[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 104 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4932-S4938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND TAX RELIEF ACT
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now resume consideration of S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax
Relief Act; that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the
two leaders or their designees; that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to amendment No. 2524; that immediately following the
disposition of amendment No. 2524, the Senate proceed to vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment No. 2521; that if
cloture is not invoked on the substitute amendment, the Senate then
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2237; that if
cloture is invoked on the substitute amendment, all postcloture time be
yielded back, the substitute amendment be agreed to, and the Senate
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2237; that if
cloture is invoked on the bill, all postcloture time be yielded back
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if
amended; that if cloture is not invoked on S. 2237, the bill be
returned to the calendar; further, that there be no other amendments or
motions in order to the amendments or the bill prior to the votes other
than motions to waive or motions to table; that there be 2 minutes
equally divided between the votes and all after the first vote be 10-
minute votes; and finally, that the Senate then resume the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 3369.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2237) to provide a temporary income tax credit
for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an
additional year, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 2521, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid amendment No. 2522 (to amendment No. 2521), to change
the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2523 (to amendment No. 2522), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2524 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2521), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2525 (to amendment No. 2524), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance,
with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2526, to change the
enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2527 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2526), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2528 (to amendment No. 2527), of a
perfecting nature.
[[Page S4933]]
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent
that the time be charged equally against the proponents and opponents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Transparency in Government
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, President Obama and his administration
claim to be open and above board in their actions. As recently as July
1, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told a television
audience:
This administration has been the most transparent
administration ever.
So I come to the floor now to say that is simply not the case, and I
am going to highlight an outstanding example of how it is not the case.
Last month, an attorney with the Department of Justice from the Civil
Rights Division attended a public meeting in Louisiana--a public
meeting in her official capacity. Before the meeting began, this
attorney, Rachel Hranitzky, reportedly asked whether any
representatives of the media were present at this meeting. A reporter
from the Daily Iberian identified himself. This Justice Department
attorney then announced: ``You can quote those who speak, but you can't
quote me.''
On what basis does the Justice Department presume to tell a reporter
who can be quoted at a public meeting? The reporter had the same
question. It has been reported that he asked her to cite legal
authority which would support her claim that he could not quote a
Justice Department attorney at a public meeting. Ms. Hranitzky provided
no such law. She did say the Justice Department has special rules on
how its attorneys can be quoted. She did not back up that statement,
however. So here is a public meeting anyone could attend and hear a
lawyer from their government speak on civil rights enforcement. Yet a
representative of that government claimed that it was the policy of the
Justice Department that the press would have fewer rights than the
general public to quote what that government representative said at
that public meeting. This undercuts the claim that ``[t]his
Administration has been the most transparent administration ever,''
going back to the quote of the Chief of Staff.
This refusal to allow the public to know how government officials are
performing their job is totally unacceptable--and I hope to everybody
it would be unacceptable.
As appalling as this reported action was, what followed was even
worse. Ms. Hranitzky tried to kick the reporter out of an open meeting
because he questioned her. She relented after he said--regrettably but
understandably, in my view--that he would not quote her.
Then the Justice Department attorney totally abused her power,
according to press reports. She told the reporter she could have the
Justice Department call the newspaper's publishers or editors and say
something such as this: You don't want to get on the Department of
Justice's bad side.
That statement represents a raw abuse of power.
We expect the Justice Department to investigate law-breaking and
pursue appropriate cases without regard to politics. Threatening to use
the power to bring a criminal case or civil action against any entity
because it had the temerity to insist that the Department of Justice
obey the first amendment is outrageous.
The newspaper has protested to the Justice Department and has not, to
my knowledge, received any response. The Department's public comment on
the incident does not deny that any of the reported statements were
made.
That the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice have not
committed to allowing the press to quote its attorneys at public
meetings a month after one of its attorneys has claimed that it is the
Department's policy not to permit such reporting is completely
unacceptable. It leads one to ask: What does the Civil Rights Division
wish to hide?
