[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6898-S6903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
____
TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2014
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical
corrections, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established
under State programs for the care of family members with
disabilities, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with this tax bill, the Congress is turning
in its tax homework 11\1/2\ months late and expects to earn full
credit. Tax incentives will last just 2 weeks before families and
businesses are thrown back into the dark with respect to the taxes they
owe. The legislation accomplishes nothing for 2015.
The debate takes place against the backdrop of positive economic
news, showing that unemployment is down and wages are up--just the kind
of news the Congress ought to build on by providing certainty and
predictability for families and businesses. Instead, the Congress is
about to pass a tax bill that doesn't have the shelf life of a carton
of eggs.
Of course, we have the power to enshrine tax provisions for any
length of time we choose. What the Congress can't do is travel back
through time. The Congress can pass this $41 billion bill, but it
cannot change anything taxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. Those
decisions have been made.
The only new effects of this legislation apply to the next 2 weeks.
That is not enough time for the key provisions; for example, putting a
dent in veterans unemployment, to start a clean energy project, to hire
new workers or to help a student who is on the fence about whether to
enroll in college next semester. Particularly important is this bill
drops the health coverage tax credit, yanking away an economic lifeline
that working-class Americans were counting on this April 15. This means
that for tens of thousands of our people in States such as Wisconsin,
Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, who have been kicked down by a
fiercely competitive economy, they are going to face a very unpleasant
surprise this spring.
I am just going to spend a minute talking about how the Senate got
here and where our tax policy should go in the future. The truth is the
Senate didn't need to be in this spot. Within a few weeks after I
became chairman of the Finance Committee, with the help and good
counsel of Senator Hatch and many members of the committee, we
unanimously passed the EXPIRE Act, a balanced, bipartisan bill that
would provide 2 years of certainty and a springboard to comprehensive
reform. When the bill came to the floor, a host of Senators said they
were eager to move it forward. Democrats and Republicans all wanted to
move ahead, but the toxic Senate environment and a battle over
amendments caused the EXPIRE Act to stall out.
This fall there were discussions with the House about a bipartisan,
bicameral agreement. I was encouraged at the outset, especially when
the House indicated they would accept the Senate's bipartisan work. We
also talked about the possibility of making several provisions
permanent. In my view, any agreement on permanent tax policy has to be
balanced--balanced between support for business and support for working
families. A deal that is skewed in just one direction fails the test of
fairness. The Democrats on the Finance Committee felt the same way. The
negotiations progressed, more offers were traded, and there was real
hope. However, after weeks of hard work, there was a conflicting
process and that drove House Republicans to quit the negotiations.
Senate negotiators, in effect, were left without a dance partner. Our
team kept making new offers. We tried to suggest proposals that had
drawn support from Republicans and Democrats in the past, but the House
settled on passing this 2-week extender bill that is now before us this
evening.
However Senators choose to vote on this legislation, I want to
recognize that this bill proves, once and for all, how broken America's
tax system is. The Congress is about to spend $41 billion on a tax
incentive package that when done right ought to lift the cloud of
uncertainty and strengthen the important parts of our American economy.
Instead, all of the $41 billion in this legislation is going to go for
things that happened months and months ago. Virtually all of the $41
billion has absolutely no incentive power whatsoever. Reforming the Tax
Code is going to be hard, but it can be done. I sat next to our former
colleague Senator Gregg every week for 2 years to produce the first
bipartisan Federal income tax reform bill. I am very grateful to our
current colleague Senator Coats, who picked up on those efforts.
Senator Hatch--and I commend him for it--put out an analysis for tax
reform issues, recognizing that getting more perspectives in the debate
is going to help advance reform.
I know Senator Hatch is going to keep working diligently when he
takes the gavel--and I congratulate him for that--in January, and I
look forward to working with him.
Before we wrap up for the year, I also want to congratulate Senator
Casey and Senator Burr, who worked tirelessly in a bipartisan way on
behalf of the disabled. I met with these disabled folks in our
community, and I commend Senator Casey and Senator Burr for their work.
