[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3601-3614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
2847, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an act making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, and Justice
and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with amendments.
Pending:
Durbin motion to concur in the amendments of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
Durbin amendment No. 3498 (to the motion to concur in the
amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate), of a
perfecting nature.
Durbin amendment No. 3499 (to amendment No. 3498), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all
postcloture time is considered expired and the motion to concur with an
amendment is withdrawn.
There will be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the Senator from New York,
Mr. Schumer, or their designees.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation
before us and the motion to waive the point of order.
This is a good day for American workers, for Congress is focusing on
what they have asked us to focus on. Congress is focusing on what the
American people want us to focus on, which is jobs, jobs, jobs, and
Congress will act in a bipartisan way. So this is a break, in several
ways, from the past. One, we are focusing on jobs and the economy. That
is what we should be doing. Second, we are doing it in a bipartisan
way.
The bill before us focuses on private sector jobs. It has four
pieces. Each is lean. Each is directed at private sector jobs. Each
will give the economy a certain lift. Last quarter, we had growth of
5.9 percent. That sounds great, but that 5.9 percent growth resulted in
no new jobs being created. In fact, it resulted in a continued loss of
jobs, admittedly less of a loss than in the past.
Our job is to take that growth and translate it into jobs for the
American people, plain and simple, and that is what we are doing with
this HIRE Act. At the center of it is a bipartisan piece of
legislation: a payroll tax holiday for 1 year for any new worker hired
who has been unemployed for 60 days, authored by the Senator from Utah,
Mr. Hatch, and myself. It is the bipartisan glue which hopefully will
stick with us as we move forward on our jobs agenda because this is
just the first--certainly not the last--piece of legislation we will
put forward in relation to jobs. If we don't create jobs, the economy
will not move forward. If we don't create jobs, the American people,
American business, and American labor could lose the optimism that has
been part of this country since its founding. When you lose that
optimism, you lose dollars and cents economically because businesses
don't spend, workers don't prepare for the future, people get
disconsolate.
[[Page 3602]]
So this legislation is admittedly modest and focused and will go far
beyond what the specific legislation does because it will show the
American people, it will show American business, large and small, it
will show American workers Congress is focused on what they want us to
focus on and that we will continue to work on our jobs agenda until
jobs start growing, until people are being paid decent wages, until the
economy roars back on a long and stable trajectory, which can only be
done if employment goes up and underemployment goes down.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this isn't so much a jobs bill as it is a
debt bill. It has debt, debt, and debt.
I voted against the budget which passed the House of Representatives.
I voted against it because it had $1 trillion worth of deficit every
year for as far as the eye can see. It basically put our country on a
path of unsustainability, where the national debt will double in 5
years and triple in 10 years; where every one of these young men and
women sitting before us who are pages, by the time they graduate from
college, will have $133,000 in Federal debt on their heads they will
have to pay off as they go to work. I voted against it because it was
profligate, because it wasn't disciplined, and because it was
excessive.
However, it appears it wasn't excessive enough for my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle. This will be the third week in a row the
leadership of the Democratic Party in this body has brought a bill to
this floor that violates their own budget and spends more than their
own budget called for. A budget which this year will run $1.6 trillion
of deficit isn't running a big enough deficit, according to the other
side of the aisle. They have to run up the deficit with this bill by
another $3 billion of authorized money, above their own budget. That is
on top of last week, when they spent $30 billion this year and $100
billion over 5 years in excess of their own budget.
When is it going to stop? When is it going to stop? When are we going
to stop spending money around here as if there is no tomorrow? Because
pretty soon there will be no tomorrow for our children as we add this
debt to their backs and make it impossible for them to have the
standard of living we have had.
Yesterday, Moody's said that although today the AAA rating of this
country is not at risk, it may be down the road if we continue to spend
money we don't have at the rate we are spending it. That is not a sign
of optimism for the future; that is a sign our Nation is in trouble,
and it is in trouble because of us.
