[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 104 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4919-S4932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 
3369, the DISCLOSE Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the bill by 
title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3369, a bill to amend the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional 
     disclosure requirements of corporations, labor organizations, 
     Super PACs, and other entities, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next hour will be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority 
controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final 
half.
  Last evening I filed cloture on the Landrieu substitute amendment to 
S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. Under the rule the 
cloture votes would be on Friday. I will work on that with the 
Republican leader--we already have a general agreement--and we will try 
to schedule the vote sometime today.


                               Tax Rates

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this week Republicans continued to make the 
case that millionaires and billionaires cannot afford to pay even a 
penny more in taxes. Meanwhile, a new report shows average tax rates 
are at the lowest level in decades.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported this week that 
in 2009 rates fell to their lowest level in more than three decades, 30 
years. Much of that decline is thanks to President Obama, who has 
consistently fought to lower taxes for middle-class families over the 
last 2\1/2\ years.
  The average tax rate in this country fell to the lowest rate since 
1979--17.4 percent. Of course, that is still higher than what Mitt 
Romney paid in the only year for which he has been willing to disclose 
his tax return. I am confident the reason he hasn't disclosed his tax 
returns in the years people want to know--remember, he disclosed 1 
year. His father George Romney set the precedent that people running 
for President would file their tax returns and let everybody look at 
them. But Mitt Romney cannot do that because he has basically paid no 
taxes in the prior 12 years.
  Again, the average tax rate in this country is the lowest it has been 
since 1979--17.4 percent. But I repeat, that is still much higher than 
what Mitt Romney pays.
  Most Americans don't have the benefit of Swiss bank accounts or tax 
shelters in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda and who knows what else. We 
cannot see those tax returns.
  As our economy continues to recover, it is critical we keep tax rates 
low for the middle class people who are struggling to pay their 
mortgage, send their kids to college, and save for retirement.
  That is why President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to extend 
tax cuts for 98 percent of American families.
  But there is one group that is not struggling: Mitt Romney and the 
rest of the top 2 percent of Americans.
  My Republican friends can come out and talk and say it is terrible 
and all we are trying to do is raise taxes on small businesses. The 
President's legislation raises taxes on 2 percent of wealthy people and 
about 2.5 percent of businesses. This is no crush for small

[[Page S4920]]

businesses. It seems to me the 2 percent at the top can contribute a 
little bit more to deficit control.
  Yet Republicans are prepared to block tax cuts for 98 percent of 
families, unless Democrats agree to even more giveaways for the richest 
of the rich.
  As Republicans continue to argue that the wealthiest 2 percent cannot 
contribute even a little more, I urge them to talk to the three-
quarters of Americans who disagree. I urge them to talk to the almost 
60 percent of Republicans who believe the wealthiest Americans should 
shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for getting the deficit 
under control. Almost 60 percent of the Republicans agree with what the 
President is doing; that the top 2 percent should pay a little more.
  I urge my Republican friends to talk to a few of the more than 135 
million taxpayers who are waiting to see whether Republicans will 
continue holding hostage their tax cuts.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                               Hard Votes

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, something truly remarkable 
happened right here in the Senate. First, Democrats blocked a vote that 
the President of their own party called for just 2 days earlier.
  Last night, the majority leader moved to shut down a debate on taxes 
that hadn't even begun.
  Earlier this week, President Obama issued an outrageous ultimatum to 
Congress: Raise taxes on about 1 million business owners and I promise 
not to raise taxes on anybody else.
  At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest 
recovery in modern times, when the percentage of those who could work 
are working is at a three-decade low, and just 5 months away from the 
economic body blow that will result if tax rates spike, as scheduled on 
January 1, the President's solution is to take away more money from the 
very business folks we are counting on to create jobs we need, 
presumably so he can spend it on solar companies and stimulus bills.
  This was the President's brilliant economic solution to the mess we 
are in.
  Naturally, Republicans oppose this. The way we see it, nobody should 
see an income tax hike right now, not small businesses, not 
individuals, nobody. Nobody should get a tax hike right now. The 
problem isn't that Washington taxes too little but that it spends too 
much. Rather than just talk about it, we thought we should actually 
take a vote on it.
  After all, the President himself boasted Monday that he would sign a 
bill to raise taxes on small businesses right away if we pass it. So we 
suggested two votes, one on the President's plan--once it is actually 
written--and one on ours. But the majority leader in the Senate blocked 
it from happening. Why? Because, as usual, Democrats want to have it 
both ways.
  Two years ago, when the economy was growing faster than it is now, 40 
Democrats in the Senate voted to do precisely what Republicans are 
proposing right now: keep everybody's taxes right where they are and do 
no harm. The President apparently doesn't want any of them to vote that 
way now.
  In other words, he doesn't want to do what is right for the economy 
and jobs. He wants to do what he thinks is good for his reelection 
campaign. For some reason, his advisers think it helps him to take more 
money away from small, already-struggling businesses and spend it on 
more government. That is the plan anyway, and he wants to stick with 
it.
  Yesterday, the Democratic majority leader did what the President told 
him to. He made sure there wasn't a vote on a proposal the President of 
his own party demanded 2 days earlier. My friend, the majority leader, 
made sure there wasn't a vote on the plan the President asked for just 
2 days ago. Then he offered a vote on a bill today that isn't even 
written and only if Democrats and Republicans give up their ability to 
offer amendments to the bill we haven't seen yet.
  This is the kind of absurdity we get when we have a governing party 
that is more concerned with winning an election than facing the 
consequences of the President's failed economic policies. But it 
actually gets even more absurd because the majority leader didn't just 
block us yesterday from having votes on whether to raise taxes, he 
wouldn't even let us have a debate about it--don't have the vote and 
don't have the debate.

  Senators on both sides of the aisle have proposals that would help 
the American people weather the economic crisis we are in. Senator 
Hutchison has an amendment that would extend the relief from the blow 
of the marriage penalty. Senator Heller has a plan to extend the 
deduction of sales tax in Nevada. Senator Scott Brown and a whole host 
of other Republicans have a proposal to repeal the potentially 
devastating tax on medical devices that is being used to help fund 
ObamaCare. Senators Cornyn and Crapo have amendments that would lessen 
the blow of the tax hikes on investments--tax hikes that will directly 
affect job creation and harm those, such as our seniors, who are living 
on fixed incomes.
  As for the Democrats, well, even they have some ideas that might do 
some good for the country. Senator Brown of Ohio has an amendment to 
extend the research and development credit, which I know has bipartisan 
support even if Republicans might differ in his approach. Senator 
Begich has an amendment that would extend the popular tax breaks for 
investments by small businesses. I don't fully endorse the specific 
approach taken by these two, but if they had a chance to offer and 
debate them, I think we might be able to work out an agreement and 
actually get a result. But we can't even have a debate or get a vote on 
these Democratic amendments because of the politics.
  Personally, I can't imagine why Democratic Senators would tolerate 
this kind of authoritarian approach. It seems to me that if Senator 
Brown of Ohio and Senator Begich really believe in their amendments, 
they would fight for a vote on them. It is hard to believe their 
constituents sent them here to rubberstamp everything the party leader 
puts out there regardless of the impact on their States. We would 
probably have these votes later today if these Democratic Senators vote 
to cut off debate. I will leave it up to them to explain to their 
constituents why they didn't think these amendments deserved votes.
  But the larger issue is this: All of these petty political maneuvers 
betray an astounding lack of concern about not only the economic crisis 
we are in but the threat that is posed by the fiscal cliff we all know 
is looming in January. A New York Times article from just this morning 
suggests that one reason the economy has slowed down so much is that 
businesses are reacting to the uncertainty about what will happen at 
the end of the year. Well, of course that is the case. We hear it from 
everyone. Yet here is a Democratic-controlled Senate blocking votes, 
blocking debate, and hosting private meetings with the President's 
political advisers on strategy instead of working on serious bipartisan 
solutions.
  Last night Democratic leaders admitted that the bill they wanted 
Republicans to turn to hasn't even been written yet. Think about that. 
The proposal the President announced Monday with so much fanfare hasn't 
even been put on paper. Yet Democrats wanted us to move to it. Move to 
what? What is it? We haven't seen it. I think it hasn't been written. 
You can't move to a speech. This is the level of seriousness we are 
seeing from the Democratic-controlled Senate right now. This is how 
seriously they take this economic crisis. It is nothing but one 
political game after another. If the President has a proposal, we will 
be happy to send an intern down to the White House to pick it up, but 
we can't vote on a speech. Frankly, we can't continue like this.
  It is long past time Democrats in the White House and in the Senate 
took the lives and challenges of working Americans as seriously as they 
take their politics. It is time to put childish things aside and get 
down to serious business for the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S4921]]

                           Order of Business

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 
half and the Republicans controlling the final half.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                       Wind Production Tax Credit

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have been 
every day, to urge my colleagues to work with me and to work with the 
Presiding Officer to extend the production tax credit for wind. The 
PTC, as it is known, has broad economic effects, positive effects all 
across our great country.
  I am going to talk today, as I have each day, about an individual 
State that is known for its wind resources, and today that is the great 
State of Kansas. Kansas is already known as a national leader in both 
wind manufacturing and production. In fact, Kansas has the most wind 
projects under construction, as we sit here today, and is on track to 
almost double their installed wind energy capacity.
  We can see from this map of Kansas that there is a lot of activity. 
For example, there is construction currently underway in what will be 
the largest wind farm in Kansas, which is located just southwest of 
Wichita, in south central Kansas. The Flat Ridge 2 Wind Farm will cover 
about 66,000 acres, and it should be up and running by the end of the 
year.
  The two companies running the project--BP Wind Energy and Sempra U.S. 
Gas & Power--have invested over $800 million and have employed 500 
construction workers. Those are impressive numbers wherever you might 
find them. But that is not all. Once this project is done and 
operating, the local community should receive over $1 million annually 
in tax payments from the project. There are some 200 property owners 
who own the land under the turbines, and they will receive a similar 
amount in royalty payments. That is real money for real Americans, all 
thanks to wind energy and the production tax credit.
  These are jobs and investments that are created here at home, and 
they create good-paying jobs in Kansas, helping the local economy and 
providing critical income for rural communities. I have to say this is 
especially important as the drought takes a steep toll on farmers 
across the Midwest this year. Wind power, if you think about it, is a 
cash crop that always ripens and always returns the investment in the 
marketplace.
  This is just one project in Kansas that isn't even completed yet, so 
let me talk about the overall effect of wind energy in Kansas.
  The wind energy industry in Kansas supports 3,000 jobs, it results in 
$3.7 million in property taxes from wind projects that go to local 
communities, and 8 percent of Kansas's power comes from wind. Those are 
impressive numbers, and they would only grow as Kansas invests.
  There are thousands of Kansas wind energy jobs supporting millions of 
dollars of local tax revenue and, as I pointed out here, almost one-
tenth of Kansas's total power needs. This harnessing of the wind has 
truly become an economic driver, and it presents enormous opportunity 
for this important Midwestern State.