Here is the bottom line for the future: The middle class deserves a
tax cut. The tax system in America needs to do more to promote
innovation and launch a new wave of job creation. Our country
desperately needs a simpler and more competitive corporate tax system
that draws investment and jobs to our country. We have to end the cycle
of stop-and-go policy that leaves taxpayers in the dark time and time
again.
I want to yield our remaining time to my colleague Senator Cantwell,
from Washington and close by saying, retroactive tax bills, such as the
one before the Senate tonight, may satisfy some, but they leave our
workers, our families, and businesses wanting. It is the time for real
tax reform.
For the last word on our side, my colleague and seatmate, Senator
Cantwell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership
on the Finance Committee and just point out to my colleagues who come
from States that don't have an income tax that this legislation before
us tonight includes making sure we are able to deduct our State sales
tax from our Federal tax obligations. I hope we will be here someday
when we can actually get tax fairness in the code. This is a permanent
solution. We don't have to go back every year to try to get the tax
fairness our States deserve. My colleague Senator Murray is here and
knows this issue well. But tonight at least we can say Washingtonians
can
[[Page S6899]]
take the sales receipts they have this year and make sure they are
deducted from their tax obligations for 2014. But as the Presiding
Officer said, let's make sure we take these provisions that are so
important for our economy to move forward and give the taxpayers
predictability and certainty.
I would say that is making the sales tax deduction permanent, but I
am glad Washingtonians will at least have this opportunity this year
and we will move forward to have a more robust debate.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time does our side have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. I want to yield 3 minutes to Senator Begich and 3 minutes
to Senator Casey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to say I
appreciate the Senator's comments, and what I thought was most
important about it was the fact that these tax benefits come after the
fact. It is not going to create new opportunities. The tax reform
legislation the Senator has been working on with Senator Gregg, Senator
Coats, and myself is about real reform. It is about setting economic
opportunities and creating growth. It is not about looking back. It is
about looking forward. I have the same feelings the Senator has on this
bill; that doing the short term, really 2 weeks, and then putting
uncertainty back into the system again for another year would be a
mistake. From my perspective, it is a $40 billion bill that is not paid
for. Let's deal with it. Let's figure out real tax reform.
I will not be here in January. I wish all the Members will sit down,
after years of work that you have done, and focus on a longer term
situation that actually creates incentive for small business and not
after the fact. My wife is in a small business, and they don't spend
the last 2 weeks trying to figure out what their tax benefits will be
to help do to investments. They have done it already. If we really want
to do something for the economy and have real tax reform and real tax
relief, focus into the future and not the past.
I commend you for the work that has been done on this, but I agree
that there are a lot of problems with this and the way it is laid out
for 2 weeks which is problematic.
Mr. WYDEN. I want the body to know the Senator from Alaska has
written some of the really thoughtful provisions with respect to
education tax credits, and I commend him for that.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the Tax
Increase Prevention Act of 2014, a House-passed bill that extends a
limited and narrow set of expired tax credits and deductions, and
includes the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, ABLE Act.
Once again, Congress has waited until the eleventh hour to address tax
credits that expired nearly a year ago. Once again, this has resulted
in needless confusion for families and businesses who have been unable
to plan and unable to grow, given the uncertainty of the outcome of
these credits. I heard from Vermonters over the last year concerned
about the expiration of these credits--and the pending expiration of
dozens of more tax credits that benefit hardworking, middle-class
families. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to provide
certainty within the Tax Code to ensure families in Vermont and across
the country have the predictability they need to make financial
decisions. While I support extending these tax credits, I cannot
support an effort that once again simply kicks the can down the road
and leaves for the next year the unfinished business of this Congress.
I am disappointed that, earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate
squandered an opportunity to consider a more comprehensive package that
would have benefited small businesses, researchers, the environment,
and middle-class families. I have been deeply disappointed in the
process, which has left us with a choice between bad: passing the House
bill; and worse: not doing anything. This legislation revives more than
55 expired tax deductions from 2013, and while I agree these are
important provisions, I cannot support this bill on principle. We
cannot continue to retroactively fix problems Congress carelessly and
irresponsibly creates, without addressing the same tax provisions that
will expire in just a few short weeks from now, only to have the same
fight next year. It is time we have a meaningful, full debate about tax
reform, and how Congress can ensure that our Tax Code reflects the
needs of all Americans, not just those who are the wealthiest among us.
