[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8415-S8418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 1960. A bill to provide incentives to create American jobs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and
colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is
essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy.
Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general
categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from
payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for
small business job creators to help spur job growth.
Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to
rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment
plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure
needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained.
Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of
red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding
jobs.
Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge-
podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works.
We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and
computers.
We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent
surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a
``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's
job creators.
Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to
taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken
quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is
scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159
million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time
when the economy is still weak. With so many American families
struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow
an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month.
But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going
again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator
McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be
extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This
targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the
source of our nation's job growth.
We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the
current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to
invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the
world.
In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head
with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far
less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be
viewed as unacceptable here in the United States.
The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was
built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world,
so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity
and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the
worker with the best tools wins.
The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep
the American worker ahead of the global competition.
There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an
innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott
Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know
how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a
fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google
executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has 800 million
members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100 billion, but
most important, both employ thousands of American workers.
But without the right investment at the right time, these two
companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high-
tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit
we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support
they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American
story.
It is also important to help established companies stay on the
cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit.
Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan
jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve
out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have
voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I
share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are
structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S''
corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly,
but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax
on that income on their individual income tax returns.
To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal
income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's
job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's
job engine started again.
If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they
are ``the wealthy.'' They are not.
We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking
money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small
businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are
proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it
is not subject to the surtax.
The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business
income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive
activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this
[[Page S8416]]
means that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in
the running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax,
while those who are passive investors will pay higher rates.
This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in
running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our
economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through
income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability
to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands,
this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American
workers more productive.
Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill.
With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to
capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure
Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and
administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by
providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant
assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would
allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at
the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting
and public disclosure requirements.
Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental
appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This
funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40
billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation
authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the
Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1
billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000
jobs.
It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating
infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers,
it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve
the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current
levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create
jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout
the United States.
I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These
investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but
they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but
essential task.
There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure
needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society
of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's
water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency
estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in
drinking water needs over the next 20 years.
To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800
million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water
State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these
critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010
levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water
infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic,
and public health benefits in our states and communities.
Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National
Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one
billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000
jobs.
As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and
red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill
also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by
incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act,
which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These
provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape
that impedes job growth.
All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the
impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules
and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do
so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the
indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the
cost of energy, and consumer prices.
Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze
the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher
energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However,
Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates
agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our
bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's
Executive Order.
Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public
notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing
these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance
documents.''
After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal
agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,''
rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely
an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a
particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical
matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have
been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public
notice and comment requirements.
In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing
this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal
agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment
for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify
this OMB Bulletin.
Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our
incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small
businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business
inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time,
that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports.
Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a
small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and
to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of
it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the
first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements,
so long as no harm comes from that failure.
One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the
Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler
MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could
cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the
loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas
across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the
American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as
previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the
country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the
industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to
guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency
with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide
manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply
with these very complex and expensive rules.
Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the
past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that
could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to
working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the
Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming
the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small,
rural communities.
We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our
current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are
being used
[[Page S8417]]
as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-McCaskill bill
requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative job training
programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress that
contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single agency.
Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will be
devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other half
will be be used to reduce the deficit.
In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first
comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since
the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in
September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take
action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will
occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help
grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my
colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have
proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Ms. Ayotte,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Webb, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Cardin):
S. 1961. A bill to provide level funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program; to the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan LIHEAP
Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senator Snowe from Maine and
Senator Sanders from Vermont, and many of our colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. I am pleased to see such broad support for funding for
this critical program even in the midst of our budget challenges.
Indeed, LIHEAP is a lifeline, providing vulnerable families with
vital assistance when they need it most by helping low-income families
and seniors on fixed-incomes with their energy bills.
Last year, Congress provided $4.7 billion for LIHEAP. In an effort to
control Federal spending, the Administration proposed an approximately
45 percent cut in LIHEAP funds from last year's level, down to about
$2.57 billion in 2012. The Senate and House Appropriations bills only
partially restored this drastic cut, to roughly $3.6 billion and $3.4
billion, respectively.
These cutbacks could put our most vulnerable citizens at risk,
especially as the number of households eligible for the program already
exceeds those receiving assistance. Given the difficult economy and the
projected rise in household energy expenditures, as much as 8 percent
more than last year for those who heat their homes with heating oil
according to the Energy Information Administration, it does not make
sense to cut vital LIHEAP funding.
We also need to act quickly. If funding is not finalized before
winter, millions of low-income households run the risk of not receiving
assistance during the coldest months when they need it most. Given the
uncertainty in the full year appropriations for LIHEAP, which resulted
in the release of only $1.7 billion in LIHEAP funding to States in
October, some States have already begun lowering LIHEAP grant amounts.
LIHEAP is a smart investment. For every dollar in benefits paid,
$1.13 is generated in economic activity, according to economists Mark
Zandi and Alan S. Blinder.
I know we face a lot of difficult budget decisions around here, but
I, along with so many of my colleagues, believe that LIHEAP should not
be the place where we seek savings.
I look forward to working to provide level funding for LIHEAP for
fiscal year 2012.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1961
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``LIHEAP Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section--
(1) is to ensure the appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
the total amounts described in subsection (b), for payments
described in that subsection, under this Act or prior
appropriations Acts; and
(2) is not to require the appropriation of additional
amounts for those payments, under appropriations Acts enacted
after this Act.
