[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11214-11220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND TAX RELIEF ACT

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now resume consideration of S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax 
Relief Act; that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees; that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 2524; that immediately following the 
disposition of amendment No. 2524, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment No. 2521; that if 
cloture is not invoked on the substitute amendment, the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2237; that if 
cloture is invoked on the substitute amendment, all postcloture time be 
yielded back, the substitute amendment be agreed to, and the Senate 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2237; that if 
cloture is invoked on the bill, all postcloture time be yielded back 
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if 
amended; that if cloture is not invoked on S. 2237, the bill be 
returned to the calendar; further, that there be no other amendments or 
motions in order to the amendments or the bill prior to the votes other 
than motions to waive or motions to table; that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided between the votes and all after the first vote be 10-
minute votes; and finally, that the Senate then resume the motion to 
proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 3369.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2237) to provide a temporary income tax credit 
     for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an 
     additional year, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 2521, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 2522 (to amendment No. 2521), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2523 (to amendment No. 2522), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2524 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2521), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2525 (to amendment No. 2524), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2526, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2527 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2526), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2528 (to amendment No. 2527), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent 
that the time be charged equally against the proponents and opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Transparency in Government

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, President Obama and his administration 
claim to be open and above board in their actions. As recently as July 
1, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told a television 
audience:

       This administration has been the most transparent 
     administration ever.

  So I come to the floor now to say that is simply not the case, and I 
am going to highlight an outstanding example of how it is not the case.
  Last month, an attorney with the Department of Justice from the Civil 
Rights Division attended a public meeting in Louisiana--a public 
meeting in her official capacity. Before the meeting began, this 
attorney, Rachel Hranitzky, reportedly asked whether any 
representatives of the media were present at this meeting. A reporter 
from the Daily Iberian identified himself. This Justice Department 
attorney then announced: ``You can quote those who speak, but you can't 
quote me.''
  On what basis does the Justice Department presume to tell a reporter 
who can be quoted at a public meeting? The reporter had the same 
question. It has been reported that he asked her to cite legal 
authority which would support her claim that he could not quote a 
Justice Department attorney at a public meeting. Ms. Hranitzky provided 
no such law. She did say the Justice Department has special rules on 
how its attorneys can be quoted. She did not back up that statement, 
however. So here is a public meeting anyone could attend and hear a 
lawyer from their government speak on civil rights enforcement. Yet a 
representative of that government claimed that it was the policy of the 
Justice Department that the press would have fewer rights than the 
general public to quote what that government representative said at 
that public meeting. This undercuts the claim that ``[t]his 
Administration has been the most transparent administration ever,'' 
going back to the quote of the Chief of Staff.
  This refusal to allow the public to know how government officials are 
performing their job is totally unacceptable--and I hope to everybody 
it would be unacceptable.
  As appalling as this reported action was, what followed was even 
worse. Ms. Hranitzky tried to kick the reporter out of an open meeting 
because he questioned her. She relented after he said--regrettably but 
understandably, in my view--that he would not quote her.
  Then the Justice Department attorney totally abused her power, 
according to press reports. She told the reporter she could have the 
Justice Department call the newspaper's publishers or editors and say 
something such as this: You don't want to get on the Department of 
Justice's bad side.
  That statement represents a raw abuse of power.
  We expect the Justice Department to investigate law-breaking and 
pursue appropriate cases without regard to politics. Threatening to use 
the power to bring a criminal case or civil action against any entity 
because it had the temerity to insist that the Department of Justice 
obey the first amendment is outrageous.
  The newspaper has protested to the Justice Department and has not, to 
my knowledge, received any response. The Department's public comment on 
the incident does not deny that any of the reported statements were 
made.
  That the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice have not 
committed to allowing the press to quote its attorneys at public 
meetings a month after one of its attorneys has claimed that it is the 
Department's policy not to permit such reporting is completely 
unacceptable. It leads one to ask: What does the Civil Rights Division 
wish to hide?
  I have received many complaints concerning the enforcement actions of 
the Civil Rights Division. When the division's attorneys will not allow 
themselves to be quoted, we can only conclude that they are saying 
things about enforcing the law that the American people would never 
accept.
  There are no statutes that deny the media the right to quote 
statements of Justice Department officials that are made at public 
meetings. If there were, they would violate the first amendment's 
protection of freedom of speech as well as protection of freedom of the 
press. There should be no Justice Department policies to that effect 
either, and for the very same reason.
  This administration says it is transparent. It wants people to 
believe that, but then it wants to prevent the press from reporting 
what it says in public. To carry out that plan, it threatens those 
reporters with a politically motivated legal action. That is thuggish, 
not transparent.
  To the extent the Department has a policy of preventing the press 
from quoting the statements of its attorneys at public meetings, that 
policy should