Included in this patch bill is the important ABLE Act, which allows
those with disabilities to plan for their futures by creating tax-free
savings accounts. I have strongly supported this legislation, and
continue to do so. This legislation creates opportunities for
individuals with disabilities to save for college or retirement or
other living expenses and opens doors for families across the country.
The House of Representatives held two votes last week related to taxes:
one on the extenders package, and one on the ABLE Act. If the Senate
were allowed to do so, I would cast my vote in strong support of the
ABLE Act.
I asked Vermonters to elect me as their representative in the Senate
because I wanted carry their voices to the decision centers in
Washington. I strongly believe in the best of what the Senate has been,
should be, and can once again become. There are many Vermonters, and
people across the country, who are counting on us to provide
comprehensive, long-term solutions to our country's problems. I hope
that in the new Congress we can work together instead of kicking the
can down the road, yet again. We were elected to find solutions, not
excuses.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the House has sent us a $42 billion year-
long extension of several tax provisions known as tax extenders. This
year-long extension is unpaid for, and while I will support this
measure because several provisions in this bill need to be extended--
and soon--I must raise concerns about the approach here to once again
stack the deck against middle-class families. They rightfully are
concerned that they have been left out--and continually so--in policies
that this body finds the will to pass.
Case in point is the effort I engaged in all year with my Republican
colleague, Senator Heller, to restore emergency unemployment insurance
benefits for 1.3 million Americans. Now this program is typically
considered an emergency measure because it has been fundamental to
supporting our economic recovery, and as such the $24 billion cost to
extend the program through 2014 would normally not be paid for. Well
this year that was not the case and several of my colleagues,
particularly House Republicans, insisted that this typical emergency
measure be offset for it to get consideration.
So Senator Heller and I worked with several of our colleagues to
craft a paid-for measure that would extend the program for 5 months.
That paid-for bill passed the Senate, but the House has since refused
to give it an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that it met the
condition of being paid-for and the Congressional Budget Office had
estimated a full year extension of the program would create 200,000
jobs and boost economic growth by 0.2 percent of GDP. So it strikes me
as incredibly one-sided and patently unfair that House Republicans
would send us a $42 billion unpaid-for retroactive year-long extension
of tax provisions that would not generate the same kind of economic
boost as UI, but they still would not consider helping the long-term
unemployed as they search for work. Indeed, in the bipartisan Senate
extenders bill, we included a provision that would encourage employers
to hire the long-term unemployed--but even that modest change to the
Work Opportunity Tax Credit was not included in the House bill.
This is part of a troubling pattern created by some of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle and in the other body--if it helps a
small set of businesses or special interests, well the deficit does not
seem to matter to them. But if a proposal or initiative is aimed at
helping low and middle-income Americans get a foothold in the economy,
then the standard is much higher and constantly changing.
The 1-year tax extenders bill does have some good provisions, like
the extension of credits that help families afford college, make it
easier for homeowners and lenders to keep families in
[[Page S6900]]
their homes, or promote the production of renewable energy like wind.
But the bill also has tax breaks for race horses, rum, NASCAR and is
skewed towards corporations. All equaling a total of $42 billion in
unpaid-for tax cuts.
Indeed, we also considered an appropriations bill, which included a
snuck-in provision that allows pension cuts on the backs of middle-
income employees and retirees in multiemployer pension plans. We should
not have considered such far-reaching pension reform without
thoughtful, strenuous, and open debate. So the insertion of a pension
deal, negotiated behind closed doors, that hurts middle-income
employees and retirees at the waning hours of a lame duck Congress is
untenable and further cause for Americans to think that their
government does not have their back or care about their economic
security. They will see Congress giving tax deals for race horses and
NASCAR, while their pensions are cut. That's not how this body should
govern.