  I would like to focus on one county. Lane County's economic 
development operation is headed up by Dan Hartman. Dan moved to western 
Kansas 5 years ago, in large part because he wanted to live in the 
heart of rural America, but he also wanted to help create a better, 
more secure energy future for America, with Kansas playing a central 
role. Since then, Dan has been working with counties, farmers, and 
landowners to bring as much wind energy as possible to western Kansas, 
and I think those possibilities are almost unlimited because there is 
enough potential wind power in Kansas to meet the needs of Kansas some 
90 times over.
  That brings me to the point I wish to make today, and it is why I 
keep coming to the floor. The uncertainty we have created by failing to 
extend the wind production tax credit, unfortunately, has sidelined 
roughly $3.5 billion in wind energy investments. That just defies 
common sense. Back home in my State of Colorado, I keep hearing from my 
fellow Coloradans: Why the heck aren't you in Congress working to save 
wind energy jobs right now? To Dan Hartman, the solution seems simple, 
and I want to quote him. He said:

       I look at the wind energy industry as a matter of survival 
     and our future in Kansas. If we don't extend the PTC, we're 
     throwing away our future. We need it badly. If you really 
     look at the money, the PTC cost is dwarfed by the capital 
     investment it encourages.

  Dan has it right, and we should listen here in the Congress. If we 
refuse to develop our wind energy resources, there are a lot of 
countries that are willing to outcompete us--take China, for example. 
We have to work to keep these jobs and that investment here in the 
United States, and that is why the Congress must extend the production 
tax credit as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, you also know we have bipartisan support. This isn't 
solely a Republican or a Democratic issue. Senator Moran from Kansas, 
my good friend, has joined me and others to make this happen. We have 
offered an amendment to the bipartisan small business lending bill that 
would extend the PTC by 2 years, until the end of 2014.
  We need the PTC. It equals jobs. We need to pass it as soon as 
possible. I want to ask my colleagues again, as I have every day, to 
join Senator Moran, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Thune, and 
others to help pass this much needed, commonsense, bipartisan amendment 
or find another way to extend the PTC to ensure that more investment 
and more jobs in States such as Kansas, Colorado, and others all across 
our country will be the result.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. 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.


                 Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small 
Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. This is a tough economy for a lot of 
people across the United States. It is especially difficult in my home 
State of Rhode Island, and that is why I support the legislation before 
us today. It will help small businesses to hire new workers and to 
expand their payroll or invest in new capital equipment. This is a 
commonsense step to encourage growth and create jobs.
  These tax cuts are cost-effective and have been estimated by the CBO 
as having some of the biggest bang for the buck compared to other 
fiscal policies that directly benefit businesses. It is especially 
important to pass cost-effective policies because we are in the midst 
of a global slowdown that is hurting job creation and lowering 
government revenue.
  In contrast, the other body--the House--has been intent upon 
repealing the Affordable Care Act, rolling back regulations on firms 
that pollute, or providing tax windfalls to special interests. That 
approach will not provide the real economic growth we need today to put 
people to work. In fact, it will exacerbate our deficit, and it will 
hurt the middle class of the United States.
  The targeted tax cuts in the legislation we propose, the Small 
Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, stand in stark contrast to the 
approach taken by the House Republicans in their Small Business Tax Cut 
Act, which is in many respects just another way to provide huge tax 
benefits to the wealthiest Americans instead of doing what we should be 
doing--providing jobs for all Americans. Proposals such as the House 
Republican bill will only generate 30 cents for every Federal dollar 
spent as compared to the $1.30 and $1.10 multiplier for tax cuts for 
job creation and investments in new equipment, respectively, that are 
included in our bill.
  Even more disturbing with the House proposal is that nearly half of 
the $46 billion in tax cuts would go to the wealthiest Americans--
millionaires and billionaires--without having to create one single job.
  In contrast, our bill provides a targeted 10-percent income tax 
credit for

[[Page S4922]]

businesses that increase their payroll by hiring new workers or raising 
wages this year. So there is a direct link between the tax credit and 
creating new jobs or raising wages for working men and women. This is a 
tax credit that is directly linked to this job creation effort, and the 
credit is targeted to increasing middle-class job wages because the 
credit only applies to the first $110,000 in wages for any individual 
employee. So we are looking to target this as closely and precisely as 
we can to be both effective and prudent with our resources.
  The tax credit is further targeted to small businesses because it 
only applies to the first $5 million in new payroll, effectively 
capping the maximum tax credit to any business to $500,000.
  The bill also extends bonus depreciation through 2012 for businesses 
that invest in new capital. Bonus depreciation has proved to be an 
effective incentive for businesses to pull forward capital purchases 
and invest in the near term, offsetting some of the weak aggregate 
demand that has held back our economic recovery.
  In 2011, bonus depreciation accelerated $150 billion in tax cuts to 2 
million businesses and generated an estimated $50 billion in added 
investment.
  In total, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act is estimated to 
create about 1 million jobs nationally and over 3,500 jobs in my State 
of Rhode Island. We desperately need these jobs, and we need them as 
quickly as possible. This bill is a responsible, cost-effective, and 
fair way to generate growth.
  Before us today is yet another example of my colleagues in the 
Democratic caucus putting forth reasonable solutions that have been 
analyzed by economists and determined to provide immediate help to 
millions of out-of-work Americans. But my fear is that my colleagues on 
the other side will again filibuster and oppose this effort, like 
others we have made, while only offering proposals that promise great 
things but in reality contribute very little to putting people to work 
quickly. And that is our challenge.
  The damage caused by the refusal of many of my colleagues to support 
these legitimate job proposals and their efforts to actively unwind 
Federal support for our recovery is hard to overstate. Their narrowly 
focused economic proposals, in which a vast portion of their tax cuts 
flow to millionaires and billionaires or corporations that send jobs 
overseas, doesn't help our middle class, doesn't help our economy, 
doesn't help our Nation's fiscal health. Republican proposals do not 
respond to our immediate crisis.
  The legislation before us does respond to that crisis by creating 
jobs for middle-class working Americans right now. And it does not give 
large additional tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
  So I hope we can move forward. I hope we can bridge the differences 
and pass this legislation. It is legislation that has been looked at by 
economists and has been determined to provide real benefits. For every 
dollar we invest, we will get more than that in terms of economic 
productivity in the economy. Again, this is in stark contrast to simply 
proposing to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and assume that 
would put people to work. That was the essence of the Bush economic 
policies, and at the end of 8 years we were in one of the deepest 
economic crises, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month.
  We pulled back from that brink, but in order to go forward, and go 
forward with momentum and confidence, we have to pass legislation such 
as the legislation we have proposed today: targeted efforts to put 
people to work, to move our economy forward, to move the Nation 
forward. This will help millions of Americans who are impacted by this 
tough economy in the most meaningful way--and that is simply by getting 
them back to work. When we do, this country will do great things, as it 
always has done. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              the economy

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, last week's jobs report reinforces what 
many of us have known for some time. Unlike what the President would 
like you to believe, the private sector is not doing fine and this 
administration's policies are not providing effective solutions to our 
Nation's problems. The health of our economy hinges upon job growth, 
and it clearly has not received the attention it deserves. Our Nation 
has no roadmap, and it is past time for a genuine effort to work in a 
bipartisan manner to create the certainty and stability that will allow 
American businesses and families to thrive.
  Every morning Nevadans wake up and grab their hometown newspaper or 
turn on their local news. Some are getting ready to go to work, while 
others start another day trying to find a job. These Nevadans have 
become all too familiar with headlines of Nevada leading the country in 
unemployment and foreclosures.
  For the Nevadans who are going to their job, these headlines create 
fear and uncertainty about their future. For the Nevadan who is 
unemployed, these headlines are another blow to their hopes of finding 
work. That is what many Nevadans have had to live with for far too 
long.
  I read and see the latest unemployment statistics just like everyone 
else, but I know that behind these numbers are real people struggling 
to make ends meet. Being home in Nevada I have met the unemployed 
mechanic, the unemployed computer engineer, and the unemployed 
waitress. Blue collar and white collar workers alike continue to pay 
the price because of the poor decisions by Wall Street and Washington.
  Nevadans did not want the Wall Street bailout--but Washington did it 
anyway. Nevadans did not want the trillion dollar stimulus bill--but 
Washington did it anyway. Nevadans did not want the President's health 
care bill--but Washington did it anyway.
  When I am in places such as Reno, Las Vegas, Henderson, or Elko I 
often ask people to raise their hand if the bailout has helped them 
find a job. No one raises their hand. I ask did the stimulus bill help 
them find a job. No one raises their hand. Finally, I ask them if the 
health care bill has helped them find a job and still no one raises 
their hand.
  In January 2009, President Obama was inaugurated and Democrats 
controlled both the House and the Senate. Nevada's unemployment rate 
was at 9.4 percent.
  Nearly 4 years later Nevada's unemployment rate is 11.6 percent. Too 
many people in Nevada are unemployed, have stopped looking for jobs or 
worse, left the State for employment elsewhere.
  With over 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed I think 
it is past time to ask the President and this Congress is this working?
  Nevadans have seen the effects of higher Washington spending, higher 
regulations, and higher debt and they know these policies have failed. 
They deserve solutions. Instead of having more show votes, Congress 
needs to focus on pro-growth policies that eliminate burdensome 
regulations, reform the tax code and help struggling homeowners. It is 
my hope that our economy will improve as the year goes on, but 
Washington must take action.
  There are small commonsense measures that we can pass right now if 
given the opportunity. I continually come here to the Senate floor to 
offer solutions that will provide our Nation's job creators with the 
tools to provide for long-term economic growth. I have crafted three 
housing bills to help those foreclosed upon to stay in their home, 
shorten the short-sale process, and ensure homeowners who get mortgage 
relief are not hit with additional taxes. I have offered legislation 
that would require Washington bureaucrats at agencies to take into 
account jobs when issuing regulations or to streamline permitting for 
energy-related projects on public lands or even something as simple as 
combining annual reports submitted to Congress. These are small 
measures that if passed would make a big difference to our Nation's job 
creators. Unfortunately, all too often we find ourselves taking 
political show votes instead of debating