I have received many complaints concerning the enforcement actions of
the Civil Rights Division. When the division's attorneys will not allow
themselves to be quoted, we can only conclude that they are saying
things about enforcing the law that the American people would never
accept.
There are no statutes that deny the media the right to quote
statements of Justice Department officials that are made at public
meetings. If there were, they would violate the first amendment's
protection of freedom of speech as well as protection of freedom of the
press. There should be no Justice Department policies to that effect
either, and for the very same reason.
This administration says it is transparent. It wants people to
believe that, but then it wants to prevent the press from reporting
what it says in public. To carry out that plan, it threatens those
reporters with a politically motivated legal action. That is thuggish,
not transparent.
To the extent the Department has a policy of preventing the press
from quoting the statements of its attorneys at public meetings, that
policy should be reversed immediately to comply with the first
amendment. Whether it has a policy or not, the attorney who claimed
that such a policy existed and tried to expel the reporter from a
public meeting because he might quote her, and threatened the reporter
for getting on the Department of Justice's bad side, should be
appropriately disciplined.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the
Small Business Tax Cut and Job Creation Act.
Families throughout North Carolina are facing a difficult economy
right now. I have said repeatedly that the people of our State cannot
wait until after the election for Congress to work on solutions to
speed up our economic recovery. That is why I am pleased the Senate has
agreed to consider this small business legislation.
This is a bill that will help North Carolinians get back to work this
year in industries such as health care, finance, construction,
manufacturing, and retail.
This legislation supports businesses that expand payroll or invest in
new equipment, and there are estimates that it will put 27,000
unemployed people in my State back to work. It does this by creating an
incentive for North Carolina small businesses to add new jobs in 2012
by giving businesses a 10-percent income tax credit on new payroll.
And it encourages businesses to make new investment by extending the
100-percent business deduction on qualified property. Providing real
tax relief that lowers the cost of doing business should be a
bipartisan idea and it is one I will support.
I also want to express my deep appreciation to the Small Business
Committee chair, Senator Landrieu, for including a proposal of mine in
her SUCCESS Act amendment. This amendment would put us on the path to
establishing a common application for small businesses to apply for
Federal assistance across agencies, across departments, and programs
with a single application.
Frequently I hear from small business owners who tell me that
government redtape is preventing them from growing their businesses and
creating jobs. We need to slim down this bureaucratic redtape. I
believe our small business should not have to be responsive to the
whims of the Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government needs to be
responsive to the needs of our small businesses.
In February, I introduced the Small Business Common Application Act,
which would establish a common application that allows small business
owners to apply for grants, seek technical assistance, and bid on
contracts from the Federal Government with a single form. It would
function much like the common application students use today to apply
to multiple colleges and universities.
[[Page S4934]]
Senator Landrieu's amendment would put us on the path toward creating
a common application by establishing an interagency executive committee
with representatives from 12 different agencies and departments that
will report back to Congress and the SBA within 270 days on whether a
common application is feasible.
This is a commonsense bill that I believe both sides of the aisle can
agree to to cut the paperwork burden on our small business owners.
I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in quorum calls be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before too long here we are going to be
voting. We are going to have three votes, I think, on whether we are
going to move forward on a tax bill. I frankly think there are things
in the underlying bill that is before us today that would do some good.
The bonus depreciation provision is something many of us have supported
in the past. We think that is good tax policy with regard to
encouraging small businesses to invest, by giving them a quicker way to
write off those capital investments. So there are some things in the
underlying bill that make some sense.
But the whole exercise we are going through here is a charade for a
couple of reasons. One, you cannot originate revenue measures in the
Senate. That is something that has to happen in the House of
Representatives. So anything that comes out of here, if it were to
pass, would be blue-slipped by the House of Representatives. You have a
constitutional issue to deal with here in the first place.
Secondly, you have a procedure, a process set up whereby there is not
an opportunity for us to offer amendments. We put a tax bill on the
floor, a piece of legislation, a vehicle that ought to be open to
amendment. There are many of us with ideas about things that we think
would promote economic growth and create jobs in our economy, but we
are not going to have the opportunity to offer those amendments.