Now as we enter a new Congress, we will have to confront the
impending sequester that we will face head on again in fiscal year
2016, which will seriously frustrate our ability to provide for the
national defense and general welfare. Those sequestration cuts, brought
on by the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to reach a deficit
reduction agreement that included raising revenue, total $109 billion
per year and will impact non-defense and defense spending equally. So
again it is striking that many of my colleagues on the other side will
have no problem voting for $42 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts--or even
as was reported last month, a $450 billion unpaid-for permanent
extension of these tax breaks--but when it comes to helping American
workers or confronting and undoing the sequester cuts to our domestic
programs my colleagues on the other side apply a tougher standard that
is tilted against everyday Americans.
I have made the tough choices in the 1990s to balance the budget and
I have supported over $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction since 2010,
over two-thirds of that coming from spending reductions. The deficit is
on its fastest decline since World War II and has been cut by more than
half since 2009. But the economy has not been growing fast enough and
many Americans have seen stagnating wages and have the sense that the
economy is stacked against them. So I will work with my colleagues, as
I have consistently tried to do, to urge them to join with Democrats to
spur broad-based growth for every American and ensure the economy and
government works for them--not just for large corporations or special
interests.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate will likely pass
legislation to extend several dozen expired tax provisions. While I
support a number of the individual provisions extended by this bill, I
rise today to explain why I reluctantly plan to oppose it.
The so-called ``tax extenders'' package includes the 1-year extension
of a hodgepodge of over 4 dozen tax provisions. This extension is not
for the year ahead of us, as one might reasonably expect, but rather
for the year that's mostly past us. In other words, we will be
extending for 2014 tax programs that expired at the end of 2013. This
means that, for the most part, the bill will offer credits and
deductions to reward things that have already happened while doing
absolutely nothing to help businesses and individuals plan for the
future.
If tax policy is intended to influence behavior, the extenders bill
is a double failure: it spends money rewarding things that have already
happened and offers no incentives for businesses and individuals for
the year ahead.
Let's take for example the production tax credit for wind energy, a
program I strongly support that encourages the construction of wind
farms. The provision in the extenders bill offers this incentive for
properties for which construction has commenced by the end of 2014.
That's 3 weeks from now. Instead of giving energy companies time to
plan and prepare wind projects, we are saying: if you happen to have
one ready to go, you have got until the end of the holiday season to
break ground. The clock is ticking.
In contrast to Congress's temporary, year-to-year treatment of the
wind tax credit and other incentives for renewable energy, Big Oil and
Gas enjoy permanent subsidies in the Tax Code. It is long past time to
reform the Tax Code so it reflects America's 21st century energy
priorities. Permanent incentives for oil and gas and temporary programs
for renewable energy is simply upside-down public policy.
In total, there are 50 or so extensions in this bill, and the only
thing they seem to have in common is that Congress repeatedly packages
them together. It is truly a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Let's start with some of the good provisions. In addition to clean
energy incentives, the bill extends a popular tax credit that
encourages businesses to hire veterans, a host of incentives for energy
efficiency, and a provision that ensures that families that lose their
homes in foreclosure do not incur tax bills for the deficiencies. These
provisions have strong bipartisan support.
Then there is the bad: the unjustifiable tax giveaways. These include
so-called ``bonus depreciation,'' a program that allows corporations to
deduct the costs of equipment right away instead of spreading out the
deductions over the life of the equipment. Congress first included this
provision in 2009 in the Recovery Act when it made some sense. The idea
was to encourage businesses to accelerate their purchases when the
economy most needed the investments. We have extended it so many times,
though, that now we are just giving money away to corporations for
buying things they would have bought anyway. That is a nice subsidy for
the businesses, but not a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
The bill also includes tax giveaways for NASCAR tracks and
racehorses. While I know these sports are popular, it is hard to
justify subsidizing them with taxpayer dollars at a time when we are
running large deficits and face the prospect of more budget
sequestration.
And then there is the ugly, the stuff that does actual harm. There is
a pair of provisions in the bill--the ``active financing'' and
``controlled foreign corporation look through'' provisions--that reward
U.S. corporations for shifting money overseas to avoid paying taxes.
Sadly, there are already a number of provisions in the Tax Code that
encourage companies to move operations and assets overseas. We should
repeal those provisions, not enhance them as the extenders bill does.
