[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.

                          ____________________