Frankly, a tax debate is something that many of us welcome. We think
that talking about taxes is certainly something that, if you are
someone who is concerned about the economy, if you are someone who is
concerned about getting Americans back to work, certainly talking about
the Tax Code and its impact on our economy is a very relevant debate.
Frankly, we ought to be headed toward a reform of our Tax Code which
today is way too complicated and, frankly, it needs to be overhauled.
But in the interim, we have coming up now on January 1 of next year a
bunch of tax provisions, current tax policy, that expires. In
anticipation of that, we have a lot of businesses that are very
concerned. There is uncertainty out there among job creators in our
economy about what is going to happen on January 1, and is Congress
going to act to put off these tax increases that will occur on January
1 or are they going to allow them go into effect, in which case many
businesses would be dramatically impacted by having higher tax burdens,
making it more difficult for them to create jobs.
I do not think there is anybody out there, those who study economics,
even those of us who do not, just as a matter of common sense, on a
very practical level, who would think that raising taxes on people who
create jobs, on small businesses, would be something that would be good
in an economy that you are trying to get back on its feet, trying to
get to recover.
In fact, the President of the United States in 2010 said it would be
a blow to our economy if tax rates went up on small businesses. Well,
that was back at a time when economic growth was a little over 3
percent. Here we are 2 years later. Economic growth is much slower. We
are growing at a more sluggish rate, about 2 percent. There is a
concern that even that is going to slow down as we approach the end of
the year.
And yet we have this threat hanging out there on the horizon,
looming, of higher taxes on small businesses, the very people we rely
upon to get Americans back to work, to create jobs, and to get this
economy growing again.
What we ought to be thinking about is what can we do to promote
economic growth. We ought to be thinking about what are those tax
policies we can put in place. I hope that will be the purpose of tax
reform when we get there. I hope that is soon as well. As I said
before, I think tax reform is critical if we are going to see economic
growth and if we are going to do away with the complex Tax Code we have
today and replace it with something that makes much more sense, it is
more clear, more simple, more fair for American businesses and people
across this country who are filing their tax returns every year.
But we ought to be looking at what can we do to promote economic
growth. All of our tax policy ought to be oriented around getting this
economy growing and expanding again, because in so many ways that helps
address many of the other problems we are confronting. We have this
huge out-of-control debt problem. Obviously it needs to be addressed
through spending reductions, trying to make government more efficient,
smaller, more limited, rather than the government we have seen here the
last few years that continues to grow as a percentage of our economy.
The government as a percentage of our economy today is at the highest
level we have seen literally since the end of World War II. We are at
about--24 or 25 percent of our entire GDP now is represented by Federal
spending. So we have got to get government under control, which means
we have got to address some of the drivers of Federal spending,
including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. That means these
entitlement programs so many people rely upon, in order to save them,
have to be reformed. If we are going to get them on a sustainable
fiscal path, if we are going to make sure they are there for future
generations, we have got to reform our entitlement programs and get the
government spending back at a more reasonable level, more consistent
with what we have seen historically, which is about 20 to 21 percent of
our entire economy.
So it starts there. But then you have to couple the reductions in
government spending with economic growth. The way ultimately that we
get to where we need to be as a Nation is we have to get the economy
growing and expanding again. It is counterintuitive to me and to most
Americans, I think, to suggest that the way to do that would be to
raise taxes on the very people you are looking to to create jobs and to
grow this economy. Those are our small businesses. So when the
President came out earlier this week and suggested we ought to allow
the tax rates to expire for people who make more than $250,000, what he
was talking about, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, was
almost 1 million small businesses, almost 1 million small businesses,
if we do not take steps to avert it on January 1. They are going to see
their taxes go up. Those small businesses I am referring to employ 25
percent of the American workforce. Most of them are small businesses
organized as subchapter S corporations, LLCs, which means their income
flows through to their individual tax returns and they pay at the
individual rate level.