[[Page S4923]]

commonsense solutions. The bill we have before us on the floor is a 
perfect example. I filed two amendments to this bill that would help 
ease the stress of taxes on middle-class Nevadans and one to help 
underwater homeowners. Both are bipartisan proposals. Yet once again we 
find ourselves in a position where we cannot have an open debate on 
amendments.
  These are not partisan issues, these are American issues. If any 
Member of Congress commits themselves to spending reform, tax reform, 
regulation reform, and finding solutions to fix the housing crisis, 
then they will have me as an ally.
  Nevadans deserve better than what they have gotten from this Congress 
and White House, which is why I will continue to keep coming to this 
floor to raise my voice for the citizens of Nevada and I will fight 
every day to create jobs and get Nevadans back to work.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask to be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    KU Cancer Center Congratulations

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate 
the University of Kansas on its prestigious designation as a National 
Cancer Institute Cancer Center.
  I do regret I can't be at the KU ceremony today to mark this 
designation by the NCI because of anticipated votes in the Senate, but 
I am certainly there in spirit.
  This designation of `` cancer center'' is such an important 
development for my state and others in our region because it means that 
many Kansans and their families who have faced frightening diagnoses--
and trying treatments--will no longer have to seek cures all the way 
down to Texas or up to Minnesota.
  They can, and will be able to, stay closer to home and their support 
systems. Simply put, it's great news for Kansas cancer patients in the 
region.
  I am personally gratified by this designation because it represents 
more than a decade of work with so many outstanding partners. It has 
truly been a team effort to achieve this important Federal designation.
  When I was first elected to this body in 1996, I created a blue 
ribbon committee of Kansas leaders in government, academia and the 
private sector to advise me on the State's science and technology 
needs. The goal was to make us more competitive in a global marketplace 
increasingly reliant on research and technology and to provide economic 
opportunity to stop out-migration of our best and brightest young 
people.
  The Roberts advisory committee set out to implement policies and 
secure Federal investments to further the research goals of Kansas 
State University in plant and animal science, Wichita State University 
in composite and aviation research and the University of Kansas in life 
science research.
  I personally took this goal to the Kansas legislature in 2001 and 
again in 2002 encouraging my colleagues in the Kansas State legislature 
to help promote State investment in research infrastructure--to be part 
of it.
  At the time, I spoke about how the statistics showed that Kansas was 
lagging behind other States in the race for Federal and private 
research dollars.
  In response, the Kansas legislature more than stepped up to the plate 
with special thanks to leaders like Representative Kenny Wilk, Senator 
Kent Glasscock, Representative Nick Jordan and Senator Dave Kerr.
  The legislature voted in favor of bonding authority--and we 
constructed and invested in buildings at the KU Cancer Center and the 
Biosecurity Research Institute at K-State. Likewise, Wichita State's 
work in composite research is now revolutionizing industries from 
aircraft to health care. And about this same time, Stowers Biomedical 
Research Institute came into existence, which provided a key private 
source of research excellence.
  Our Kansas motto is ``To the stars through difficulty.'' Well, in 
short, the stars aligned.
  KU's then-Chancellor Bob Hemenway and I sought out other 
opportunities to help raise KU's research profile.
  In 2004, we invited then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni to KU for a tour 
and discussion about KU Medical Center's research facilities.
  Dr. Zerhouni recognized--as many Federal research directors do--that 
there is great promise in research conducted at Kansas universities.
  Chancellor Hemenway and I worked in concert to design congressionally 
directed programs to supplement KU's internal NIH cancer research 
successes. This included those won by Dr. Jeff Aube, who leads one of 
four NIH drug discovery centers.
  Furthermore, this coordinated effort with Chancellor Hemenway and his 
leadership team also provided KU with the flexibility to recruit new 
cancer research faculty who brought considerable expertise and NCI 
cancer research programs to KU.
  In 2006, with the critical mission of the National Cancer Institute 
in mind, from my post on the Senate Health Committee, we fought to 
reauthorize funding for National Institutes of Health which oversee the 
National Cancer Institute.
  This reform bill reaffirmed the various centers of NIH including the 
Cancer Institutes and reauthorized their funding.
  In fact, this was a continuation of Congressional efforts from 1999, 
when we were successful at doubling NIH funding over 5 years, at a time 
when many wanted to divert Federal funds to other research.
  My then-partner in the Senate, Sam Brownback, now our State's 
Governor, and I worked together to advance this push.
  In 2009, Senator Brownback and I secured $5.5 billion in Federal 
investments for the University of Kansas to purchase equipment needed 
to further its cancer research. Sam's leadership, both then and now, is 
immeasurable.
  Over those 10 years, there were many other excellent team members 
supporting this effort who should be recognized. I apologize I will not 
be able to name everyone who played such a big and important role.
  First, Dr. Howard Mossberg, dean emeritus of the KU School of 
Pharmacy. He was the force behind the regular meetings of our Science 
and Technology Advisory Committee. Howard, who lives in Lawrence, home 
of KU, did this work for free because he recognized the opportunity to 
use the advisory committee to provide us with key facts to support our 
research and technology initiatives. KU, in fact, hosted many of our 
advisory committee meetings down through the years. I truly appreciate 
that.
  Riding shotgun back in Kansas on this effort has been my tireless 
staff member Harold Stones. Harold provided the hard work of collecting 
and then distilling and providing to everyone concerned the valuable 
contributions among our technology leaders for more than a decade, 
helping me turn them into policy and progress.
  Credit must also go to former KU research directors Dr. Bob Barnhill 
and Dr. Michael Welch. They were instrumental in my research about the 
KU Cancer Center. Jim Roberts, who sadly passed away from cancer 
himself, was a valuable KU adviser to me, as is Steve Warren today.
  I have appreciated getting to know Dr. Roy Jensen, who leads the KU 
Cancer Center. I know Roy will continue to stay in close touch with me 
and the entire Kansas delegation about the KU Cancer Center as it 
continues to progress. Our work is ongoing. It is not done.
  I would also be remiss not to mention the contributions of my former 
legislative director, Mr. Keith Yehle. Keith was the point person for 
KU to contact, whether it was about the KU Cancer Center, the 
advancements in special education or the Hoglund Brain Imaging Center, 
where we also secured $1.8 million in Federal investment for renovation 
and equipment. Keith went on to work at KU for Chancellor Hemenway to 
help him and our current Chancellor Gray-Little navigate the corridors 
of Capitol Hill.
  My former chief of staff Leroy Towns, former deputy legislative 
director Jennifer Swenson, and my current

[[Page S4924]]

senior health care policy adviser Jennifer Boyer round out the list of 
the Roberts team who spent countless hours working on behalf of the 
University of Kansas--whether it is the cancer center designation or 
any other of KU's initiatives.
  Let me stress that my current colleagues in Congress, Senator Jerry 
Moran, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, and Congressman Kevin Yoder, have 
each carved out important initiatives to promote this designation and 
have helped make this day possible. This partnership will continue for 
KU.
  We could not have accomplished something this encompassing without 
strong public support. In this regard, I also wish to thank the 
publisher and the editor of the Lawrence Journal-World, Mr. Dolph 
Simons, Jr., for his comprehensive coverage with regard to all these 
initiatives over the years.
  What we have with the NCI designation is proof of what I said to the 
Kansas State legislature back in 2001; that public and private and 
academic partnerships are critical to developing our State's economy 
over the long term. I applaud the generosity of the Kansas Masonic 
Foundation, Annette Gloch, the Hall Family Foundation, and others for 
their key contributions to this effort.
  In the Senate this week, we have talked a lot about the need for job 
growth--jobs, jobs, jobs. According to the University of Kansas, since 
2006, the National Cancer Institute's designation pursuit alone has 
created 1,123 jobs and had a regional economic impact of $453 million. 
We can only expect, with the announcement of the cancer center 
designation today, that these numbers will grow jobs, jobs, jobs.
  Our work does not end today. We will always be focused on ensuring a 
better treatment of cancer victims. A great thanks go to so many--past 
and present. I am honored to have been there at the beginning, but in 
some ways I believe you ain't seen nothing yet. Congratulations to the 
University of Kansas and to the entire State of Kansas.
  ``Rock Chalk Jayhawk.'' Well done, KU.


                           Medical Device Tax

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the 
small business tax bill currently before the Senate, one of which I 
hope we have an opportunity to debate openly and fairly and allow 
amendments. I am not quite sure if that is going to happen, which is 
frustrating because the American people deserve better. When we allow 
the process to work and we allow everybody to have their say in the 
process, we ultimately get a good bill. I am hopeful we can do the same 
on this one.
  It is good we are finally working on jobs, but I believe we should be 
working in a more bipartisan way, as we did with the insider trading 
bill, crowdfunding, the Arlington Cemetery bill, the 3-percent 
withholding, and many other bills. We need to work on a bill where all 
Members are offered an opportunity to have their votes on job-creating 
ideas.
  I don't think one party has the monopoly on how to create jobs in 
this country. I think we can actually get together in a room and hammer 
it out and try to work to help protect the middle-class and everybody 
in America who wants to get out and work.
  We have worked together, as I have said, on a whole host of bills. I 
forgot the hire a hero tax credit, which is clearly a jobs bill. I 
worked with Senator Bennet and Senator Merkley on that. It is a very 
important piece of legislation. With that type of success, I don't 
understand why we don't try that more often.
  The new medical device tax is one more example of a policy we all 
know is bad for jobs and, in fact, bad for our economy. The House has 
already voted to repeal this job-killing tax. I am disappointed to say 
the Senate has not taken the time to work to repeal it in a truly 
bipartisan manner.