(b) Appropriation.--In addition to any amounts appropriated
under any provision of Federal law, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, there is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal
year 2012--
(1) an amount sufficient to yield a total amount of
$4,501,000,000, for making payments under subsections (b) and
(d) of section 2602 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621), and all of such total amount
shall be used under the authority and conditions applicable
to such payments under the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011; and
(2) an amount sufficient to yield a total amount of
$200,000,000, for making payments under section 2602(e) of
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621(e)), notwithstanding the designation requirement of such
section 2602(e), and all of such total amount shall be used
under the authority and conditions applicable to such
payments under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) this Act should be carried out in a manner consistent
with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25; 125
Stat. 240);
(2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services should
continue and expedite program integrity efforts to identify
best practices used by grant recipients under the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, provide training and
technical assistance to such grant recipients, recommend
policy changes, and assess and mitigate risk at the Federal,
State and local levels, in order to eliminate any waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Program and strengthen the Program so
all Program funds reach the households who need them most;
and
(3) every Program dollar going to waste, fraud, and abuse
is a dollar not being spent as the dollar is needed or
intended.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an issue
of enormous importance to the people of the State of Vermont and people
all over this country; that is, the issue of making sure that in
America this winter nobody goes cold, that nobody freezes to death,
that children do not become ill because the thermostats in their homes
are turned down so low.
The issue I am talking about is to ask for support for legislation
that is being introduced by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine which would level fund the LIHEAP
program at $4.7 billion. As most of my colleagues know, LIHEAP is the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Here is the problem we face. We are in the midst of a horrendous
recession. Unemployment is sky high. In many cases, wages are in
decline, poverty is increasing, and at the same time the price for home
heating oil and propane gas is going up. According to the Energy
Information Administration, average expenditures for households that
heat with oil or propane are forecast to be higher than in any previous
winter. Heating oil prices are currently averaging about $3.90 a
gallon. So what people in the Northeast and people all over this
country are looking at are the highest home heating oil prices we have
ever seen, coming in the midst of a terrible recession, with
unemployment high and wages in decline.
In Vermont, heating oil prices are already 34 percent higher than
they were at the same time last year. It is currently $3.82 a gallon,
compared to $2.85 a gallon last year. What is happening is that because
of cuts--significant cuts--in LIHEAP funding, the average LIHEAP
benefit in Vermont is 45 percent less this year than it was last year,
and that is $474 per family as opposed to $866 last year.
One thing that has to be understood about LIHEAP is that nearly 80
percent of funding from this program goes to our citizens who are
elderly, families with preschool kids, and the disabled. So the people
who benefit from this program are some of the most vulnerable people in
our country. Eighty percent of the funding, once again, goes to senior
citizens, families with preschool children, young children, and people
who are dealing with disabilities.
[[Page S8418]]
It is not uncommon in the State of Vermont and in other States for
the temperatures to drop to 10 below zero or 20 below zero in the
wintertime. When people do not have enough funds to heat their homes or
their apartments, serious problems arise.
What I want to do is take a moment to read some comments my office
has received from Vermonters all over the State who are trying
desperately to stay warm this winter.
Josie Crosby, 81 years of age, of Brattleboro, VT, said this:
We will have money for one more tank. After that, I don't
know.
That is a woman who is 81 years of age who has money for one more
tank of oil. After that, she is not sure how they will stay warm in the
winter.
A 48-year-old from Orleans County in the northern part of our State
wrote this:
I was able to get 100 gallons of fuel last week, and for
that I am grateful. The struggle begins now on how to stretch
that fuel as long as possible. I had to buy a portable
electric heater to keep halfway warm while waiting for fuel
assistance. I don't even want to see how high my electric
bill will be. I am an honorably discharged disabled veteran
and have limited funds. I have already slashed my food bill,
so what goes next? My meds, my electric service, my home?
That is from a disabled vet in the northern part of Vermont.
A 59-year-old woman in central Vermont writes:
I have been keeping my thermostat as low as I can
``almost'' tolerate. I bundle up in the house with several
sweaters, and even a coat and hat at times. When company
arrives, I am embarrassed at how ridiculous I probably
appear. I am just barely squeaking through each month. I have
made cuts everywhere possible, including food.
Wendy Raven, 62, from Whitingham, VT, writes:
I had to drag my bed out of my bedroom and put it in the
living room, then close off the bedroom for the winter. I
will have to eat even less than I do now in order to pay my
fuel bills. I have done everything I can to button up the
place, but now all I can do is pray I get through the winter
without a bill so large it will again take me until next fall
to pay it off.
Is that where we are in the United States of America--that we force
people to live under those conditions?
A 31-year-old woman from Bennington, VT, writes:
We are now trying to stay warm by scraping up enough for a
gallon or two of heating oil a week, and keeping the
thermostat down very low. I turn the furnace off during the
day when my child is in school and turn it on an hour before
she gets home so that the house gets warm. We are hoping to
qualify for crisis fuel assistance or we are in trouble,
because there is nowhere to get the extra money needed to pay
for the fuel, especially considering its continuously
increasing cost. We have to choose what bills to pay each
month and what ones not in order to put food on the table.
In this great Nation, in the midst of a recession, in the midst of
high unemployment, in the midst of growing poverty, we as the Senate
must be very clear that nobody in this country is going to go cold this
winter; that we are not going to pick up a paper in Maine or Rhode
Island or Vermont or North Dakota and read that some senior citizen was
found frozen to death. That is not what we are going to allow. That is
why Senators Jack Reed, Olympia Snowe, I, and many others are working
hard so that at the very least we can level fund LIHEAP so that nobody
in our country goes cold this winter.
____________________