So as a consequence, when you start raising taxes for people above
$250,000, you are hitting 1 million--almost 1 million, I should say--of
those small businesses that are going to be faced with higher tax
burdens and higher tax liabilities. That to me is completely
counterintuitive to what we ought to be thinking if we are interested
in getting the economy growing again. We should not be making it more
difficult, more expensive for small businesses to create jobs, we ought
to be looking at what we can do to lessen the burden on our small
businesses and to keep that tax burden, that regulatory burden, at a
level that does not create impediments and barriers to them going out
and investing and creating jobs.
The President's proposal is exactly the opposite of what we should be
doing. And 53 percent of the income I mentioned--these companies that
are organized, small businesses as S corporations, LLCs--53 percent of
that income would be faced with a higher tax
[[Page S4935]]
burden come January 1 unless we take steps to avert it. What the
President proposed essentially was allowing taxes to go up on those
very small businesses.
So I hope not only will we turn down the President's proposal, but
that we will be thinking about what we can be doing to simplify the Tax
Code, that would lower rates businesses in this country pay, and
provide incentives for them to get people back to work. Again, by that
I mean policies that promote economic growth.
There are so many things we ought to be doing that we are not doing
now that I think would provide the necessary policies to encourage and
enable small businesses to grow their business, make those investments,
and put people back to work. There are a number of things that our
small businesses face that are not directly related to the Tax Code but
indirectly related: regulatory burdens and more agencies spending time
on more regulations making it difficult and more expensive to create
jobs.
Regulatory reform ought to be part of an agenda here. If we are
serious about policies that will grow the economy, we ought to deal
with the overreaching regulations that create excessive burdens for the
small businesses and couple that with tax reform.
One of the burdens we have placed on small businesses of late is the
ObamaCare legislation we passed a few years ago. There has been some
debate about the question of whether the individual mandate is a
penalty or a tax. We know one thing: It is a cost that will be borne by
a lot of people across this country. We also have the mandate or
requirements imposed upon small business--employer mandates that will
increase the cost of our small businesses--the cost of doing business
for them out there.
All of these things that have been put in place drive up the cost of
doing business, make it more difficult and expensive to create jobs in
this country--rather than looking at what we can do to make it less
expensive and less difficult to create jobs.
Regarding the health care bill, we talked about the individual
mandate and who is impacted. By the way, according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation, 77 percent of the people who would be impacted
by the individual mandate tax are people who make less than $120,000 a
year. The President promised, when he was running for office, he would
not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $250,000 a year.
Clearly, one of the many broken promises in the health care bill was
the individual mandate and its impact on the very people on whom he
said he would not raise taxes--middle-income Americans who make less
than $120,000 a year. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 77
percent of those people would see higher taxes.
It is a significant amount of tax, $54 billion over the next 10
years. If you think about the amount of revenue raised by the
individual mandate tax, it is actually more in revenue than would have
been raised by the so-called Buffet tax designed to get millionaires in
this country to pay more in taxes. So we are levying a tax on middle-
income Americans that actually is going to exceed in revenue the amount
raised by the so-called tax on millionaires. It is ironic, but that is
exactly what the ObamaCare bill will do.
In addition to that there are a series of other taxes that are
imposed on people across this country. Many of them strike at middle-
income Americans. There are about $250 billion in taxes that are
imposed on our economy that will be passed on, in many cases, to
consumers, and the impact is to raise the cost of health care. Taxes on
health insurance plans, taxes on pharmaceuticals, taxes on medical
devices, self-insured health plans--a whole range of taxes that are
included in the ObamaCare legislation, are going to hit middle-income
Americans squarely in the face. Not only do we have the individual
mandate tax but all these others that are included in the ObamaCare
legislation that will hit working people across this country.
Look at all the burdens associated with those taxes and the
regulations that are coming out of many of the agencies in our
government now, and all you see, if you are a small business, is a
higher cost of doing business, more uncertainty about what is going to
happen in the future, and it is just that much more difficult when it
comes to making determinations about growing your business or starting
a new business and creating the jobs that are so important to our
economy.