[[Page 11215]]

be reversed immediately to comply with the first amendment. Whether it 
has a policy or not, the attorney who claimed that such a policy 
existed and tried to expel the reporter from a public meeting because 
he might quote her, and threatened the reporter for getting on the 
Department of Justice's bad side, should be appropriately disciplined.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Small Business Tax Cut and Job Creation Act.
  Families throughout North Carolina are facing a difficult economy 
right now. I have said repeatedly that the people of our State cannot 
wait until after the election for Congress to work on solutions to 
speed up our economic recovery. That is why I am pleased the Senate has 
agreed to consider this small business legislation.
  This is a bill that will help North Carolinians get back to work this 
year in industries such as health care, finance, construction, 
manufacturing, and retail.
  This legislation supports businesses that expand payroll or invest in 
new equipment, and there are estimates that it will put 27,000 
unemployed people in my State back to work. It does this by creating an 
incentive for North Carolina small businesses to add new jobs in 2012 
by giving businesses a 10-percent income tax credit on new payroll.
  And it encourages businesses to make new investment by extending the 
100-percent business deduction on qualified property. Providing real 
tax relief that lowers the cost of doing business should be a 
bipartisan idea and it is one I will support.
  I also want to express my deep appreciation to the Small Business 
Committee chair, Senator Landrieu, for including a proposal of mine in 
her SUCCESS Act amendment. This amendment would put us on the path to 
establishing a common application for small businesses to apply for 
Federal assistance across agencies, across departments, and programs 
with a single application.
  Frequently I hear from small business owners who tell me that 
government redtape is preventing them from growing their businesses and 
creating jobs. We need to slim down this bureaucratic redtape. I 
believe our small business should not have to be responsive to the 
whims of the Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government needs to be 
responsive to the needs of our small businesses.
  In February, I introduced the Small Business Common Application Act, 
which would establish a common application that allows small business 
owners to apply for grants, seek technical assistance, and bid on 
contracts from the Federal Government with a single form. It would 
function much like the common application students use today to apply 
to multiple colleges and universities.
  Senator Landrieu's amendment would put us on the path toward creating 
a common application by establishing an interagency executive committee 
with representatives from 12 different agencies and departments that 
will report back to Congress and the SBA within 270 days on whether a 
common application is feasible.
  This is a commonsense bill that I believe both sides of the aisle can 
agree to to cut the paperwork burden on our small business owners.
  I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in quorum calls be 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before too long here we are going to be 
voting. We are going to have three votes, I think, on whether we are 
going to move forward on a tax bill. I frankly think there are things 
in the underlying bill that is before us today that would do some good. 
The bonus depreciation provision is something many of us have supported 
in the past. We think that is good tax policy with regard to 
encouraging small businesses to invest, by giving them a quicker way to 
write off those capital investments. So there are some things in the 
underlying bill that make some sense.
  But the whole exercise we are going through here is a charade for a 
couple of reasons. One, you cannot originate revenue measures in the 
Senate. That is something that has to happen in the House of 
Representatives. So anything that comes out of here, if it were to 
pass, would be blue-slipped by the House of Representatives. You have a 
constitutional issue to deal with here in the first place.
  Secondly, you have a procedure, a process set up whereby there is not 
an opportunity for us to offer amendments. We put a tax bill on the 
floor, a piece of legislation, a vehicle that ought to be open to 
amendment. There are many of us with ideas about things that we think 
would promote economic growth and create jobs in our economy, but we 
are not going to have the opportunity to offer those amendments.
  Frankly, a tax debate is something that many of us welcome. We think 
that talking about taxes is certainly something that, if you are 
someone who is concerned about the economy, if you are someone who is 
concerned about getting Americans back to work, certainly talking about 
the Tax Code and its impact on our economy is a very relevant debate. 
Frankly, we ought to be headed toward a reform of our Tax Code which 
today is way too complicated and, frankly, it needs to be overhauled.
  But in the interim, we have coming up now on January 1 of next year a 
bunch of tax provisions, current tax policy, that expires. In 
anticipation of that, we have a lot of businesses that are very 
concerned. There is uncertainty out there among job creators in our 
economy about what is going to happen on January 1, and is Congress 
going to act to put off these tax increases that will occur on January 
1 or are they going to allow them go into effect, in which case many 
businesses would be dramatically impacted by having higher tax burdens, 
making it more difficult for them to create jobs.
  I do not think there is anybody out there, those who study economics, 
even those of us who do not, just as a matter of common sense, on a 
very practical level, who would think that raising taxes on people who 
create jobs, on small businesses, would be something that would be good 
in an economy that you are trying to get back on its feet, trying to 
get to recover.
  In fact, the President of the United States in 2010 said it would be 
a blow to our economy if tax rates went up on small businesses. Well, 
that was back at a time when economic growth was a little over 3 
percent. Here we are 2 years later. Economic growth is much slower. We 
are growing at a more sluggish rate, about 2 percent. There is a 
concern that even that is going to slow down as we approach the end of 
the year.
  And yet we have this threat hanging out there on the horizon, 
looming, of higher taxes on small businesses, the very people we rely 
upon to get Americans back to work, to create jobs, and to get this 
economy growing again.
  What we ought to be thinking about is what can we do to promote 
economic growth. We ought to be thinking about what are those tax 
policies we can put in place. I hope that will be the purpose of tax 
reform when we get there. I hope that is soon as well. As I said 
before, I think tax reform is critical if we are going to see economic 
growth and if we are going to do away with the complex Tax Code we have 
today and replace it with something that makes much more