This 1-year, retroactive mixed bag of extensions will increase the
budget deficit by over $41 billion. To put that figure into
perspective, that is more than the annual budget for the entire
Department of Homeland Security.
Earlier this year, my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed,
lead an effort to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of
Americans who have struggled to find work in this uneven economic
recovery. Republicans repeatedly filibustered his unemployment
insurance legislation, with many citing the $17 billion price tag and
the offsets included to pay for it.
I expect many of these same Republicans will vote to pass the $41
billion tax extenders bill, legislation which is not offset and will
add to the deficit. If Republicans are truly as worried about the
deficit as many of them claim to be, they need to raise these concerns
consistently and not forget them when it is convenient. Spending
through the Tax Code is still spending, and we should offset it.
Mr. President, next year this body will have new leadership and a
fresh opportunity to tackle our Nation's problems. I hope Senate
Republicans will show us they can exercise the power of being in the
majority responsibly. President Obama says he is eager to work with the
Republican majority on several major bills including tax reform. I too
am eager to work with Republicans on sensible, responsible tax reform--
reform that ends the era of year-to-year extensions, eliminates
wasteful tax spending, and decreases the deficit.
Mr. WYDEN. I yield the rest of our time to Senator Casey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to rise tonight. I
will have a longer statement later to talk about the ABLE Act that
Senator Burr and I worked on coming through the Finance Committee and
talking with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch. I want to thank
the
[[Page S6901]]
two leaders--Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell--for
not having just a bipartisan effort in the Senate but really a
bicameral support for this legislation--over 400 Members of Congress
supporting the ABLE Act, simple. For years we have created incentives
in the Tax Code to save for higher education, the cost of college, to
save for retirement. Now at long last for Americans who have a
disability, those families will be able to save for a disability,
whether it is to pay for health care or education, the basic expenses
that these individuals with disabilities have wanted to save for, for
many years.
I am honored to be part of it. I will have a longer statement later.
This is a great testament to bipartisanship, coming together on such an
important issue. We believe--this is what undergirds the ABLE Act--
people with a disability have the ability to live a full life if we
give them the tools. One of those tools is an incentive in the Tax Code
to save for the future for an individual with a disability.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the
Finance Committee and the current chairman of the Finance Committee for
the their help. I want to turn to my good friend Bob Casey about this
in just a second.
This has taken 8 years to bring to this point. The amazing thing is
that we have taken the opportunity to meet with every group on every
side of this issue and to find agreement finally, and to go out and
tell the American people what we are doing, and they look at us and say
this makes commonsense; what took so damned long. I am embarrassed it
took so long, but this is a product that Congress, the Senate, can be
proud of.
Senator Casey just covered a lot of the specifics of the legislation.
I will not go over those again.
I want to say to my colleagues: One of the clues that something was
wrong was the fact that we penalized individuals who had disabilities
from holding assets. It meant they couldn't buy a car and have it be in
their name. It meant they could only earn so much before they were
penalized. What we have done is changed the landscape, and we have
actually put into effect something that allows them to accumulate
something for the later years when parents are gone and when they are
going to need the funds. We have tried to be fiscally responsible in
capping the annual amounts, capping total amounts, affecting benefits
if they exceed those amounts, and automatically reinstate them if they
fall back below.
I think this is a bill that the Senate and the House of
Representatives can be proud of. I thank the chairs, and I thank
Senator Casey. I also want to take the opportunity on behalf of our
colleagues in the House to say to Congressmen Crenshaw, Sessions and
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers that we couldn't have done it without
their leadership and an overwhelming vote in the House of
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to not only vote yes but to be
proud of this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to personally thank the
distinguished Senators from North Carolina and Pennsylvania for their
work on the act. It is a very important bill. I want to give them
credit for doing such a good job. The Senate will soon vote on a 1-year
tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax
provisions that expire at the end of 2014. It is quite literally the
best we can do. At this point it is something we must do. We are
actually disappointed that 1-year package that was sent over to the
House was basically rejected by the President. We would have preferred
to have had that package. On the other hand, this is reckoning time at
the end of the year. I might add in his epic speech, Prime Minister
Winston Churchill stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so
much been owed by so many to so few.''