When we talk about the economic circumstances that we are in today,
everybody focuses on the unemployment rate, of course. We have now had
more than 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight months. We have 23
million Americans who are either jobless or underemployed in our
economy. And 5.4 million Americans have been unemployed for a long
period of time. We have the weakest recovery, literally, since the end
of World War II.
Yet what is the prescription that the President and many of his
allies in Congress have for that? Higher taxes. It is higher taxes on
the people who create jobs. Can you think of anything that makes less
sense if you are really interested in economic growth and creating
jobs? That is absolutely the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We
should not be raising taxes on those 1 million small businesses--
subjecting them and the 25 percent of the workforce who work for them
to the possibility that there will be higher taxes. Their jobs can be
in jeopardy.
We ought to look for ways to provide certainty, and we should extend
the existing rates so small businesses out there trying to make
decisions about what they are going to do in the future can know for
sure what the rules are, but, more importantly, also know that their
taxes will not go up on January 1.
There is a Congressional Budget Office analysis out there which
suggests that come January 1, when we hit the so-called fiscal cliff,
which includes the increase in the tax rates as well as the sequester
on spending that was put into place as part of the Budget Control Act,
that if nothing is done to avert that fiscal cliff, in the first 6
months of next year we will see up to 1.3 percent less economic growth.
But just as important, not only is that a factor we deal with next
year, it is also something that impacts us right now, today, because
the CBO also found it could cost a half point of economic growth this
year, right now. It is because of this uncertainty, because of the
specter of tax rates going up on small businesses come January 1 of
next year.
What we ought to be doing instead of talking about what we are going
to do or raising taxes on small businesses in this economy is looking
to extend the rates that exist today so those rates don't go up, giving
businesses certainty, and then following up on that next year with
tax reform which broadens the tax base, lowers rates, gets us more
competitive in the global marketplace, and is more clear, more simple
and fair for American businesses.
Until that happens, the very worst we could be doing now, in my
opinion, is raising taxes, for all of the reasons I just mentioned. It
creates uncertainty, obviously, and raises the cost of doing business
in this country. It hits the very people we are hoping are going to
lead us out of this economic malaise we are in today.
Again, I also say with regard to this issue, the issue of taxes is so
important to businesses. The issue of regulations is so important to
businesses. Those are things, if we are serious about an agenda to get
Americans back to work, we ought to be focused on.
That is why we ought to be repealing ObamaCare. That $248 billion in
taxes--that is not the total amount of taxes; it is over $500 billion
in taxes that will be imposed as a result of ObamaCare. These are the
taxes that hit middle-income Americans, according to the Joint Economic
Committee. Not only do we have the $248 billion or $250 billion that
hits middle-income Americans, we have an additional 3.8 percent tax on
unearned income that would hit high-end earners, as well as a new
Medicare tax on high-end earners. We have so many taxes coming at this
economy now it is hard to fathom.
That should not be complicated by doubling down with our small
businesses and essentially telling them that come January they are
going to see their rates go up. For the people paying the 35-percent
rate today, it would go up to 39.6 percent. Capital gains will go up
from 15 to 20 percent. Dividend rates are going up from 15 to 39.6
percent. This is a very real issue, a real-time issue. It is having an
impact
[[Page S4936]]
on the economy today. We should do everything we can to avoid that.
I hope when we are through with what is a charade, and we have the
votes on this bill--which, as I said, because the revenue measures
don't originate in the Senate; they originate in the House, they would
be blue-slipped if it passed here because this is a process where
Republicans are not allowed to offer amendments. This is a tax vehicle
on the Senate floor. But in the terms we use in the Senate, the
majority leader has ``filled the amendment tree,'' making it virtually
impossible for Republicans to offer amendments that we would like to
see debated and voted on.
