[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20101-20102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I just listened with great eagerness to 
the discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader, 
and I would like to make two points here and then several subsidiary 
points.
  We need to do two things before we leave: We need to fund the 
government in a reasonable and rational way, and we need to help the 
middle class get tax relief because the middle class is suffering. We 
need to do both. As Leader Reid said, to do both, you need both 
Democrats and Republicans to agree. If you try to do one without the 
other, you will not get anything done.
  So last night Speaker Boehner sent a bill on middle-class tax relief 
that was such a Christmas tree that we knew it could not pass. And he 
knew it could not pass. We know why he did it. He did it because he 
could not get enough Republican votes in his caucus without all of 
these killer amendments to get it through. He could not get it through 
without those amendments.
  So the Republican leader says: Well, if we know it cannot pass, why 
don't we start negotiating? There is one point here. We do not have to 
convince Speaker Boehner to start negotiating. He knows that. But we 
have to convince the hundred votes in his caucus who do not believe we 
should give middle-class tax relief, who are wedded to these amendments 
that will kill the bill here in the Senate because they are so 
unpalatable. It is not 1 or 2 amendments; it is 10 or 12 or 15 
amendments. We need to show those hundred that this bill cannot pass.
  We have to give middle-class tax relief, and we have to fund the 
government. So why wouldn't we vote on it now, dispose of it, and move 
on with the ultimate negotiations which will talk in tandem about 
funding the government long term and middle-class tax relief?
  Now, why don't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
vote on that proposal? Is it because they fear embarrassing defections 
from their own side--defections that would show once again how too many 
Republicans in the Senate do not want to extend middle-class tax relief 
no matter what is attached to it? That is not a good reason.
  What are we waiting for? The House bill is on a road to nowhere, so 
let's let the air out of the tires, and then we can move on. We all 
know how it is going to end--not with either Chamber imposing its will 
on the other but with a negotiation. So let's remove this bill from the 
floor, give Speaker Boehner some of the freedom he may need to 
negotiate, and get this all done.
  As, again, Leader Reid said--and he said it so well--we cannot pass 
the bills without both Democratic and Republican votes in the House and 
the Senate. Negotiating to come to an agreement makes ultimate sense.
  I heard the Republican leader say: Well, the government runs out by 
Friday. There is an easy way to deal with that, which Leader Reid asked 
for in a unanimous consent request and was rejected: fund the 
government for a short period of time.
  So the logic here is to do three things: Vote on this bill. Put it 
aside. Fund the government for another short period of time. And then 
negotiate in earnest and produce both things America needs: an omnibus 
funding resolution that funds the government that has been worked on 
very hard by the Appropriations Committee--deal with the outstanding 
issues in that proposal. There are still serious outstanding issues. 
Anyone who has been around here knows that issues such as Cuba and the 
environment and abortion in DC are not easy to settle and have not been 
settled yet.
  So we kill the bill the House sent to us--we vote on it. It will die. 
We know it does not have the votes. It probably does not have even the 
unanimous support on the Republican side. I would bet that is pretty 
likely. We do a short-term CR. We fund the government for a period of 
time. And we have earnest negotiations that will produce both middle-
class tax relief and a funding resolution for the government. We should 
negotiate the two measures together because, as the leader said, you 
cannot pass them without both Democratic and Republican votes in either 
Chamber. Obviously, in this Chamber, there are not 60 votes without 
Republican support. And in the other Chamber--because too many people 
are against even the agreement, too many on the Republican side are 
against the agreement we had for $1.04 trillion in spending--they will 
need Democratic votes.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, could I ask a question of the 
Senator from New York through the Chair?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I am confused. The House passed a bill last night and 
has sent it to the Senate. Correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. This is a Republican bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. And we are ready to vote on it?
  Mr. SCHUMER. We are.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. And the Republicans will not let us vote on it?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I am confused.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So are we all.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Why would the Republicans not let us vote on their 
bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. One of the theories is that there is dissention even on 
that bill among the Republican side, as there was on the previous bill 
that had middle-class tax relief in it.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. That is why we vote, to determine whether there is 
dissention.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Agreed. The Senator from Missouri is exactly correct. If 
we voted, it would move the process of both funding the government--
very important--and getting middle-class tax relief--also very 
important--forward.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, I would certainly urge every single Senator, be 
they Democrat or Republican, to come to the floor and ask the question: 
Why are we not voting today on the bill that was passed by the House? 
We are ready to vote. You know, the American people do not get this 
game. The bill was passed in the House. Why are we not voting? Why is 
the Republican Party blocking its own bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator from Missouri is, as usual, thoughtful, 
politically astute, and right down the middle moderate. It makes no 
sense to block it. It is holding up progress, particularly because the 
Republican House has to be shown that this bill is not going to be the 
answer. The only way to both fund the government and provide middle-
class relief is for Democrats and Republicans to get together, as the 
Democratic leader has said, almost until he is blue in the face.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. With all due respect to my friend and colleague from 
New York, I thank him for the answers, because I was confused that the 
Republicans are keeping us from voting on a Republican bill. But it is 
not the House we need show anything. We have a tendency around here to 
get focused on the back and forth among ourselves. It