There is a lot of talk around here about what is the systemic risk to
this economy. The systemic risk is this Congress, which continues to
spend money it doesn't have, send the bill on to our kids at a rate
they can't afford to pay off. As a result, their lifestyle will
actually have to be reduced, their quality of life, their standard of
living will go down because they will be paying for all this debt we
are putting on their backs today.
What is even worse is this Congress isn't even willing to live by the
PROFLIGATE--and I hope capital letters will be put in the Record on
that because it should be all spelled out in capital letters--by the
PROFLIGATE budget which passed the House, which projected trillions of
dollars of deficits for as far as the eye could see and doubled the
debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years. That wasn't enough. No. We
have to come to the floor again this week, after last week, after the
week before, with another bill that breaks their own budget.
So all I am asking for is that the other side of the aisle be willing
to at least live by its own budget. Last week I asked that they be
willing to live by their own pay-go rules. That didn't pass, and $100
billion was spent that wasn't paid for. So this week I am making a
point of order that simply says: Live by your own budget. You passed a
budget; at least live by that. Can't you live within a $1.6 trillion
deficit? Do you have to add another $3 trillion of authorized dollars
to this deficit this year? Gosh, I hope not. So I am making a point of
order and asking that we live by the budget that was passed by the
Democratic Congress.
The pending amendment would cause the aggregate levels of the budget
authority and the outlays for the fiscal year 2010, as set out in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con.
Res. 13, to be exceeded--the Democratic budget, by the way. Therefore,
I raise a point of order under section 311(a)2 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will support the motion to waive the
point of order. I believe I have 1 minute left.
The world is topsy-turvy. My Republican colleagues are opposing a tax
cut to businesses, large and small, that hire people. This is exactly
what we should do. We don't want to be saying to workers we can't help
them find a job. There are shades of Herbert Hoover in what my
colleague is saying, and I don't think many of my colleagues on either
side of the aisle would support that.
Let me say this about the budget point of order. The Joint Tax
Committee, which we all respect, says these provisions are budget
neutral.
We have found a way to hire workers, help businesses with tax cuts to
hire them, and keep it budget neutral. Yet there is still opposition.
When will it end? When will the bipartisan kind of feeling in this body
return? This is a bipartisan measure that lives by many of the tenets
the party on the other side has stood for, for decades.
Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable
budget resolutions, and section (4)(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-
Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts
and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry. I have made a motion that says the
budget point of order stands under section 311, which point of order
specifically lies because of the fact that the bill before us spends
more in authority and outlay than the Budget Act passed by this
Congress allows. Is that not correct? Is that motion not well taken?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that the
point of order would be well taken.
Mr. GREGG. Which means that, Mr. President, more money is being spent
than is allowed to be spent under our budget rules; is that not
correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Health Care
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for quite a
while. I have seen a lot, but I have never seen anything like the plan
House Democrats hatched this week to jam their health care bill through
Congress and over the objections of the American people.
[[Page 3603]]
Americans woke up yesterday thinking they had seen everything in this
debate already. Then they heard the latest. They heard that Democrats
want to approve the Senate version of the health care bill without
actually standing up and taking a vote on it. Let me say that again.
They heard that Democrats over in the House want to approve the Senate
bill without actually voting on it. These Democrats want to approve a
bill that rewrites one-sixth of the economy, forces taxpayers to pay
for abortions, raises taxes in the middle of a recession, and slashes
Medicare for seniors, without leaving their fingerprints on it. In
other words, they want to get around the very purpose of a rollcall
vote. They want to hide what they are doing from the American people
whom they seem to view as an obstacle. They want to hide what they are
doing from the American people whom they see as an obstacle to what
they are trying to do.
Well, it won't work. They realized that yesterday when they saw the
public reaction to their plan. Americans are more outraged than ever.
Americans are shocked at these tactics. They are fed up, and they have
had enough. The longer Democratic leaders ignore this outrage and
ignore these questions, the worse it is going to get.
Democrats have lost their perspective in this debate. They have lost
their way. They do not even seem to care what the public thinks.