When this charade is completed, I hope the majority leader will
decide we need to have a debate about taxes and what we can do to
promote economic growth, a debate on whether we are going to extend the
rates that will expire January 1, meaning higher taxes for nearly 1
million small businesses to whom we are looking to get us out of this
recession and get Americans back to work. I hope that will be the
debate and vote we will ultimately have when this particular political
exercise is completed today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 2524
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about
the next vote, which is the Cantor amendment.
The Cantor amendment, just to review, would give a 20-percent
deduction to all businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. The 20-
percent deduction is calculated on U.S. source business income and is
limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid. In other words, the
business must be paying at least twice the amount of the deduction in
wages. In addition, taxpayers cannot get both this deduction and the
90-percent manufacturing deduction; the main point being this Cantor
bill is a gross giveaway. It gives businesses a 20-percent deduction
for simply earning income. They do not have to do anything, just earn
income and get a 20-percent deduction.
The amendment allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on about one-
fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people.
That is virtually 99 percent of all American companies. Worse still, it
provides a temporary reduced tax rate. This would incentivize
businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or
increasing wages in order to increase profits. That is because the
larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under this bill.
Rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill
incentivizes the opposite. It incentivizes businesses to sit and wait
rather than to invest in people or equipment. It does not make any
sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision, as
proposed in this bill.
This is a giveaway, frankly, to almost all companies--99.6 percent of
the companies in the United States--to hedge funds, to partnerships,
and private equity firms. Almost all employ fewer than 500 employees.
It is absolutely the wrong policy for this Nation to adopt.
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Under the previous order, the
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2524.
A motion to table has been made. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 24, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--24
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cochran
Collins
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Roberts
Shelby
Snowe
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Kirk
Moran
Udall (NM)
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague. Mr.
McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
SENATOR COLLINS' 5,000TH CONSECUTIVE ROLLCALL VOTE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins,
has just passed an important milestone, her 5,000th consecutive
rollcall vote, a tenacious accomplishment indeed that represents the
work ethic and dedication Senator Collins has for the people of Maine
and for the Senate. We all know she is one of the hardest working
Members of the Senate.
Listen to this. Since she was sworn in, in January, January 3 of
1997, she has been present for every single rollcall vote. That is over
15 consecutive years, never missing a vote.
Senator Collins is actually in quite an elite company. Recently, she
passed Senator Byrd and is now third all time behind Senator Chuck
Grassley and the late Bill Proxmire from Wisconsin. I know she took
great pride also in being in the company of her role model, a woman who
played a major role in her decision to run for public office in the
first place, fellow Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who is
currently No. 5 on the list.
On behalf of the entire Senate, I congratulate Senator Collins for
this milestone.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a remarkable accomplishment. I hope
I do not get her into trouble with her colleagues, but I truly like
her. I appreciate her capability to work with us, work with everybody.
She is somebody whom we never have to guess where she stands on an
issue and I admire and appreciate her so much for that. I have worked
with her on issues going back for many years and I again say I
appreciate what she has done.
She has great genes. Her mother and father each served as mayor of a
small town in Maine, a place called Caribou. I don't have fond memories
of Caribou because in my, I think, 1998 race, there was a great mailing
we did. One of my consultants from--not from Nevada, that is for sure--
instead of having deer, they had caribou on my campaign literature. It
took me a while to figure that one out. I am sure the town of Caribou
was bigger than my campaign spot.
Her family ran a lumber business. Her father was also a State
senator.
I am confident Susan has learned to be the Senator she is because of
Bill Cohen. I had the pleasure of serving with him. He is a good man--
from Maine. I served as a junior Member when he was chairman of the
Aging Committee and he was such a wonderful man. I still talk to Bill
Cohen. She has many of his traits. As we know, she worked for him. He
has been a great Secretary of Defense. He has just been a good person,
and I am confident her ability to be the legislator she is, a lot of it
is attributed to him.
She has always been known for her ability to compromise. Legislation
is
[[Page S4937]]
the art of compromise, and she works with all Members.