In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in
the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and
been so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years,
we will ensure that the new Congress will start with all of the regular
so-called tax extenders already expired at the end of the first
session, as the distinguished Senator from Oregon has explained. That
is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable in our view.
The problem of course is the President and some of his allies in the
Senate pulled the plug on a bipartisan negotiation that would have
produced a more satisfying result. As we all know, the Speaker of the
House and the Senate majority leader were, just a few weeks ago, on the
verge of reaching a deal that both sides could reasonably support.
President Obama caught wind of the emerging deal which had yet to be
finalized and promptly issued a veto threat. That threat was then
ratified by many in this Chamber, including some at the negotiating
table. For those who wish we were voting on a better extenders package,
they should know who to blame--President Obama and his supporters in
the Senate. At this late hour, passing a 1-year extension is the only
option left for us.
I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same. I should also note this bill includes, as we have said, the
ABLE Act--a great piece of legislation that our colleagues, Senators
Casey and Burr, have worked on for years right up to this point. I want
to applaud them for their work on behalf of families affected by
disabilities. I take a great interest in that myself, so I am very
pleased to see these two leaders getting this bill finally through.
I am pleased we are coming to the end of this session; hopefully in
the next year, we can all work together to do an even better job than
we have done this year.
How much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. How much time does the other side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. The Senate will soon vote on a one-year tax extenders
package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that
expired at the end of 2013. It is, quite literally, the least we can
do, and at this point, it is something we must do.
The remarkable thing about this tax extenders bill is that no one
seems to be happy with it. I don't know a single Member of Congress
that is pleased that we're going to pass a simple, one-year extension
of expiring provisions. But, sadly, that's where we are. Of course, it
didn't have to be this way.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when we were working on
a package that would not only extend most of the expired provisions for
a longer period time, but also make a number of important provisions
permanent, thus eliminating much of the year-to-year roller coaster
that individuals, families, and businesses have to go through when
planning for their taxes.
There was bipartisan agreement on such an approach. And, in fact, at
one point it appeared that a deal--a bipartisan, bicameral deal--was on
the immediate horizon. But, as we all know now, that deal came crashing
down after the President and some of his more liberal allies here in
the Senate decided they were unwilling to compromise.
I came to the floor to talk about this debacle a couple weeks back,
but some of the points bear repeating.
Just before Thanksgiving, the Senate majority leader and the Speaker
of the House were very close to reaching a deal on the tax extenders,
one that would have included all of the provisions of the Senate
Finance Committee's extenders package--the EXPIRE Act--while also
making a number of tax extenders permanent.
The emerging deal was a reasonable compromise. It would have been
something both Republicans and Democrats could support, and I have
little doubt that it would have passed easily through both Chambers.
It wasn't perfect. There were certainly parts of it that I,
personally, could have lived without and provisions that most
Republicans that I know didn't really support. But, as a
[[Page S6902]]
compromise between two negotiating positions, it was a very good deal,
and, as I said, I believe it would have passed easily through both the
House and Senate.
Unfortunately, the deal was not good enough for President Obama, who
was apparently less willing than the Senate majority leader to
compromise on the extenders package. Before the negotiations were even
completed and a deal was even reached, the President issued a veto
threat. That's right, the President issued a veto threat on a deal
still under negotiation. That's how eager he was to put the kibosh on a
compromise.
That was unfortunate. What was even more unfortunate, however, was
that parties to the negotiations decided to ratify this threat and pull
the plug on the deal being negotiated by the leaders of the two
Chambers. The President's excuse for issuing his veto threat on the
emerging deal was that it did too much to help the business community
and not enough to help individuals and families.
For those of us who have been working on tax issues and have been
asking the President to engage on these matters, this statement from
the White House was more than just a little bit strange. After all,
while Republicans have for years been strongly advocating for
comprehensive tax reform, encompassing both the individual and business
tax systems, the President has only expressed a willingness to engage
in tax reform on the business side. Indeed, he has more or less refused
to even talk about tax reform for individuals and families, unless, of
course, such reform amounted to a massive tax increase.