Speaker Pelosi said yesterday that they will do ``whatever it takes''
to ensure this bill becomes law. While she is at it, she is throwing
other legislation into the bill that does not have anything to do with
health care--major legislation that would enable the government to take
over the student loan industry without any debate whatsoever. That has
been their strategy all along. Anytime one of their proposals meets
resistance, they look for a way to get around it. But the schemes they
have used end up making their proposals even more repellant than they
originally were. And this latest scheme is the most outrageous one yet.
What has happened is they are trapped in a vicious cycle that someone
over there needs to bring to a halt. This is now a fight between
Democrats and their own constituents, and the only way to stop this
madness is for a few courageous Democrats to step forward and put a
stop to it.
Historians will remember this as a new low in this debate: the week
America was introduced to the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating--
the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating. They will remember this as
the week Congress tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the public in
order to get around their will. And they will remember the men and
women who stand up and put an end to it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--34
Alexander
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Crapo
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity today to take
another step toward restoring job growth and opportunity for American
workers. Others have discussed the importance of this bill's provisions
to help put Americans back to work, and I agree: This bill marks
important progress in lowering unacceptable levels of unemployment.
But sending the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to the
President's desk would also mark a significant victory for law-abiding
U.S. taxpayers. Right now, thousands of U.S. tax dodgers conceal
billions of dollars in assets within secrecy-shrouded foreign banks,
dodging taxes and penalizing those of us who pay the taxes we owe. The
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has estimated
that these tax-dodging schemes cost the Federal Treasury $100 billion a
year.
But under this legislation, for the first time, foreign banks will be
required to disclose their U.S. account holders to the U.S. Government
or face significant penalties. This provision will make it far more
difficult for tax dodgers to conceal assets and income in foreign
banks. As more banks set up systems to disclose U.S. account holders,
bank secrecy will become increasingly difficult to maintain. With
increased transparency will come less tax evasion, less money
laundering, and less crime.
Certainly this legislation will not end tax avoidance or money
laundering. Its provisions do not take effect for several years, and
its impact will depend in large part on the willingness of regulators
at the Treasury Department and elsewhere to write strict regulations
and enforce them vigorously. It also will not affect banks willing to
continue to conceal their U.S. account holders despite the penalties
that carries a significant loophole for tax dodgers and the foreign
banks that assist them. So this legislation is not a silver bullet. In
fact, I believe our tax enforcement regime could be strengthened by
provisions of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S. 506, which I introduced
with Senators McCaskill, Nelson, Whitehouse, Shaheen, and Sanders. For
example, Treasury should have authority to prohibit U.S. banks from
participating in wire transfers with or honoring credit cards from
overseas banks that impede U.S. tax enforcement.
I will continue to press for enactment of S. 506 and to build the
growing momentum against overseas tax abuses. Make no mistake, today
marks an important milestone. For the first time in years, we are
poised to approve legislation with a real chance to pull back the
curtain of bank secrecy, expose offshore accounts, and ensure that
those who owe taxes pay them. Amid the growing concern over our budget
deficit and American families' concerns about making ends meet, we can
no longer afford to allow tax dodgers to hide behind this curtain,
avoiding their obligations and leaving their rightful tax burden for
honest taxpayers to carry. I urge my colleagues to approve the HIRE
Act, in the interest of America's workers and America's honest
taxpayers.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the jobs legislation,
known as
[[Page 3604]]
the HIRE Act, on which the Senate will be voting tomorrow morning, and
to express my deep concerns with the direction this bill has taken over
the past few weeks.
Ever since the collapse of the financial markets in late 2008,
helping our economy should have been a priority for this deliberative
body. However, it has taken more than a year for us to seriously
address legislation that would promote permanent job growth.
Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle
put a lot of time and effort into the creation of a compromise jobs
bill that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move
forward. I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze
that has had this Chamber gridlocked for so long. But then, just as it
looked like we might see some light at the end of this bitter tunnel,
the rug was pulled out from underneath us by the majority leader's
inexplicable decision to hijack our work and alter it with a piece of
legislation that he knew would replace cooperation with acrimony.