  For those who don't know what the medical device tax is or why we 
should even care, let me explain. In Massachusetts, we have over 400 
medical device companies employing tens of thousands of people. This 
2.3 percent tax on medical device sales will cost our economy thousands 
of jobs and limit Americans access to the most groundbreaking, state-
of-the-art medical devices.
  For example, Covidien, a medical device company with 2,000 employees 
in my home State, has estimated that taxable medical devices represent 
approximately 30 to 40 percent of the total net sales in 2011. What 
that means in plain language is that will cost Covidien between $80 
million and $107 million annually. From where is that money going to 
come? Will it come from R&D, expansion, hiring or expanding their 
workforce?
  Over the last 5 years, Covidien has more than doubled its R&D 
investment and launched more than 100 new products. One of those 
products is a device that restores blood flow in patients who have 
suffered from a stroke by mechanically removing blood clots from 
blocked vessels. Obviously, that is a very important device that would 
actually help save people's lives and save costs. Another product 
provides the first safe and effective treatment for large or giant 
wide-neck brain aneurysms available on the market, but losing $80 
million to $107 million in revenue each year will put Covidien's 
continuing growth in very real jeopardy.
  Another medical device company, Stryker Corporation, said late last 
year they would begin cutting 5 percent of their workforce in response 
to the tax. That is 1,000 jobs that will be gone as a result of this 
tax. Stryker expects the device tax to cost them $130 million to $150 
million in the first year alone. These are just two examples. As I 
said, in Massachusetts we have over 400 medical device companies.
  The Massachusetts medical device industry employs nearly 25,000 
workers in Massachusetts and contributes over $4 billion to our 
economy. Massachusetts alone is expected to lose over 2,600 jobs. As a 
direct result of this tax, around 10 percent of our device 
manufacturing workforce will be affected. The bottom line is we can't 
have that kind of job loss in a sector of our economy that is still 
struggling.
  Yesterday, I, along with others, introduced an amendment to repeal 
this job-killing medical device tax. It is a tax which will drive up 
the cost of care for patients and make our workers and our companies 
less competitive.
  Some say it is time to move on from the health care bill to work on 
the jobs legislation. With all due respect, working on job growth means 
repealing the health care bill and its 18 new job-destroying taxes 
along with one-half trillion in Medicare cuts.
  A lot of these things haven't clicked in and the American public 
isn't quite aware they are soon going to be affected by 18 new taxes 
associated with the Federal health care bill and a one-half trillion in 
Medicare cuts. It is time to get rid of the medical device tax before 
it does even more damage, not only to Massachusetts but other States 
that have a large medical device industry.
  I urge my colleagues to get behind this effort in a truly bipartisan, 
bicameral manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Should we go to the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
proceed on S. 3369.


                               Estate Tax

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I find it ironic that we are debating a 
bill called the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act when that bill 
does absolutely nothing to address the death tax, one of the biggest 
threats to our small businesses in our country.
  Again, while Republicans are being accused of not wanting to move 
legislation to help grow the economy and develop jobs, it was 
interesting to read this morning that my Democratic friends still do 
not have any agreement among themselves on how to proceed on a number 
of tax issues--including the death tax. They need to get moving over 
there.
  Next year, unless Congress does something, the death tax will come 
roaring back at a much higher rate of 55 percent and a much lower 
exemption amount of $1 million next year, though those who promote the 
death tax characterize it as impacting only Daddy Warbucks, the 
Monopoly Man, and Montgomery Burns. The data does not bear out this 
cartoonish characterization.
  The death tax does not just hit those at higher income tax brackets; 
it has an effect well beyond small business owners and adversely 
impacts middle-

[[Page S4925]]

class jobs and wages. Call it what you will, the estate tax or the 
death tax, but in the end it is a tax that is antismall business and 
antijob creation and antiwage increase.
  We are in the midst of another Senate floor show of pursuing 
legislation that will give the President and his allies campaign 
talking points but will do absolutely nothing to spur economic growth 
and job creation. Meanwhile, the Senate has failed to take action on 
estate tax reform. This is beyond irresponsible.
  I have been a long-time proponent of repealing the death tax. Not 
only is it double taxation and a deterrent to savings, but it also 
sucks up capital in the marketplace. To be clear, this is capital that 
could be used to hire more workers or expand small businesses or any 
business for that matter. This is a basic economic concept that seems 
lost on our current President, President Obama.
  During last year's deficit reduction talks, President Obama argued on 
behalf of tax increases saying:

       I do not want, and I will not accept a deal in which I am 
     asked to do nothing, in fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of 
     thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need.

  Income that I don't need? This is a point that could only be made by 
a person with a very loose understanding of how business and 
entrepreneurs operate. The President seems to think this so-called 
excess income does no good. In fact, however, it will be invested or it 
would be invested in new business ventures, new hires, and better 
wages.
  If these entrepreneurs with all this excess income did nothing but 
put that money into a savings account, it would benefit individuals 
looking to buy a house, buy a car or start their own business, but the 
President does not seem to grasp this. So it is no surprise that he and 
his Democratic allies have done nothing to address this job-killing 
death tax increase looming on the horizon.
  The President claims he is interested in job creation. He certainly 
should be after last month's anemic jobs report. Well, he need look no 
further than death tax repeal. I know his liberal base might not 
appreciate it, but the rest of the country, which is less interested in 
class warfare talking points and more interested in getting the economy 
moving again, would embrace it.
  The death tax adds inefficiency to our economy. It is what economists 
refer to as deadweight loss. In other words, it creates another burden 
on our free market system and prevents the full potential of economic 
growth.
  For instance, many small businesses have to purchase insurance in 
order to prepare for paying the death tax so they do not end up having 
to sell the business just to pay the death tax. This added cost is 
embedded into the cost of goods when sold. In other words, American 
consumers, American workers, or Americans looking for work are those 
who will ultimately have to pay the death tax.
  Consider also that heirs are often forced to sell an asset of the 
business or the business itself in order to meet this arbitrary tax due 
date. These assets are likely generating revenue and could be a vital 
part of the business. But because the tax man cometh, small businesses 
are forced to sell these assets to pay the death tax.
  We ought to repeal the death tax, plain and simple. We actually don't 
get that much revenue from the death tax to justify its existence. It 
has been a pain in the neck from the beginning.
  In 2010 the death tax was temporarily repealed, but in a few months 
the law will take a sharp turn for the worse. Back in 2010 Senators Kyl 
and Lincoln offered a compromise that gained bipartisan support which 
eventually became law. Under title III of the Tax Relief Act--a law 
signed by President Obama--the death tax and the gift tax are unified 
with a $5 million exemption amount and a tax rate of 35 percent. Under 
current law, however, in 2013 we will once again have a 55-percent 
estate tax due within 9 months of death, and in some cases the tax will 
reach 60 percent. The exemption amount could be as low as $1 million.
  That is not right. How does it benefit our economy to have small 
businesses and farmers wondering whether they have to sell their 
business or literally sell the farm to pay for an uncertain amount of 
taxes? It creates an accounting and financial nightmare.
  The estate tax is not about making the Tax Code more progressive. The 
estate tax is not about more redistribution. It is not about deficit 
reduction. It is class warfare, and while it might stir up some votes, 
it has an outsized and detrimental impact on our economy.
  Many do not realize the enormous impact the death tax has on rural 
America. I am not only talking about farmers and ranchers; I am also 
talking about small family-owned businesses that generate economic 
growth in smaller towns--and even larger towns. If we do not address 
the death tax, some businesses with assets over $1 million could be 
susceptible to the death tax.
  I know for a small business $1 million in assets is a pretty low 
threshold. That is why I care about this death tax debate: because of 
real people, real Utahans, in real communities, who will be upended if 
this tax increase is allowed to go into effect.
  When we hear about the number of individuals impacted by the death 
tax, that statistic actually understates the sweep of this intrusion by 
the Federal Government. The estate tax return is filed by the 
representative of the deceased. That return does not take into account 
the dead person's family, employees, or neighbors. All of those folks 
are affected if the death tax burdens that particular family business 
or farm.
  There seems to be a strategy by the Democratic leadership to drag its 
feet in coming up with a resolution to this impending problem. What 
they fail to realize is this strategy is only adding to the cloud of 
uncertainty--economic uncertainty--over our country and over our 
economy. Will Congress keep the rates and exemption amounts the same? 
Will Congress increase them? What do I need to do as a small business 
owner to better prepare my business from withstanding a tax increase?
  These are the types of questions more and more small business owners 
and farmers are continuing to ask. The uncertainty these questions 
generate is holding back investment, job creation, and wage growth. Yet 
policies to promote economic growth have, unfortunately, taken a back 
seat to Presidential talking points that campaign advisers think will 
generate votes. Attack the rich. Promise more spending.
  As a candidate, President Obama promised in 2008 that Washington 
needed to spread the wealth around. That is one promise the President 
has kept. In spite of an economy that demands a focus on job creation, 
the President and his liberal allies have spent the last year coming up 
with even more intensive redistributionist schemes.
  Recently, the Joint Committee on Taxation released an estimate on how 
many more taxable estates, farming taxable estates, and small business 
taxable estates would be affected by the increase in the death tax over 
the next 10 years. The numbers are truly astonishing. If Congress does 
not act, we will see more than a 1,000-percent increase in the number 
of taxable estates, a 2,300-percent increase in the number of farming 
taxable estates, and a 1,000-percent increase in the number of small 
business taxable estates. The reach of the death tax is growing, and it 
is going to hit not just the so-called rich but current employees and, 
for that matter, entire communities.
  Let's take a look at the tax year of 2013. It arrives in a little 
over 7 months, by the way. Under current law, 46,700 estates will be 
taxable. If we extend the Lincoln-Kyl compromise, 3,600 estates would 
be taxable. Now, let me refer to the Joint Committee on Taxation estate 
tax data chart. It is the second column on the chart. When we think 
about it, under current law the path on which we seem to be slow-
walking means more than 10 times the number of estates will be hit by 
the tax. The Lincoln-Kyl compromise means only the top 10 percent--the 
wealthiest estates--would be hit by the death tax.
  If we project out the 8 years of current law over 10 years, we will 
find that roughly 570,000 estates will be taxable over that period. 
Under the Lincoln-Kyl compromise, which is the current estate tax 
regime, roughly 41,000 estates would be taxable over that period. So 
570,000 estates under the law that many Democrats would want or only 
41,000 estates would be taxed under the Lincoln-Kyl compromise.

