[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 186 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8349-S8350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  EXTENDING THE PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTION

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there was a question raised this morning 
by the Republican leader about where we stand in the closing 2 weeks 
before the holiday recess. We have a lot of important issues left. One 
of the most important is the payroll tax cut. Here is what it means. If 
you have a job in Illinois, an average job in Illinois that pays about 
$50,000 a year, currently you have a break on your payroll taxes that 
are collected of about 2 percent. So what that means for those families 
is that they have an additional $100 a month to spend.
  For some Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, $100 
a month might not make much of a difference, but for a lot of families 
struggling from paycheck to paycheck, $100 can make a big difference. 
When gasoline prices go through the roof, you can fill the gas tank in 
your car or pickup truck and make it to work. You might have a little 
extra money left for a utility bill when the natural gas prices and oil 
prices go up during the course of a cold winter. You might be able to 
afford some Christmas gifts for your kids, maybe even some clothes for 
them to go to school, a warm jacket for cold weather. So $125 dollars 
is important.
  If we do not act, and act before we leave at Christmas, as of January 
1 that payroll tax will go up 2 percent on working Americans, and they 
will have less money to spend. As they spend less money, our economy 
struggles. When they buy things, goods and services, it creates more 
economic activity in businesses small and large and creates 
profitability and jobs--job opportunities we desperately need with our 
high unemployment.
  Now, we have taken a position with Senator Bob Casey's bill here when 
it comes to the payroll tax cut that it is not unreasonable to ask that 
the wealthiest people in America, the top 0.2 percent in America, pay a 
little bit more in taxes so that we do not add to our deficit with this 
payroll tax cut.
  There were times in the past, as the President noted yesterday, when 
the Republicans actually argued: You never have to pay for a payroll 
tax cut or a tax cut. Now they have taken a different position--it has 
to be paid for. Well, we do pay for it. We pay for it with a surtax on 
millionaires. Unfortunately, some Republicans opposed that.
  Senator Kyl said yesterday on the floor, in a statement relative to 
an exchange we had, that it is hard to say the rich are not paying 
taxes. I am not arguing that point. They are paying taxes. But, 
frankly, under our system of government, with a progressive tax system, 
those who are well off--Members of Congress and the Senate--those with 
high salaries should pay more than those who are struggling from 
paycheck to paycheck.
  The people we are talking about, the top 1 percent wage earners in 
America, will have an average annual income in 2013 of $1.4 million a 
year--$1.4 million a year. By my calculation, that is a paycheck of 
$28,000 a week. To say that those people cannot afford to pay a little 
more in taxes is hard for most families to understand--it is hard for 
me to understand. The Bush tax cuts, incidentally, which the 
Republicans support making permanent have been very generous to those 
people. If the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are extended, 
those in the top 1 percent, making more than $1.4 million a year, are 
going to see a tax cut in the year 2013 of $68,000--a tax cut at a time 
when we have Federal deficits and needs in our country to get beyond 
this recession.
  These people in the top 1 percent control almost 25 percent of the 
income in America--1 percent of the population, more than 25 percent of 
the income. That is up from 12 percent just 25 years ago. They control 
40 percent of all of the wealth in the United States. They are 
comfortable. In 1986, they only controlled 33 percent. In fact, we can 
say that in the last 25 years, the wealthy in America have become even 
more comfortable, and to ask them to make even a small sacrifice for 
the good of this Nation is not unreasonable.
  Senator McConnell came to the floor and suggested that what we are 
dealing with on the floor here is political showmanship. Well, last 
week we went beyond showmanship and we actually called a vote. We had a 
proposal--Senator Casey's proposal--to reinstitute this payroll tax cut 
and pay

[[Page S8350]]

for it, as I mentioned, with a surtax on the wealthiest people in 
America. At the end of the day, out of 53 Democratic Senators, 50 voted 
yes, and 1 Republican Senator joined us. We had 51 votes in favor. It 
took 60 votes to pass, so it did not prevail.
  Then Senator McConnell had his chance. He brought to the floor the 
Republican alternative. They would extend the payroll tax cut by 
eliminating jobs--over 200,000 jobs in the Federal Government at a time 
when, frankly, we need more workers in veterans hospitals and we need 
more people working on medical research at the National Institutes of 
Health and we need more involved in law enforcement to keep America 
safe. But Senator McConnell said that the way to pay any tax cut for 
working families is to eliminate Federal jobs. They called it for a 
vote. There are 47 Republican Senators on the floor. So how did the 
vote turn out when the Republicans called their proposal to extend the 
payroll tax cut? If I am not mistaken, only 20 Republican Senators 
voted for that proposal. In fact, Senator McConnell was the only Member 
of the Senate Republican leadership who voted for the proposal.
  So you have to ask, when it comes to the competition of ideas, who 
won that exchange? The answer is, no one won because at the end of the 
day we did not extend the payroll tax cut.
  Back home in Chicago this last week, I had a press conference with a 
lady, a single mom, three kids, struggling with three jobs, with an 
annual income--combined income of less than $25,000 a year. I cannot 
imagine how she gets by. But she said that $50 more a month--that is 
what the payroll tax cuts means to her--would be significant--$50. That 
is how close so many people live to the edge.
  It is time for us, in the closing days of the session before 
Christmas, to reach a bipartisan agreement to make sure the payroll tax 
cut is extended, to make sure the unemployment benefits that are needed 
so desperately by so many people out of work are there to help them and 
their families. The only way we can achieve that is in a bipartisan 
agreement. We now know that the notion of just cutting away at Federal 
jobs has been rejected soundly, even by the Republican side of the 
aisle. Let's come to a reasonable conclusion on how to pay for this in 
a manner that does not add to unemployment but adds more jobs to the 
American economy, something which most Americans agree should be our 
highest priority.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________