But if that weren't enough, the majority leader added another slap in
the face of the minority; he once again filled the amendment tree, thus
shutting off the minority's ability to attempt to improve the bill. To
those unfamiliar with the Senate process, when the majority leader
fills the amendment tree, he prevents anyone else from being able to
offer any amendments to the underlying legislation. Thus, he prevents
compromise.
I have served in this body for a long time, and I cannot remember an
incident that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as this one
did. The fact that the majority leader chose to choke off the first
genuine attempt at cooperation on a major issue of such importance does
not bode well for the remainder of this Congress. How are those of us
in the minority supposed to have faith that we will not be excluded
from future debates? It is easy to label Republicans as the party of no
when they are completely excluded from the legislative process. When
this happens, ``no'' is the only option that remains.
But what puzzles me the most is what, even if they succeed, will the
majority gain from this maneuver? The Senate operates on a level of
trust that agreements will be honored, but now even that has come into
question.
Less than 2 months ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the
President gave his State of the Union Address where he raised the
importance of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job
creation. The fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is
evident by the effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance
Committee in the weeks following. However, it is obvious that many on
the other side cannot stand the thought of working with our side when
there might be political points to be gained by trying to embarrass us.
Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for
bipartisanship in the State of the Union Address:
``And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is for all of
us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences;''
``[Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the
pettiness.''
``These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're
living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.''
In the same breath, President Obama went on to address the need to
promote job growth by saying:
``Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be
America's businesses.''
``We should start where most new jobs do--in small businesses,
companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or
a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.''
And finally:
``[We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and
all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.''
I certainly believed--as did most Republicans--that the President was
being sincere. But soon after President Obama addressed the Nation,
Senate Democratic and Republican members of the Finance Committee went
to work on a bipartisan solution to creating a jobs growth bill. I
worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for
those companies that hired unemployed workers. Under this incentive,
the sooner a company hired someone, the greater the tax incentives the
company would receive. This initiative is a perfect example of the kind
of bipartisan President Obama was talking about during the State of the
Union.
Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by including
several other provisions aimed at job growth and remedies to address
the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included
an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and the
extension of the expired tax provisions.
Let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many
of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our
unemployment rate remain stagnant at around 10 percent since last
September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way
past time we did it.
This is why it was so shocking, then, that on Thursday, February 11,
the Senate majority leader suddenly announced that he was scrapping the
compromised proposal only hours after it was unveiled, proceeding
instead with a scaled-down bill. In minutes, the majority leader pulled
the rug out from not only Republicans but also those Democrats who had
been working for weeks on a bipartisan solution. Regrettably, because
of the majority leader's decision, it looks as though President Obama's
hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks.
What a shame.
To illustrate the abruptness and surprise in Senator Reid's
unexpected action, just look at the headlines the following day:
``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust
Republicans'' the Hill.
``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--the Politico.
``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''--
LA Times.
But it does not end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong
message when he said that he--and I quote--dared Republicans to vote
against his bill.
His Democratic colleagues were quick to stand behind this reversal.
Some Democratic Senators went so far as to say Republicans are not
interested in a bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to play
rope-a-dope again. They went on to characterize the tax extenders as
only going to people who are making money. They even went so far as to
say that what the Democratic caucus is taking to the floor is something
that is more focused on job creation than on tax breaks.
Now I know the Senate recently passed the expiring tax extenders
package as a part of a broader bill. But what continues to astound me
is how quickly so many Democratic Senators were to abandon these tax
extenders. In fact, most of them support--and even voted to extend--
these tax provisions. The Democratic leadership even erroneously
labeled the tax extenders as a solely Republican-supported initiative.
And many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors of
legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. Look
at the bills to extend the research tax credit or the alternative fuels
vehicle credit or even the new markets tax credit. These are by no
means solely Republican initiatives. The exclusion of these tax
extenders caused one Democrat to criticize the majority leader's action
by saying ``this bill was carefully crafted to achieve significant
bipartisan support and contains several important measures to spur
business growth and encourage new hires.'' So to label support for
extending these expiring tax provisions as part of a solely Republican
agenda is misleading, unfair, and unwarranted. These statements were
made only to support a desperate, hasty, and ill-considered decision.