I think the tone she has set working with Joe Lieberman is
magnificent. They have run that committee with dignity and on a totally
bipartisan basis.
Five thousand votes--frankly, a number of us have cast 5,000 votes,
but it is ridiculous, the example she has set, never missing a vote. I
wish her the very best and many years to serve in the future of the
Senate.
(Applause.)
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to honor
Senator Collins, a colleague and dear friend, on her landmark 5,000th
consecutive vote.
Since becoming a Senator in 1997, Senator Collins has never missed a
single vote. This is a sign of her commitment to the people of Maine
and the entire country. The commitment began in her home. Her parents
taught her what it meant to work hard and serve the people, both in the
family-owned lumber business and both as mayors of her hometown of
Caribou, ME. She has carried on their legacy and deep commitment to
public service.
I stand here in recognition of Senator Collins because her 5,000
votes have stood not only for the people of Maine, but for our great
Nation. She has stood for science, innovation and research, women's
equality and veterans. Her voice and her votes have shaped and will
continue to shape our Nation.
Let me tell you a little bit about what her votes have accomplished.
Senator Collins is a fighter for funding for science, innovation and
research. Together we cosponsored the Spending Reductions through
Innovations in Therapies (SPRINT) Act which would spur improvement in
research and drug development for chronic health conditions such as
Alzheimer's.
When I reach across the aisle, I know Senator Collins is there to
find a sensible center that will be good for America.
Her leadership has extended beyond her bipartisan efforts. She
continues to serve as a role model for young women nationwide. As a
fellow Girl Scout, we both learned that determination, principles and
respect for others are the foundation for a productive future. We
designated 2012 the ``Year of the Girl,'' in support of Girl Scouts and
the organization's lasting lessons.
Today we celebrate Senator Collins' record of integrity, unsurpassed
work ethic, and a steadfast commitment to the people of Maine. Her
voting record is exemplary of the fact that we are continuing to crack
the marble ceiling. Not only are women getting elected to the Senate,
we are raising hell, holding powerful leadership positions and taking
on America's biggest issues.
She is a valued Member, colleague and dear friend. Congratulations
Senator Collins on your 5,000th vote and your extraordinary commitment
to the people of Maine and our great Nation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to add my voice to this
chorus of congratulations for our colleague on her singular and
remarkable achievement.
It seems fitting that Senator Collins would reach this historic
milestone just after the All Star Game because this really is a Hall of
Fame sort of accomplishment.
With that 5,000th consecutive vote she cast moments ago, Senator
Collins now holds the third-longest voting streak in Senate history. In
the entire history of the United States Senate, the only Members with
longer unbroken voting streaks are William Proxmire, who is way out
front with 10,252 consecutive votes, and Senator Grassley, with 6,393
consecutive votes.
But here is the thing about Senator Collins: She is the only Senator
who has ever hit that mark without missing a single vote--the only
perfect voting record among the 5,000-consecutive votes Hall of Famers.
Senator Collins' historic voting record is a reflection of her
dedication to the hardworking people of Maine and a testament to her
respect for this Senate.
We have heard about some of the lengths Senator Collins has gone to
to preserve her unbroken voting streak, including how she once twisted
her ankle running in high heels to cast a vote.
That vote was to protect the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, and working parents and their children in my State of Illinois
and throughout America are grateful to her for her pains.
That is the other remarkable thing about Senator Collins' voting
record. It is laudatory not only for the number of consecutive votes
Senator Collins has cast but also for the courage behind many of those
votes.
Senator Collins and I were elected to the Senate in the same year,
1996. As freshman Senators, we cosponsored a successful bill to repeal
a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry.
We have worked together to combat Medicaid fraud and improve food
safety.
Along with Senator Snowe, Senator Collins voted for Wall Street
reform and for the economic recovery plan that may well have kept
America from tipping into a depression.
She voted for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and she voted to
confirm both Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I hope I don't get her into trouble with this list.
Her voting record is in keeping with Maine's tradition for
independent thinking.