In other words, he threatened to veto a tax extenders package that,
in his eyes, only helped businesses and not individuals, while at the
same time, maintaining a vision for tax reform that did just what he
said he opposed--helping businesses and not individuals.
The mental gymnastics at play here are dizzying, and you would be
forgiven for being confused by the White House's attempt to be on both
sides of this issue.
I am definitely confused by the President's statements. I am even
more confused as to why some of my colleagues here in the Senate opted
to go along with it.
It is no secret that things are going to change around here in the
next Congress. I can't imagine that any of my colleagues really think
they are going to get a better deal on the tax extenders than the one
that was being negotiated by the current Senate majority leader. But,
as is too often the case around here, simple and obvious logic can
easily be cast aside when there is a political point to be made. That's
what I think is going on here. Pure politics. Sadly, as is also too
often the case around here, the American people are the ones who are
going to suffer.
Rather than a longer tax extenders deal with some permanency in some
key provisions, the American people will be left with a 1-year,
retroactive extension. Rather than being able to plan for the future,
individuals, families, and businesses will instead have to wait around
and hope that Congress can do better the next time around.
Don't get me wrong, I plan to support the 1-year extension, as I have
said before, but, we could have done better. And, it's unfortunate
that, once again, politics and an unwillingness to compromise stopped a
good deal--one that would have satisfied the majority of both parties--
from being made.
In his epic speech on the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill stated: ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much
been owed by so many to so few.''
In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in
the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and
been so disappointed.
In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, a new Congress will
start with all the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at
the beginning of the first session. That is a dubious distinction that
was entirely avoidable.
I have been pretty hard on the President for his actions on this
matter. But, it is not just him. There are many in this Chamber who
supported and went right along with him, and, as a result, the package
we will be voting on is not nearly as good as it could have been. But,
in the end, we don't have much choice on this matter. Passing the 1-
year extension is the only option left to us at this late hour. So, I
plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Finally, I just want to say I am very pleased that an extremely
important bill will accompany the extenders package. I'm talking about
the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, or the ABLE Act.
The ABLE Act makes permanent changes to the tax code that will
provide critical assistance to families saving private funds for the
support of individuals with disabilities. These funds may be used to
maintain health, independence, quality of life, and pay for all manner
of disability-related expenses. The funds may be used throughout the
disabled person's life, an important feature for parents that worry
about providing for children with lifelong challenges. The funds will
supplement, but not supplant, benefits provided through private
insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, and employment.
I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Casey
and Senator Burr, who for several years have done the heavy lifting
necessary to make this law a reality. For decades to come disabled
Americans will owe these two Senators and their fine staffs an enormous
debt of gratitude.
I yield the floor without losing any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, what is especially
troubling to me is that we are talking about $418 billion, in effect,
that is supposed to provide incentives. But it cannot change anything
taxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. The decisions have been made. This
is a 2-week bill.
I would just say, from my own standpoint, having worked with our
colleague Senator Coats to present a bipartisan alternative, that the
lesson out of this debate is that this cannot happen again. Senator
Hatch and I put together a bipartisan bill, the EXPIRE Act. We thought
that was the way to go. I continue to believe that had we had the
opportunity, without an alternative process coming out in the home
stretch, we could have built on that. That is not going to be possible
tonight.
I hope that Senators will say, however they vote tonight, that the
real lesson out of this is when you have an opportunity to provide
certainty and predictability for the American economy, take it. Do not
walk away from it. Unfortunately, because this bill is only 2 weeks
long, that is what we are doing. We are walking away from the chance to
provide some certainty and predictability.
Instead, our citizens are going to be in the dark come January 1 with
respect to taxes. Let's make sure that next time on a bipartisan basis
we do better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will
yield back ours.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield back the time on our side.
Mr. HATCH. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Cochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 16, as follows:
[[Page S6903]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]
YEAS--76
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Levin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--16
Bennet
Brown
Coats
Coburn
Crapo
Flake
Leahy
Manchin
Merkley
Portman
Risch
Scott
Toomey
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Boxer
Chambliss
Cochran
Johanns
Kirk
Lee
Sanders
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved,
the bill (H.R. 5771) is passed.
____________________