[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12519-12520]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         TRIBUTE TO TIM RUSSERT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as Washington, and all of America, 
continue to pay tribute to Tim Russert, I wish to add a few more words 
about a man who impacted everybody in this body in one way or another 
over the years.
  I have been a fairly regular guest on ``Meet the Press'' over the 
years, so I got to know Tim Russert primarily as a tough interviewer, 
but I also came to appreciate and admire his extraordinary people 
skills, which were as good as those of any politician here in 
Washington.
  I remember him saying once that his son Luke was a big fan of Tubby 
Smith, the old UK Wildcats basketball coach. I think Luke even went to 
Tubby's basketball camp one summer. Well, anytime I or anybody else on 
the staff got on the phone with Tim, he would also start off with ``Go 
Cats.'' It is just one example of the great mind he had for small 
personal details and how he employed that skill in a totally 
unpretentious way.
  He also knew I was a Louisville Cardinal basketball fan, and he 
invariably would turn the subject to Rick Patino and his considerable 
skills, and that is a way in which he kind of related to everybody.
  Bill Kristol was getting at the same thing in his column this 
morning, in which he related a story that has been around this town for 
a while. The story goes that when Pat Moynihan was trying to convince 
Tim to come down to the Capitol to be his Chief of Staff, Tim didn't 
want to come because Moynihan's office was all Ph.Ds and intellectuals. 
He didn't think he would fit in. Moynihan said:

       Tim, the things they know you can learn. But the things you 
     know they can never learn.

  So as Tim Russert rose to the height of his profession, it became 
clear Pat Moynihan was right on target.
  I found it particularly moving to see Luke paying tribute to his 
father on television this morning. As Tim often said, being a good 
father was the job he put the most stock in, and it appears he has done 
a superb job in that respect as well.


                           Tax Extenders Bill

  Today the Senate will vote on whether to proceed to the House-passed 
tax extenders bill. Republicans support the provisions being extended 
in this legislation. That is why I, along with several of my 
colleagues, introduced an even stronger version of the House bill, one 
that contains even longer extensions of the expired provisions, 
provides AMT relief excluded from the House bill, and does both in a 
form that would avoid a veto; that is, of course, without raising 
taxes.
  The tax provisions in question are an enormous help to millions of 
Americans, and a long-term extension would provide the added comfort of 
predictability into the family budget and the small business balance 
sheet in the midst of a difficult economic time.
  Republicans have been firm on this point, which is why I read with 
some amusement a letter which was sent to me on Friday by my friend the 
majority leader, extolling the virtues of the House bill. As I said, 
Republicans truly agree that the expired provisions certainly merit 
extension. This is not a State secret. Our point of departure, the 
principle we have insisted on, is this: Short-term tax extensions 
should not be the occasion for permanent tax increases. If a new tax 
policy is being created, that is one thing. But if current taxes are 
simply being extended, those extensions should not be accompanied by 
new tax increases. To do so would be to transform the annual ritual of 
extending current tax law into a stealth exercise in increasing the 
size of Government.
  Unfortunately, the House Democratic leadership seems to have dug in, 
saying it will not pass an extenders bill without tax hikes. This 
brings us to an impasse for no good reason. First of all, it strikes me 
as odd that the House Democratic leadership would single out these 
particular tax extenders for a fight on offsets. They didn't need 
offsets on the stimulus bill earlier this year. AMT relief will 
apparently not require offsets this year. House leaders have signaled 
that a new GI benefits expansion would not require offsets. And just 
last week, the House passed an unemployment insurance expansion bill 
that did not have offsets.
  It is entirely possible that the Democratic leadership is open to 
compromise. Recall that during last year's AMT debate, House leaders 
also insisted on offsets. On December 18, just last year, House 
Democrats were saying they would not consider AMT relief unless it 
included tax hikes elsewhere. Then the following day, September 19,

[[Page 12520]]

they passed an AMT bill without tax hikes by a vote of 352 to 64. After 
all the press releases and letters had been issued, our friends on the 
other side sat down with Republicans and did something we should do a 
lot more of around here: they negotiated.
  So notwithstanding the letter I received on Friday from my good 
friend, the majority leader, I am hopeful we can do the same thing on 
this tax extenders bill--sit down together and come up with a solution 
that is acceptable to both sides and which actually has a chance of 
being signed into law.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________