense the cost of acquiring new
capital, and a delay of the three percent withholding penalty on
government contractors. These provisions would provide piecemeal relief
to the economy.
Unfortunately, the positive provisions in the American Jobs Act are
[[Page S6384]]
overshadowed by a massive $453 billion tax hike that would be highly
damaging to the ability of businesses that pay individual tax rates to
expand operations, hire new workers and compete internationally.
According to data from the Department of the Treasury, 80 percent of
taxpayers affected by this new 5.6 percent tax increase would be
business owners. Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates
that 34 percent of business income would be ensnared by the job-
destroying tax increase in S. 1660.
Worse, if the 2001 tax relief expires as scheduled in 2013, this new
tax surcharge would push the top marginal tax rate to nearly 50 percent
when accounting for the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income
in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It would also
sharply increase taxes on capital gains and dividends investment,
hurting small businesses and investors.
Small businesses have been burdened by more than $1 trillion new
taxes and penalties in the health care law and regulatory agencies have
churned out over 60,000 pages of new Federal regulations this calendar
year alone. Simply put, they cannot afford the burden of another tax
hike from Washington under the guise of job creation.
This is why the Nation's leading business groups representing
millions of American business owners, including the National Federation
of Independent Business and the National Association of Manufacturers,
all strongly oppose the permanent tax hike in S. 1660. This is why a
growing group of Democrats vocally oppose this legislation, and why I
oppose proceeding to it.
Since I joined the Senate 9 months ago, I have maintained my strong
belief that Democrats and Republicans should work together to pass
policies proven to boost economic growth like progrowth tax and
regulatory reform, lowering barriers to free trade, and cutting
spending to avert our looming debt crisis. Unfortunately, the huge tax
increases on job creators and more debt-financed stimulus spending in
the American Jobs Act would move our Nation in squarely the wrong
direction.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this evening, I cast my vote in favor
of the Senate moving forward with critical job-creation legislation.
With 61,000 Rhode Islanders and millions of Americans currently looking
for jobs, we must take swift action to help put people back to work.
Sadly, as they have all-too-many times this Congress, Republicans chose
to obstruct our efforts by blocking us from even debating the American
Jobs Act.
This filibuster is particularly disappointing because the American
Jobs Act, as introduced in the Senate by Leader Reid, represents a
balanced and already-tested approach to job creation. Indeed, the bill
includes a host of provisions that have received wide bipartisan
support in the past. It may not be the exact bill each of us would
draft on our own, but it is a thoughtful and reasonable place to begin
working on a Senate jobs plan.
I say the bill is ``balanced'' because it includes a full range of
job-creating provisions from tax credits to help businesses hire, to
infrastructure programs that will put people to work updating and
upgrading our roads, bridges, and schools.
In addition to being ``balanced,'' I say the American Jobs Act is
``tested'' because it includes programs that have worked in the past.
For example, the Federal Highway Administration estimated that $1
billion invested in our highways supports about 28,000 jobs. That means
that the President's proposed investment of $27 billion would generate
or save over 750,000 jobs. In addition to the upfront investment, the
bill would deposit another $10 billion in a National Infrastructure
Bank which could leverage the money with private investments to create
hundreds of thousands of additional jobs. We know how well the National
Infrastructure Bank would work from the experiences of local revolving
funds like Rhode Island's Clean Water Finance Agency.
We also know that funds provided by the bill would prevent hundreds
of thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters from losing
their jobs. According to the Department of Education, $10 billion in
emergency funds provided last summer have already spared 114,000
teachers' jobs. The $35 billion included in the American Jobs Act would
keep hundreds of thousands of additional teachers and first responders
from getting pink slips. A lot of small businesses count on teachers
and firefighters and police officers with paychecks coming in to do
business.
We are not just talking about statistics in this debate. The millions
of jobs that would be created or preserved under the American Jobs Act
would hit home for families who have been trying to find work for so
long.
Just last week, I held a telephone town hall with Rhode Islanders
from all across our State. We took questions from folks on issues from
jobs to the future of Medicare and Social Security. There was one call
in particular that really stuck with me. It was from a woman named
Diane in Narragansett. Diane, a Marine veteran, and her husband are
both out of work and struggling to put food on the table for their
three young children. Her husband a trained heavy equipment operator
and welder has taken temporary employment as a landscaper and a
fisherman, but can not find a steady paycheck. They have missed bill
payments and have struggled to keep a roof over their heads. On the
call Diane said, ``[o]ur dream of owning a house is shot out the window
. . . [We] don't know where to go [We] don't know what else to do.''
Diane and her husband are hardworking people doing their best to
survive in a frustratingly sluggish economic recovery. They are just
asking for a fair chance to provide for their kids and reclaim their
portion of the American dream. We owe it to Diane and her family to set
aside our differences and focus on getting something done to create
jobs for the American people. It is not too late for us to work
together to help solve our Nation's jobs crisis. Let us cut the
politics and delay tactics and begin that critical work.
____________________