[[Page S4926]]

  In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Secretary of 
Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan described an epidemic of sorts that is 
hitting our farmlands across the United States. She did not talk about 
rising fuel prices or droughts. Instead, Secretary Merrigan discussed 
how our country's farmers and ranchers are getting older, and fewer 
young people are taking their places. I have heard time and time again 
that the death tax is the No. 1 reason family farms and businesses fail 
to pass down to the next generation.
  If Congress does not act soon, the Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimates that another 2,000 farming estates will be hit by the death 
tax next year. Keep in mind farmers sometimes carry debt. That would 
reduce the value of the farm, but on the other hand farmers have other 
farm-related assets such as combines and other equipment that are not 
included in the figures I cited.
  This data shows the failure to address the estate tax cliff will 
undermine many family farms. For those folks who are working this land, 
this is an unwelcome uncertainty. As I indicated earlier, the tax is an 
impediment to passing on the family business, in this case the family 
farm. A much higher death tax, apparently supported by many Members on 
the other side, will undermine many family farms and small businesses. 
Yet these family farms and small businesses form the economic backbone 
of their communities.
  Do we really want to send the signal that those who work hard, save, 
and want to pass something on to their families exist solely to fund 
bloated Federal programs? Why work hard? Why save? Why not work less? 
Instead, if the President is just going to spread the wealth around, it 
might just be easier to go into debt and live beyond one's means.
  There is something fundamentally unjust about the estate tax. 
Contrary to the claims of the President and his most liberal 
supporters, a person's wealth is the result of his or her labor. When 
one builds a business, one puts their sweat and ingenuity into it. To 
then be punished for this--to have it taken away at the moment of death 
by the Federal Government--is an assault on personal liberty and 
freedom.
  John Locke, the great philosopher, understood this. America's 
Founding Fathers understood this, and they would no doubt be appalled 
to know that behind the Grim Reaper now stands an IRS agent waiting to 
collect and deliver the government's share. But today's so-called 
liberals have abandoned this classical liberal philosophy--the 
philosophy of natural rights and liberties upon which our Nation was 
founded--in favor of a redistributionist philosophy that undermines 
rights and undermines our economy.
  Time is running out. We cannot continue this cycle of passing 
temporary tax relief and then waiting until the very last minute to 
decide what to do next. We owe it to family farms and small businesses 
to figure out a way to pass a permanent solution so each year 
businesses are not left wondering whether they will have to shut their 
doors in order to pay the death tax.
  Also, for those who love to raise taxes on small businesses, keep in 
mind these small businesses pay a lot of income tax each year into the 
Treasury's coffers. Do we want to kill the goose that is laying the 
golden eggs? If we are serious about providing true tax relief that 
will help small businesses grow, we can sit here and debate whether a 
bandaid will be the cure to our ailing economy, or we can begin the 
debate over how to prevent historic tax increases from hammering our 
small businesses and farms.
  I urge my friends in the Democratic leadership to put the death tax 
on the Senate's radar screen.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                 Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am reminded today of the old saying 
that we campaign in poetry but we govern in prose. We are in the midst 
of a campaign season when we hear a lot of rhetoric perhaps posing as 
poetry, but we have an obligation to govern. I rise today in support of 
S. 2337, which is most certainly simple, straightforward prose in 
dedication to the art of government. It is the Small Business Jobs and 
Tax Relief Act. It is about as simple and straightforward as it 
possibly could be.
  It has two compelling, concise concepts. The first is a tax credit of 
10 percent on new payroll. It can be either new hiring or increased 
wages in 2012 as compared to 2011, and it is capped at $500,000--pretty 
simple, straightforward prose in aid of jobs, in aid of employment.
  It also extends for 1 year the 100-percent bonus depreciation 
allowance to stimulate economic investment--again, to create jobs. It 
is a very simple and straightforward extension of the accelerated 
depreciation that boosts gross domestic product and will benefit 2 
million businesses--it is estimated 2 million businesses--most of them 
small businesses across the United States. In fact, this measure is 
very specifically targeted and aimed at small businesses creating jobs. 
They are the backbone of our economy. They are the source of the 
majority of new jobs.
  It economizes, very prudently and practically, the aid that is 
designed to boost new jobs, as well as overall output in our economy.
  It is supported by a broad consensus of economists, including Alan 
Blinder, who has endorsed this idea as a job creator, saying:

       The basic idea is to offer firms that boost their payrolls 
     a tax break. As one concrete example, companies might be 
     offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their 
     wage bills. . . . No increase, no reward.

  That is the concept: ``No increase, no reward.'' But the reward and 
the incentive are a powerful potential driving force to aid small 
businesses in increasing the numbers of jobs they provide.
  I thank Leader Harry Reid for this very targeted and profoundly 
meaningful proposal. But when I think about the impact of this 
legislation, I do not think of the folks who are gathered in this 
Chamber. I think of people in Connecticut--13,000 people in 
Connecticut--who will have jobs if we move forward on this bill.
  I think of a man named Hector Hernandez. I met Hector at a jobs fair 
I hosted in East Hartford this past September. After 25 years of 
working for the same company--as they say, working hard and playing by 
the rules--Hector lost his job. He is willing to do most anything to 
find a new job, but he cannot find one. There are simply no jobs for 
Hector. This measure will help to provide him one.
  At that same jobs fair I met Ty Wagner. Ty took a very smart path. He 
decided he was going to get all the education that could possibly be 
accessible to him. He got a technical degree from a top university. He 
wanted to work in the State when he graduated. His dream job was to 
give back, to provide public service. He has not been able to find any 
job, let alone his dream job, and he is every bit as lost as Hector 
Hernandez.
  That situation faced by Hector and Ty is only one aspect of the 
crisis in America's job market. I think of Jodey Lazarus who moved to 
Stamford 5 years ago in search of economic opportunity. She put her two 
kids in local schools, signed up for college classes, started to get 
her finances in order, and today she makes barely enough to feed her 
family. She receives no benefits. She has been looking for a job that 
will pay her more and give her more security, but in this economy her 
efforts have come to nothing. Every week she hopes and prays her income 
will be enough to provide food for her family. People like Jodey and 
Hector and Ty deserve better.
  As I travel across Connecticut, I hear often that there are jobs and 
employers cannot find people with the skills to fill them. We need to 
provide those skills to develop our workforce, to make sure education 
and training are available so people have skills to fill the jobs that 
exist.
  Washington can do more for them. This kind of targeted, practical 
approach--not Republican or Democrat, not conservative or progressive--
simply provides the tools small businesses need: a 10-percent payroll 
tax cut, accelerated depreciation--simple,

[[Page S4927]]

straightforward prose, not poetry, prose--that will put people back to 
work in Connecticut and around the country.
  I urge that my colleagues come together--as the American people want 
us to do desperately, are seeking for us to do--and to govern in prose 
that makes a practical difference in their lives, a tool for small 
business--not as a panacea but as a practical aid so small businesses 
can put people back to work across the State of Connecticut and the 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his comments. I must tell the 
Senator, listening to him account to the people in Connecticut, to the 
individuals who are struggling in this economy, I can tell the Senator 
we have the same exact circumstances happening in Maryland.
  This past weekend I was with some small business owners who were 
telling me their plans for opening a new restaurant and opening a new 
gasoline station, telling me of the struggles they are having in 
getting financing. There are community banks that have money, but they 
cannot make the loans because of the new rating system, and it is very 
difficult to get the capital to get the type of expansions they need 
today to start a new business.
  In my State of Maryland, the high-tech and cybersecurity areas where 
we have small companies that are starting up to help our country, to 
help our country answer the problems of cybersecurity, help our country 
develop the type of biotech discoveries that will make our health care 
system more cost effective, are having a very difficult time putting 
together the capital in order to be able to move forward with job 
creation.
  The Senator and I know 60 percent of our job creation will come from 
small businesses. We also know innovation is more likely to come from 
small companies that find ways to work more cost effectively. Today in 
this economy it is a challenge for small business owners to be able to 
put together the business financing to create the jobs we need for our 
economy.

  The Senator also understands if we are going to balance our budget, 
if we are going to be able to move forward, we have to have more people 
working. A lot of people are looking for work and cannot find a job. We 
want more people working to fuel our economy. Also, by the way, they 
also pay taxes and help us bring our budget into balance.
  So I could not agree with the Senator more that we need to get 
Democrats and Republicans working together. Here we have a bill on the 
Senate floor that helps small businesses. Let's not filibuster this 
bill. Let's at least bring it up for an up-or-down vote. I thought in a 
democracy majority rules. Let's bring it up. Let's have a vote. Let's 
keep it to the small business issues.
  We all talk about our support for small businesses. Let's keep it to 
the issue before us: to create jobs, to help small businesses do that.
  The underlying bill--and I thank Senator Reid for the underlying 
bill--says to small businesses: If you add to our economy, if you 
create more jobs, if you increase your payroll, then we have tax help 
for you to do that.
  I must tell you, I think this is exactly what we need. We know 
businesses cannot get all the financing they need. They need some help 
in order to be able to put together new job opportunities. This bill 
provides that with a 10-percent credit on the cost of a new hire. That 
gives an incentive for the small business owner. It may be the 
difference between setting up that new restaurant or moving forward to 
add that employee that will not only help our economy but will help 
that company discover the way in which we can deal with the cyber 
threats to this country. So it helps our country, it creates the jobs, 
and this underlying bill should be discussed on the floor of the Senate 
without filibusters that deny us that chance.
  I also thank Senator Landrieu. Senator Landrieu, the chair of the 
Small Business Committee, has put forward a series of amendments. I am 
proud to have worked with her on the amendment she has brought forward 
that adds some provisions that are extremely important.
  I know in the underlying bill, working with Senator Landrieu, we have 
also the expensing provision. That is an important provision. As I am 
sure the Senator from Connecticut understands, that provision allows a 
business owner to go out and make a capital investment, to buy a piece 
of equipment. Rather than having to write it off over 3 years or 5 
years or 10 years, they can write it off immediately, having the 
ability to buy that piece of equipment, to grow their business, and to 
be able to then write off the cost. It is just a timing issue for the 
businessperson, but it is the difference between making the investment 
or not making the investment, creating a job or not creating a job.
  By the way, by buying that piece of equipment, that business owner is 
also helping another business owner who is selling that piece of 
equipment, to get our economy back moving again. It is those types of 
commonsense provisions that have always enjoyed broad bipartisan 
support in the Senate--always. These are provisions we have had 
Democrats and Republicans working on together. We need to do that 
today.
  Let's move on with the bill. We have had it on the floor of the 
Senate now a couple days. Let's move on and start voting, but do not 
filibuster. Let's vote on relevant amendments. Can't we just stick with 
the small business issues and vote on that in order to help our economy 
grow?
  I am also pleased about another provision that is in the Landrieu 
amendment and the underlying bill now that we could have a chance to 
vote on that increases the surety bond limits for small businesses. 
This was passed by the Senate and incorporated into law in February 
2009. I was proud to be the sponsor of this amendment that increased 
the surety bond limit from $2 million to $5 million.
  The reason this becomes important is, for a small business owner to 
be able to get a government contract of over $100,000, they need to 
have a surety bond. In order to get that surety bond, the small 
business owner has to take, usually, for security, some of their assets 
and pledge them for the surety bond rather than using them for the 
credit of the company, which is really a catch-22 situation.
  Increasing the limit from $2 million to $5 million frees up some of 
that ability because the government comes in, the Small Business 
Administration comes in and helps them with that surety bond. So if you 
are a construction contractor trying to get a Federal contract, the 
difference between $2 million and $5 million is a huge difference in 
the type of contracts that you can compete for.
  It is interesting that when we looked at it, we had projected it 
would generate about $147 million in additional bonding activity for 
projects of over $2 million, and we found that, in fact, it increased 
activity by $360 million.
  So the need was there. It generated strong activity. Democrats and 
Republicans supported it. I was proud of the support of Senator 
Landrieu and Senator Snowe.
  This is not a controversial issue. The only way we are going to get 
that increase--that expired in 2010. It is no longer part of the law. 
We are back to $2 million. So small business owners are at a 
disadvantage. We just have not had a chance to extend that. It is not 
controversial. It brings money into the economy. It is not scored.
  So we need to be able to get that done. If we cannot get to this 
bill, I do not know when we will get that increase in the surety bond 
limit. So that is another reason I urge my colleagues to let us vote on 
this bill to help small businesses in our community. It has always 
enjoyed bipartisan support.
  Here is what we are asking. My colleagues, we all talk about we want 
to create more jobs. We all talk about supporting small businesses 
because we know small businesses are the growth engine of America. We 
all know small businesses create more of the new patents, more of the 
new innovations per employee than the larger companies do. Let's put 
our action where our words are. We can do that today by allowing the 
Senate to move forward to consider amendments on the Reid bill that is 
before us--the Landrieu amendments. Let's move forward with that bill. 
Let's take up relevant amendments that deal with small business