The icing on the cake was when the Senate ended up passing these very
tax extenders last week by a vote of 70
[[Page 3605]]
to 28. In fact, only one Democrat Senator voted against these tax
extenders.
Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions
relate to job creation. It is a fair question but one with easy
answers.
The extension of these expired tax provisions only supports proven
growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the
end of the tunnel. Government funding would only provide a false sense
of job growth because once the government funding is gone so will the
jobs.
If we need proof that government spending is not as effective as tax
relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office
said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus
package.
The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to
2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to
3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to
1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining
numbers in later years.
The reason why employment created from the stimulus bill would
decline in later years is because government spending does not create
permanent lasting jobs. The private sector, however, can create
permanent, self-sustaining jobs. The tax incentives give the private
sector a much needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for
businesses in last year's economic stimulus bill we would have created
jobs that would have lasted well beyond the 2 or 3 years government
spending would have created.
Originally projected to provide $787 billion in stimulus, the
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now puts the 10-year costs of the
stimulus bill at $862 billion. This does not include interest owed,
which would put the total cost at over $1 trillion.
Of the $862 billion stimulus package, only a third has been spent.
Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining third
will be spent after 2010. What ever happened to spending money on
projects deemed to be shovel ready?
The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for
creating or saving 1 million jobs. If we take a closer look, we see
this claim is very misleading. For example, it was reported that a
construction company in Nevada reported creating 20 jobs on a project
that has yet to receive money. A school district reported saving 665
jobs, even though it only employs about 600 people. A town in Oregon
reported creating eight jobs on a contract for rattlesnake stewardship.
In January of 2009, President Obama's economic advisers predicted in a
report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would
never go above 8 percent. Without the stimulus, they said, the rate
would be at 9 percent. The unemployment rate has been near 10 percent
since last September.
The stimulus package was sold to the American people as an immediate
fix. I think the exact words were that it would be a ``jolt'' to the
economy. Some of the quotes by the administration were ``you'll see the
effects immediately,'' from Larry Summers. ``We'll start adding jobs
rather than losing them,'' from Christina Romer, the President's Chair
of Economic Advisers. ``This will begin creating jobs immediately,''
from House majority leader Steny Hoyer.
Back when he was pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect
Obama said ``90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
sector--the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.''
However, in an article dated February 17, the Wall Street Journal
reported that government data indicate that most of the jobs supported
by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the State and
local level.
In fact, only 2 percent of the entire stimulus bill was dedicated
toward tax relief for businesses. The public sector does not create
permanent jobs; the private sector does. We need to provide a
foundation to allow the private sector to nourish and create better
paying jobs.
That is why many supported including these tax extenders in the HIRE
Act. For instance, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent or
more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries
of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the
effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in
mind that the research credit has traditionally received more
Democratic support in this body than it has Republican support. In
fact, there is a bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of
the 18 cosponsors of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this
bill was introduced by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee.
The President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on
Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to creating jobs in this
country. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative
ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican
ideas have been excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has
brought to the floor.
Again, the majority leader has maneuvered this legislation to prevent
any amendments from being offered by our side. In fact, the majority
leader continues to exclude Republicans from debate. Just look at this
chart that shows how many times the majority leader has filled the
amendment tree in relation to past majority leaders--25 times. If this
is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope
the majority leader heeds to President Obama's plea for a bipartisan
solution.
I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said
it best:
Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single
political party has all the good ideas. I hope the Majority
Leader will reconsider.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint
Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of
the Revenue Provisions contained in the `American Workers, State and
Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10,
2010'' be printed in the Record.
In addition, please let the Record reflect that the document entitled
``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the
`American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by
the Senate on March 10, 2010'' can be found on the Joint Committee on
Taxation Web site at http://jct.gov/publications
.html?func=startdown&id=3664. This document is a contemporary
explanation of the legislation that reflects the intentions of the
Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 3606]]
[[Page 3607]]
[[Page 3608]]
[[Page 3609]]
[[Page 3610]]
[[Page 3611]]
[[Page 3612]]
[[Page 3613]]
[[Page 3614]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--29
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Crapo
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________