When Susan Collins was a senior in high school, she came to
Washington and had an amazing experience. She was able to talk to her
hero and home State Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, for nearly 2 hours
in her office.
Senator Collins later told a reporter: ``I remember leaving her
office thinking that women can do anything and that women can get to
the highest levels of government and make a difference.''
Years earlier, Margaret Chase Smith had made history of her own when
she delivered her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech. In that
speech, she urged Senators to reject the destructive anti-communist
hysteria being whipped up by Joe McCarthy.
Senator Smith said then: ``As an American, I want to see our nation
recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy
instead of ourselves.''
We can hear echoes of that famous plea in an op-ed Senator Collins
wrote for The Washington Post a few months ago.
As Senator Collins wrote: ``[N]either party has a monopoly on good
ideas. The challenges we face will not be met by those who believe
compromise is a dirty word. . . . The center will hold only if we put
the same effort into unity that partisans put into division.''
She is right.
On a more personal note I want to say that not only does Senator
Collins have one of the best voting records in this Senate, she also
has the best taste in books of just about anyone I know. She reads
constantly, and I am grateful to her for the many good books and
talented authors she has introduced me to.
A year ago, some gay veterans and other Mainers hosted a reception to
thank Senator Collins for her courageous cosponsorship, with Senator
Lieberman, of the bill to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in
America's Armed Forces.
At that reception, a Navy veteran who spent her time in the service
hiding her sexual orientation presented Senator Collins with one of her
ship's coins, which are awarded to Navy personnel for going beyond
their duty.
And an 80-year-old man and lifelong independent voter praised her by
saying, ``Senator Collins is . . . filling the high heels of Margaret
Chase Smith wonderfully.''
We know that even when those high heels cause her to twist her ankle,
they cannot keep her from casting her vote and making history.
Once again, I congratulate Senator Collins on this singular
achievement.
And looking forward to the happy milestone she will celebrate next
month, Loretta and I give Senator Collins and her husband-to-be our
best wishes for many years of happiness together.
Amendment No. 2521
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think we are on the Landrieu
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
[[Page S4938]]
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I discussed this amendment in great
detail yesterday, so there is no reason to review it. I thank many
Members of the Small Business Committee on both sides of the aisle for
putting forth some terrific, very popular, and effective ideas for
small business: 100 percent exclusion of capital gains, decreased
deductions for startup expenditures, S corporation holding period
reductions, carryback on business credits, and expensing of 179--all
very familiar to this body and absolutely critical for investing in our
small business. The bill only costs $4 billion compared to some of the
other numbers that are being thrown around here. We think it is very
cost effective, and I ask for the support of the body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back time.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous
order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to
invoke cloture.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute
amendment No. 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and
Tax Relief Act.
Harry Reid, Mary L. Landrieu, Kirsten E. Gillibrand,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Carl Levin, Frank R. Lautenberg,
Barbara Boxer, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken, Patrick J.
Leahy, Tom Udall, Max Baucus, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Richard J. Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2521, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for
Ms. Landrieu, to S. 2237 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Kirk
Moran
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think minds are made up. I just suggest
that both sides yield back the remainder of the time and vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Cloture Motion
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the chair
directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 2237, the
Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Mary L. Landrieu, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Barbara A. Mikulski, Carl Levin, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Mark Udall, Mark Begich,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken,
Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Udall, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Richard J. Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased
payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--44
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Kirk
Moran
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, S. 2237 is returned to the calendar.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, today I voted in support of invoking
cloture on Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, offered by Senator
Landrieu. I supported cloture on this substitute amendment because,
overall, Senator Landrieu's legislation would help our Nation's small
businesses grow and find new markets. However, I had some concerns with
aspects of the legislation that would increase sole-source contracting.
In general, we need to ensure that where noncompetitive contracting
programs are authorized, they are narrow and fair. In light of the fact
that cloture was not invoked on the amendment, I look forward to
working with Senator Landrieu on her legislation in the future.
____________________