[[Page S4928]]

issues. Let's vote them up or down by a majority vote of the Senate. 
And then I am sure, at the end of the day when we put that bill up for 
final passage, it will enjoy broad support by the Members of this body. 
And it gives the American people confidence that we indeed are focused 
on job creation for America.
  I urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this bill. Let's take 
up the Landrieu amendments, take up the underlying bill. Let's do 
something that can help small businesses, help job growth, help our 
economy, and restore confidence to the American people that we are 
indeed dealing with the agenda they want us to do--moving our country 
forward, moving our economy forward by creating more jobs in our 
economy.
  I thank my friend from Connecticut.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Progrowth Tax Reform

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the need for 
progrowth tax reform.
  Recently, President Obama--in fact, on Monday--in a speech proposed a 
plan to raise tax rates rather than continuing the current tax rates. 
That means raising taxes on individuals and small businesses and 
raising the capital gains tax on investment--not only the income tax, 
but also the capital gains tax on small businesses, individuals, 
capital gains tax on investments. It also means raising the death tax 
on American families--the estate tax.
  He made that proposal even though he has repeatedly said we cannot 
raise taxes in a recession. He has made that statement repeatedly in 
recent years, that we cannot raise taxes in a recession because it 
would hurt the economy, and raising taxes would hurt job creation.
  But here we were on Monday, and he proposed we raise the tax rates. 
This is at a time when we have 8.2 percent unemployment; in fact, we 
have been over 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight months. We have 
13 million people who are unemployed whom we want to get back to work, 
and we have another 10 million who are underemployed. On the order of 
23 million people are either unemployed or underemployed.
  Since this administration has taken office, middle-class income has 
declined from approximately $55,000 to about $50,000. The number of 
people on food stamps has grown from 32 million recipients to 46 
million recipients. Home values have dropped from an average of about 
$169,000 to an average of about $148,000. In the area of economic 
growth, GDP growth is the weakest of any recovery post-World War II. 
The last quarter, it was reported that it was about a 1.9-percent 
increase over the prior quarter.
  In the area of job creation, the report for June, as far as the 
number of jobs gained in the month, came out last week. In June, we 
gained about 80,000 jobs. That is far short of the 150,000 jobs we need 
to grow each month just to keep up with population growth.
  So now the President says the solution is to raise taxes on our job 
creators. This week, after the President's speech--as I said, he spoke 
on Monday--I received a letter from a small business owner in my State 
of North Dakota. I know this individual. In fact, he has a hardware 
store in Bismarck. I have often gone there for items I need when I am 
working on my home. In fact, last year, when we had terrible flooding 
throughout North Dakota, in Minot and other communities--we had 
flooding in Bismarck, and my home is along the Missouri River and was 
in the way of the flood--I often went there to get needed items. He 
runs a good business, a good small business, and it is very helpful. He 
sent me this letter after the President's speech on Monday. I will read 
it. It is short:

       Senator Hoeven:
       The president's recent comments on raising taxes on high 
     income earners concern me greatly. Perhaps he just doesn't 
     understand that for people like me, who own a business, the 
     bulk of those earnings actually go to the bank payments for 
     what I borrowed to be here. I am actually in danger of being 
     taxed to a point of no living wage for myself. The taxes and 
     bank payments come first. Out of an income that classifies me 
     as rich, I actually take $40,000 home to my family. How much 
     more do they want?
       John, you've shopped in my store, you've seen all how we 
     have grown, and you know people like me would use every 
     available dime to grow more. This president's programs not 
     only limit my company's potential to grow, but they destroy 
     any incentive to work and hire more people. I just don't know 
     if he doesn't understand what he's doing, or just doesn't 
     care.
       Please, Senator Hoeven, share with your partners in the 
     Senate how critical an issue this is for small business 
     owners like me. Oh, and Thanks for Shopping at Ace when 
     you're home in Bismarck.
       Jeffrey Hinz, Kirkwood Ace Hardware.

  I think Jeff sums it up well--better than I could. Jeff represents 
millions of small businesses across this country that are the very 
backbone of our economy. They hire the people, they pay the wages, they 
pay the taxes. They fuel the growth and the dynamism of our economy. In 
short, they make our economy go. Small business in this country makes 
our economy go.
  Yet the President's proposal would raise taxes on about 1 million 
business owners, hurting their ability to grow our economy, hurting our 
ability to get those 13 million unemployed people back to work.
  That is not the way to go. Very clearly, that is not the way to go. 
This administration's policies are making it worse. But the President 
says everyone needs to pay their fair share. How many times have you 
heard him say that? Well, of course, everyone needs to pay their fair 
share. But the way to do it is with progrowth tax reform and closing 
loopholes, not by raising taxes on some people, some businesses, and 
not others.
  That is what we have proposed. We have proposed progrowth tax reform 
and closing loopholes. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year 
and set up a process to pass progrowth tax reforms that lower rates, 
close loopholes, are fair, simpler, and will generate the revenue to 
reduce our debt and deficit, along with savings and spending less--
controlling government spending, but that will generate the economic 
growth to drive revenue, not higher taxes.
  The reality is that is the only way to get on top of our debt and 
deficit and to get people back to work. We need economic growth to 
reduce the debt and deficit, along with more savings at the Federal 
level, controlling spending, and we need economic growth to get people 
working again.
  That is why we have put forward our approach--a simple approach--to 
extend the current tax rates for another year and set up a process for 
comprehensive progrowth tax reform. That is the right approach. From 
2000 to 2010, I served as the Governor of my State. That is the 
approach we took. Look at the results in our State of North Dakota. 
Look at the results in States such as Indiana, where that approach has 
been taken. It works at the State level. It will work at the Federal 
level. We need to do it.
  I call on President Obama, as well as my colleagues, to engage in 
this vital effort now for the good of the American people.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this body for 50 years has passed the 
National Defense Authorization Act, and for 50 years, after conference, 
it has reached the President's desk and been signed by the President of 
the United States.
  There are many pressing issues that confront the Senate, the 
Congress, and the Nation. But I don't think we should forget that our 
first obligation is to secure the safety of our citizens, and that can 
only be done by training, arming, and equipping the men and women who 
are serving in the military.
  Mr. President, a couple of months ago, through the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, we passed the National Defense Authorization Act, 
and it has some very important components in it to continue to support 
the men and women who are serving, and their families, and to provide 
them with the equipment and training they need to defend this Nation.

[[Page S4929]]