[[Page 20102]]

is the American people we need to show that we are capable of standing 
up, casting a vote, seeing whether it passes or fails, and then 
negotiating and finding a way forward.
  I would say to my colleague from New York, if the Republicans in the 
Senate are not willing to vote on their own legislation, then you have 
got to scratch your head.
  I thank the Senator for the opportunity.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, I would accept the modification of 
my argument made by the Senator from Missouri. The point, of course, we 
both agree on is we ought to vote. We ought to do it to show the world, 
whether it is the House, Senate, American people, or anybody else. That 
makes a great deal of sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New York and 
colleague from Missouri for putting in context where we are today. But 
let's take one step back and look at what is the issue. The issue is 
basic: Will the payroll tax cut that currently helps 160 million 
Americans continue after January 1? That is the underlying question.
  After all of the back and forth and politics, we believe it should. 
The President believes it should. Economists tell us that is the way to 
help us out of a recession and create more jobs. We have come up with a 
way to pay for it so it will not add to the deficit. Our proposal: a 
surtax on the wealthiest Americans, not on the first million dollars in 
income each year but on their second million dollars in income, a 
surtax.
  We ask across America: Do you think that is fair to ask that 
sacrifice? Overwhelmingly, not just Democrats, Independents, 
Republicans, tea party Republicans believe that is fair. But, 
unfortunately, many on the Republican side are indentured political 
servants to a Washington lobbyist named Grover Norquist. They have 
signed an oath that they believe supersedes any other oath, to the 
Constitution or to the people they represent, that they will never, 
ever vote for a tax increase for the wealthy--not one penny. Not one 
penny.
  So they wanted to stop the extension of this payroll tax cut for 
working families. They came up with a bill in the House of 
Representatives. The bill in the House of Representatives passed last 
night. It is so bad that the Senate Republicans will not let us bring 
it to the floor for a vote. They know what is going to happen. We saw 
it in the last 2 weeks. The Presiding Officer can remember. Senator 
Heller of Nevada put up a Republican alternative on the payroll tax 
cut, and on the first vote, out of 43 Republicans, 20 supported his 
measure, and out of the Republican leadership team, only Senator 
McConnell voted for it. Clearly this is not a popular approach, even 
when it is written by Senate Republicans.
  Now the House Republican approach is so unpopular they will not even 
call it on the floor--so unpopular. If anyone is wondering whether we 
are going to get home for Christmas, they should have listened to this 
exchange this morning, when the Republicans refused to even call their 
own vote.
  I agree with the Senator from Missouri. We owe to it the American 
people to get to the bottom of this, and quickly, to assure them 
January 1 the payroll cut will continue for working families across 
America, to assure them that we will maintain unemployment benefits for 
the 14 million unemployed Americans struggling to find jobs--4 
unemployed for every available job. It is basic that we need to do 
this, and if we are going to get down to it, then I am afraid our 
Senate Republican colleagues have to accept the reality.
  There comes a moment for a vote. This is the moment, the vote on 
whether we are going forward to make sure that we extend the payroll 
tax cut for working families in a fair way. That is what is at hand.

                          ____________________