  We are still in conflict in Afghanistan. We are on the brink of a 
crisis with Iran over nuclear weapons. We have adjusted our presence in 
Asia in response to the rising influence of China. The uprising in 
Syria threatens to spill over into neighboring countries. And, of 
course, the situation in Egypt is clearly one of significant question 
as to how the Egyptian Government and people will progress. Some would 
argue that in many respects the State of Israel is under more threat 
than at any time since perhaps the 1973 war. So we live in a dangerous 
world. We live in a very uncertain time. And it seems to me our 
priorities should be to bring the national defense authorization bill 
to the floor.
  The bill received a unanimous vote in committee by both Republicans 
and Democrats. I am proud of the relationship the chairman and I have 
developed over many years of working together. I am confident that 
despite the fact there will be hundreds of amendments filed, we can 
work through those and work through the process, as we have in the 
past, and bring the Defense authorization bill to a conclusion and to 
conference with the House and then signed by the President of the 
United States. We owe this to the men and women who are serving in the 
military. It is not our right, it is our obligation to get the 
authorization bill to the President's desk.
  We may have significant disagreements, but for 50 years this body has 
passed the Defense authorization bill and it has been signed by the 
President of the United States. We are in some danger of not getting 
this done this year when we look at the remaining weeks we have in 
session and the number of challenges that are before us. So I think it 
is time we step back and look at the requirement to pass this 
legislation.
  I have some sympathy for the majority leader in that there is great 
difficulty in the way we are doing business nowadays. But I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will all recognize the importance 
of this legislation. We must urge Members on both sides to set aside 
their own personal agendas and do what is necessary for the defense of 
this Nation.
  The bill provides $525 billion for the base budget of the Defense 
Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the 
world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. The bill 
authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including the cost of 
pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay 
increase for all members of the uniformed services--something I think 
all of us would agree is well-earned. That is, by the way, also the 
President's request. It improves the quality of life for the men and 
women in the Active and Reserve components of the All-Volunteer Force 
and helps to address the needs of the wounded servicemembers and their 
families.
  As we and our NATO partners reduce operations in Afghanistan, the 
importance of transitioning responsibility to Afghan forces increases, 
as does the need to provide for the protection of our deployed troops. 
This legislation provides our service men and women with the resources, 
training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and 
stability operations. It enhances the capability of U.S. forces to 
support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as 
they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the 
year 2014.
  Weapons systems modernization is essential to the future viability of 
our national security strategy, and this legislation provides for 
substantial improvement of legacy ships, aircraft, and vehicles, while 
authorizing research and development investments to ensure our troops 
remain the best equipped in the world. The bill authorizes the 
President's request for missile defense and accelerates support for our 
allies, including the joint U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense 
programs, such as the Arrow weapon system and the David's Sling short-
range missile defense system. It also provides multiyear procurement 
authority for the Chinook helicopters, V-22 aircraft, Virginia-class 
submarines, and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, reflecting estimated 
savings of more than $7 billion over 5 years. And none of this can take 
place unless we pass the authorization bill.
  The committee also sought to improve the ability of the armed 
services to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, cyber 
warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I 
believe the key battlefield of the 21st century will be cyber warfare, 
and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new 
domain. To improve the Defense Department's cyber capabilities, this 
legislation consolidates defense networks to improve security and 
management, which will permit personnel to be reassigned to support 
offensive cyber missions, which are understaffed.
  The issue of nuclear proliferation is addressed, and other programs 
to counter the flow of improvised explosive devices and curtail the 
trade of worldwide narcotics are authorized in this bill.
  Especially important are provisions to enhance the capability of the 
security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al-Qaida, its 
affiliates, and other violent extremist organizations. The Armed 
Services Committee extended the Defense Department's authority to train 
and equip forces in Yemen to counter al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula 
and forces in east Africa to counter al-Qaida affiliates and elements 
of al-Shabaab.
  To ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with 
law and regulation, the bill promotes aggressive and thorough oversight 
of the Department's programs and activities. This includes adding 
funding for the Department of Defense inspector general. The Department 
of Defense inspector general reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 
billion in savings in 2011--a return on investment of more than $8 for 
every $1 spent. The committee mark also codifies the 2014 goal for the 
Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary 
resources.
  Further, it improves the cost-effectiveness of DOD contracting by 
limiting the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major 
weapons systems. In addition, the bill includes a series of wartime 
contracting provisions drawn from the McCaskill-Webb bill implementing 
the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. In that 
vein, the bill enhances protections for contractors that blow the 
whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracts.

  Finally, this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to submit 
a detailed report to Congress on the impact budget sequestration will 
have on military readiness and national security. Similar legislative 
language has been passed twice by this body and by the House of 
Representatives. The Congress does not yet have an accurate 
understanding of the implications of sequester beyond an assertion that 
the cuts would be ``devastating,'' which is the word used by Secretary 
of Defense Leon Panetta and nearly every other defense official we have 
queried. We must have this information as we begin the work of 
developing a balanced approach to deficit reduction that replaces 
sequestration with a responsible plan for getting our Nation's finances 
in order.
  I want to repeat, Mr. President, that for 50 years, I am proud to 
say--and in the years I have been in this, obviously--we have 
successfully authorized the programs and policies of the Department of 
Defense. I am proud of what this committee has done. I am proud of what 
the Senate has done. I am proud of what the Congress has done and the 
Presidents these pieces of legislation have come before for their 
signature. Let's not allow the anticipation of an election to hinder 
our ability to act in the interests of the men and women who are so 
bravely serving our Nation.
  I hope the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican 
leader, will come to an agreement so that we can have a date certain. 
And I can assure the leadership on both sides that Senator Levin and I 
will again be able to expedite this process, allowing amendments and 
debate as they are called for and at the same time come to a successful 
conclusion and make this the 51st year we have succeeded in doing what 
is necessary to fulfill our most solemn and important obligation, which 
is to do everything within our power to ensure the security of this 
Nation.

[[Page S4930]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Veterans Retraining Assistance Program

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise to address a problem 
facing too many communities across the country, including small towns 
and big cities, suburbs and remote rural areas.
  Servicemembers who have risked their lives protecting our Nation 
shouldn't have to wonder whether they will be able to find a job when 
they leave the service. Unfortunately, far too many do.
  On Monday, I was in Youngstown in northeast Ohio speaking to Army 
veteran Pedro Colon. He is one of the first Mahoning County area 
veterans to be approved for VRAP.
  VRAP is a particularly important program for veterans in this 
country. It stands for Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. We just 
authorized it under the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. I am the first Ohio 
Senator ever to sit on the Veterans' Committee for a full term, and I 
take that responsibility seriously. One of the outreach training 
efforts put together by Senator Murray in the Veterans' Committee is 
VRAP.
  Mr. Pedro Colon, Jr., is a high school graduate in his early fifties. 
Even though he served in an Army medical laboratory as a specialist, 
civilian employers wouldn't accept his military training experience. As 
the Presiding Officer knows, having such a huge military presence in 
her State, in many cases employers are reluctant to hire veterans. 
Perhaps they are afraid they haven't been tested for PTSD or, for 
whatever reason, employers far too often seem reluctant to hire 
veterans. We know the unemployment levels are higher among veterans 
than they are the rest of the population. We know there is a particular 
problem for veterans who are a little bit older, who, as in the case of 
Mr. Colon, are middle-aged. We also know sometimes veterans, 
particularly if they came out of high school and went directly into 
service, might not know when leaving the service how to apply for a 
job, how to do a resume, all the things people learn to do when they 
are stateside in the civilian workforce.
  Because of VRAP, Mr. Colon will study at the Mahoning County Career 
and Technical Center, beginning in September, to train to become a 
medical assistant--something he knows something about from his military 
service but was not certified and, unfortunately, unemployable in that 
field.
  We have a responsibility to the Pedro Colons of the world to do 
something about these thousands of older veterans who are jobless or 
unemployed. VRAP is for veterans 35 to 60. The GI bill--which most of 
us in this Chamber supported earlier--helped those returning 
servicemembers a little bit younger than 35, not as much as it should 
have but in a significant way. But for many who, similar to Mr. Colon, 
are older than that, the opportunity to benefit from much of the GI 
bill has expired.
  As we invest in our servicemembers in times of war, we should do so 
when they return to their communities, when they hang up their 
uniforms, and when they embark in the next phase of their lives.
  We have a role to play, and this is a case where government can step 
in and help the private sector do what is right to serve those veterans 
who served us. That is why the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program--
which is a joint Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Labor 
training initiative--is so important.
  Last year Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the VOW 
to Hire Heroes Act, which honors our government's obligation to our 
veterans. VRAP, a component of that law, provides unemployed veterans 
between the ages of 35 and 60 the opportunity to pursue training for 
new careers in high-demand occupations.
  As of July 12, some 33,000 applications have been received nationally 
for the VRAP. The program was limited to 99,000 participants through 
March 31, 2014. All of us must do everything we can to spread the word 
to eligible veterans. The number was restricted to 99,000 and the 
expiration date was set at March 31, in large part, so we could see how 
this program worked, we could measure it and we could reintroduce it 
and continue it, if it is as effective as I and as most of us on the 
Veterans' Committee think it will be.
  Tony Blankenship, another Ohioan from Martins Ferry in Belmont County 
on the Ohio River in eastern Ohio, across from Wheeling, WV, was an 
unemployed iron worker and plans to study at Belmont College for a 
career as a medical assistant.
  There are hundreds of different kinds of jobs and tens of thousands 
of slots for people to sign up. In my State, they can go to the 
Veterans Service Commission. Ohio is one of those lucky States--not 
every State does this--that has a Veterans Service Commission funded by 
taxpayers in local communities. Every county seat, I believe, has a 
veterans service officer and a Veterans Service Commission, the chief 
function of which is to serve returning veterans with health care, 
education, and a whole host of issues, such as job training, for 
instance, that a veteran might deal with.
  So programs such as VOW to Hire a Heroes Act and VRAP are not only 
about opportunities for veterans; they are about helping businesses 
strengthen our economy by meeting the demand for high-skilled workers. 
We are seeing businesses leverage public and private resources to hire 
veterans and expand operations. I met with veterans and veterans 
advocates from Dayton and Dublin to Mansfield, Chillicothe, Cleveland 
and Columbus and lots of places around my State to talk to them about 
how we can partner to help businesses hire unemployed veterans.
  In North Canton I worked with the Chesapeake Energy Corporation to 
convene a job fair for Ohio veterans seeking employment as equipment 
operators, truckdrivers, electronic technicians, and other high-demand 
careers, perhaps in the shale development industry.
  In Cleveland State University's SERV Program, staff discussed their 
national model of helping servicemembers and veterans transition to 
civilian life through education and workforce training.
  At a roundtable I did on Veterans Day at Cleveland State 4 or 5 years 
ago, I talked to veterans and to school administrators about the 
importance of integrating service men and women who have recently left 
the military back into the classroom, thinking about the 25-year-old 
young man or woman who had been in combat in Iraq sitting in class next 
to an 18-year-old suburban young man or young woman who had no idea of 
the kind of life experiences the veteran, only 6 or 7 years older 
chronologically but much older in what he or she had seen in combat. 
Cleveland State has figured this out, as has Youngstown State, and they 
have been national models for ways of integrating these service men and 
women back into the classroom to be able to go out into the workforce.
  In Columbus, where I held a field hearing on veterans unemployment in 
December, the Solar by Soldiers Program is hiring veterans to install 
energy technology.
  We need to spread the word about training programs, such as VRAP, 
that will help provide our veterans with the necessary skills to find 
good-paying jobs. It is part of our job to serve those who have served 
us so faithfully and so well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, it is always good to see the gallery 
full, people in town visiting this process, this week in the Senate. We 
have actually had a pretty interesting week. We have had a chance to 
talk about the economy and taxes, something I wish we had spent more 
time talking about in the months since I got elected last year to the 
Senate. In a few moments, later this afternoon we will have a vote on a

[[Page S4931]]

bill that has been called a tax cut bill. The problem with it--and I 
want people watching here who are maybe not fully familiar with the 
process, a process I am still learning, to understand--what is going to 
happen is Republicans had a bunch of ideas we wanted included. We 
probably were not going to win those votes. We are not the majority. 
But we wanted those ideas to be discussed, and instead we have been 
told that cannot happen, that the majority is going to pick which of 
our ideas they want to listen to and the others will be put aside.
  The problem with that is the people of Florida sent me here and, just 
like there are 99 other people who serve here, they have a right to 
have their voice heard. Unfortunately some of the ideas we have offered 
will not get a vote, and therefore we will not be able to move forward 
on that bill as a result. One of the only things the minority party can 
do in this process here in the Senate to ensure our voices are heard is 
ensure we are not going to allow legislation to move forward unless the 
rights of the minority are respected because, after all, we represent 
Americans as well who have different ideas than the majority and have a 
right to have their voices heard. I hope we get back to a point where 
the Senate works the way it was designed to work--the Senate I ran to 
be a part of, not the Senate we are part of here today.
  I do think what has been good about this week is we have had a chance 
to talk about the economy. I know people at home are hearing a lot 
about the economy, about jobs and about the debt, so I am trying to 
make some sense of it for folks calling our office. One of the best 
ways to do that is come here on the floor of the Senate and be able to 
speak about these issues, not just to the people sitting here today but 
to the folks who are going to watch back at home or later on on YouTube 
or wherever this video might be available to them.
  What I want to talk a little bit about today is the debt and what 
that means. What it basically means is the Government of the United 
States borrows money to pay for our costs because we spend more money 
than we take in. The Federal Government, your government, spends more 
money every year than it takes in in taxes and other fees. The only way 
it can get the money to pay for these things is they have to borrow it 
by selling something called bonds. They sell this debt that we have to 
pay back over the years. That is how we fund our Government. 
Unfortunately, almost a third is funded in that way. What has happened 
over the years is because we have spent consistently more than we have 
taken in--that is called the deficit. Every year when you spend more 
than what you take in, the annual amount you owe is called the deficit, 
but it starts building up something called the national debt. Today we 
owe about just over $15 trillion of money that we are going to have to 
pay back. Let me correct that--that you are going to have to pay back 
through your taxes now and in the future. In fact, your great-
grandchildren are going to have to pay it back. That is the national 
debt. The problem with the national debt is it has become an enormous 
part of our national economy. It has grown to a very dangerous level as 
a percentage of our overall economy.
  What is the way to solve it? The only way to solve it is growth. The 
only way to solve this problem is to grow our economy. If our economy 
grows, then the debt becomes smaller as a percentage of our overall 
economy. Think of it almost as a pie. If the pie gets bigger, the slice 
gets smaller if you keep it constant. It is the same thing with the 
debt. If we can keep the debt constant and we can grow the economy, 
then our debt becomes less problematic. That is the solution to this 
problem.
  As a point of emphasis, let me tell you, let's suppose we wanted to 
get back to what our debt was in 2007. We want our debt to be what it 
was in 2007. In order to do that, we would have to come up with over $1 
trillion this year to get us back to what our debt was as a percentage 
back in 2007. It basically means we would have to come up with that 
permanently. The functional reality is that to do that we would either 
have to double everybody's taxes or we would have to cut close to a 
third of our budget right now.
  The point is, we cannot tax our way out, cut our way out of this 
issue. Definitely there have to be cuts. But we cannot cut our way out 
of this and we certainly cannot tax our way out of it. If you double 
the tax rates in this country, which is what you would have to do to 
get us back to 2007, No. 1, you would trigger a massive recession. I 
mean the economy would stop. But, No. 2, it would be impossible to 
collect it. It is unrealistic.
  I am citing those numbers to give an example of why we cannot raise 
taxes. We cannot tax our way out of this problem and we cannot simply 
cut our way out of it either. The only solution is growth, dynamic 
growth--not slow growth, big growth. That is the only solution because 
if the economy grows, more jobs are created. If more jobs are created, 
you have more taxpayers. If someone is unemployed right now, they are 
not paying income tax. Now they get a job or get a raise at their job. 
Even if the rates stay the same, they are paying more taxes. Now the 
government has more money to pay down the debt--if it doesn't grow the 
government. And that has been the problem over the last few years. Our 
revenue has grown. The amount of money coming into the government has 
actually gone up. But the spending has gone up even more and that is 
why the deficit grows and why the debt grows. That is how growth would 
solve this problem. If the economy grows, more people have jobs and 
they get raises at their jobs. That means people get more money which 
leads to more growth because they spend that money and invest that 
money, but it also means they are generating more, but for government, 
and now the government has more to pay down the debt and they have to 
borrow less. So that is the solution. Growth is the solution, growing 
the economy.
  How do we grow the economy faster? The economy grows because of the 
private sector, that is how. Real growth comes from businesses, it 
comes from private sector growth, from small businesses and from big 
businesses, from dry cleaners, from gas stations, from convenience 
stores, from the guy who cuts your yard and your lawn--that is growth, 
private sector growth.

  Here is the truth. If you look at the statistics, it is undeniable. 
The bigger the government the smaller the private sector--because there 
is only so much money in the world. And the only place government gets 
its money is either it has to tax or borrow it from the private sector. 
That is--unless it is going to print more money which has a whole other 
set of problems we will talk about 1 day--the only way your government 
can get more money to grow, if it takes it from you, from the private 
sector. It either has to tax you or it has to borrow the money from 
you. Either way, it is money that the government has to take out of the 
private world to grow the government.
  Here is what happens when you take money out of the private world. 
That money is no longer available to save, because if you save it you 
are putting it in a bank and the bank can now use that money to give 
you a mortgage. Or that is money you no longer have to spend, which 
means businesses have fewer customers and the customers they do have 
are spending less money.
  Let me tell you the functional application of that. If you are a 
waiter or waitress at a restaurant and people are not spending as much 
because they do not have the money, they are spending it in taxes, this 
means they are going to restaurants less, which means you are going to 
make less money in both tips and wages. It may even mean your hours get 
cut. Millions of Americans know this reality. This is not a theory, 
this is a reality. If people have less money to spend, they cannot 
spend it at the place where you work, and if they do not have the money 
to spend at the place where you work, you will make less money, you 
will work less hours, and you may even lose your job.
  The other thing the private sector can do with this money is invest 
it, and that is when you get growth in the economy. When a business or 
business man or woman makes some money and they take the money and 
decide, you know what I am going to do this with money? I am going to 
use it to grow my business or I am going to use it to start a new 
business. The problem is, if government takes some of this money from 
them, they can't do that. That is

[[Page S4932]]

why the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector, and the 
smaller the private sector, the smaller the growth, which is our only 
solution. That is not a theory, that is a reality. Statistics prove 
that the bigger the government, the higher the unemployment rate. I 
should have brought the chart I have that shows that every time 
government size and spending go up, the unemployment rate goes up. Why? 
For the reasons I just explained. That money the government used to 
grow came out of the private sector. That is money businesses now don't 
have to invest or spend.

  Let me talk about another place where it hurts. The higher the 
government, the worse the stock market does. Why is that? I will 
explain why. People buy stock on the hope that they can make a profit 
on that stock in the future. The problem is that the more the 
government spends, the higher the taxes will have to be in the future 
to pay for that. So if people think taxes in the future are going to be 
higher and therefore their chances for making money on stock are going 
to be less, they are not going to buy stock.
  Here is the problem. When people buy shares of stock, what they are 
basically doing is investing money in companies. They are investing 
money in companies so that the company can grow and make more money, 
and then the company pays back a profit. But if people are no longer 
willing to invest money in companies, those companies cannot grow. If 
those companies cannot grow, that is where people become unemployed, 
that is where people's hours get cut, and that is where new jobs are 
not created. It is also why kids who are graduating from college can't 
find a job. The money has to come from somewhere, and the bigger the 
government, the less that is available in the private sector to grow. 
These are facts.
  Now, what are the arguments around here? Well, the Bush tax cuts are 
the existing Tax Code. The Bush tax cuts led to this debt. Well, George 
Bush cut taxes, and as result the government didn't generate enough 
money, and that is why we have this debt.
  That is false. Our government has grown impressively over the last 
decade. The problem is that the amount of money we spent has grown even 
faster.
  Listen, it doesn't matter if you get a raise. If you get a raise but 
your spending grows by even more, you are not going to notice the 
difference. If you get a $10,000 raise but you buy something that costs 
$20,000 more than what you are spending now, you are going to owe more 
money. That is what we have done here in Washington--certainly before I 
got here.
  By the way, both parties are to blame. Unfortunately, this is a 
bipartisan debt, and what has happened is that even though the 
government has generated more money, it has spent even more. So it is 
not the Bush tax cuts. That is just not true.
  The fact is we have a spending problem. Let me explain what is so 
dangerous about this spending problem. The Federal Government has grown 
fast in the past. We have had periods like this before. Let me tell you 
when they were: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, and 
World War II. During those four periods, government spending grew 
really fast. But here is the difference: When the war was over, the war 
was over. The war happened, we won World War II, and things went back 
to normal. The difference now is that this is not because of a war, 
this is because we have grown the government. This is permanent. That 
is the difference between the spike in spending and the other spending 
in the past. This spike in spending is permanent. That means it is here 
to stay unless we change. There is no going back to normal.
  We have a serious problem, and I have explained why the debt hurts 
everyone at home. If you are unemployed, if you are underemployed, if 
you are working twice as hard and making half as much, the debt is part 
of the problem because the government has taken money out of the 
private sector. It is money that used to go to you and is now going to 
the government now and in the future. So the debt is part of the reason 
why the economy is not growing and why jobs are not being created.
  At the end of the day, we cannot tax and simply cut our way out of 
this. Let me be clear. There are places to save money. I promise, the 
Federal Government wastes money. We should find that, and we should 
eliminate it. It is never a good idea to waste money. But we can't just 
cut our way out, and we certainly can't tax our way out of this debt 
problem. We have to grow our way out of this debt problem. We have to 
grow our economy out of it, not our government out of it. The only way 
to grow our economy is for the private sector to grow, but the evidence 
is clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the private 
sector. So therein lies the answer.
  When we talk about holding constant and lowering the size of 
government, it is not some ideological talking point. This is not some 
conservative-versus-liberal talking point. This is evidence-based. This 
a fact, and the statistics are clear that the bigger the government, 
the higher the unemployment rate. The bigger the government, the worse 
the stock market performs. The bigger the government, the less money 
there is available to create jobs in the private sector, start new 
businesses, or grow existing businesses. That is why we have to shrink 
the size of our government. The sooner we do it, the better we are 
going to be, and that is what I hope we will work on here in a 
bipartisan fashion. Both parties helped to create this situation, and 
now I hope both parties will help to work to solve it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________