[[Page 11216]]

sense, it is more clear, more simple, more fair for American businesses 
and people across this country who are filing their tax returns every 
year.
  But we ought to be looking at what can we do to promote economic 
growth. All of our tax policy ought to be oriented around getting this 
economy growing and expanding again, because in so many ways that helps 
address many of the other problems we are confronting. We have this 
huge out-of-control debt problem. Obviously it needs to be addressed 
through spending reductions, trying to make government more efficient, 
smaller, more limited, rather than the government we have seen here the 
last few years that continues to grow as a percentage of our economy. 
The government as a percentage of our economy today is at the highest 
level we have seen literally since the end of World War II. We are at 
about--24 or 25 percent of our entire GDP now is represented by Federal 
spending. So we have got to get government under control, which means 
we have got to address some of the drivers of Federal spending, 
including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. That means these 
entitlement programs so many people rely upon, in order to save them, 
have to be reformed. If we are going to get them on a sustainable 
fiscal path, if we are going to make sure they are there for future 
generations, we have got to reform our entitlement programs and get the 
government spending back at a more reasonable level, more consistent 
with what we have seen historically, which is about 20 to 21 percent of 
our entire economy.
  So it starts there. But then you have to couple the reductions in 
government spending with economic growth. The way ultimately that we 
get to where we need to be as a Nation is we have to get the economy 
growing and expanding again. It is counterintuitive to me and to most 
Americans, I think, to suggest that the way to do that would be to 
raise taxes on the very people you are looking to to create jobs and to 
grow this economy. Those are our small businesses. So when the 
President came out earlier this week and suggested we ought to allow 
the tax rates to expire for people who make more than $250,000, what he 
was talking about, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, was 
almost 1 million small businesses, almost 1 million small businesses, 
if we do not take steps to avert it on January 1. They are going to see 
their taxes go up. Those small businesses I am referring to employ 25 
percent of the American workforce. Most of them are small businesses 
organized as subchapter S corporations, LLCs, which means their income 
flows through to their individual tax returns and they pay at the 
individual rate level.
  So as a consequence, when you start raising taxes for people above 
$250,000, you are hitting 1 million--almost 1 million, I should say--of 
those small businesses that are going to be faced with higher tax 
burdens and higher tax liabilities. That to me is completely 
counterintuitive to what we ought to be thinking if we are interested 
in getting the economy growing again. We should not be making it more 
difficult, more expensive for small businesses to create jobs, we ought 
to be looking at what we can do to lessen the burden on our small 
businesses and to keep that tax burden, that regulatory burden, at a 
level that does not create impediments and barriers to them going out 
and investing and creating jobs.
  The President's proposal is exactly the opposite of what we should be 
doing. And 53 percent of the income I mentioned--these companies that 
are organized, small businesses as S corporations, LLCs--53 percent of 
that income would be faced with a higher tax burden come January 1 
unless we take steps to avert it. What the President proposed 
essentially was allowing taxes to go up on those very small businesses.
  So I hope not only will we turn down the President's proposal, but 
that we will be thinking about what we can be doing to simplify the Tax 
Code, that would lower rates businesses in this country pay, and 
provide incentives for them to get people back to work. Again, by that 
I mean policies that promote economic growth.
  There are so many things we ought to be doing that we are not doing 
now that I think would provide the necessary policies to encourage and 
enable small businesses to grow their business, make those investments, 
and put people back to work. There are a number of things that our 
small businesses face that are not directly related to the Tax Code but 
indirectly related: regulatory burdens and more agencies spending time 
on more regulations making it difficult and more expensive to create 
jobs.
  Regulatory reform ought to be part of an agenda here. If we are 
serious about policies that will grow the economy, we ought to deal 
with the overreaching regulations that create excessive burdens for the 
small businesses and couple that with tax reform.
  One of the burdens we have placed on small businesses of late is the 
ObamaCare legislation we passed a few years ago. There has been some 
debate about the question of whether the individual mandate is a 
penalty or a tax. We know one thing: It is a cost that will be borne by 
a lot of people across this country. We also have the mandate or 
requirements imposed upon small business--employer mandates that will 
increase the cost of our small businesses--the cost of doing business 
for them out there.
  All of these things that have been put in place drive up the cost of 
doing business, make it more difficult and expensive to create jobs in 
this country--rather than looking at what we can do to make it less 
expensive and less difficult to create jobs.
  Regarding the health care bill, we talked about the individual 
mandate and who is impacted. By the way, according to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, 77 percent of the people who would be impacted 
by the individual mandate tax are people who make less than $120,000 a 
year. The President promised, when he was running for office, he would 
not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $250,000 a year. 
Clearly, one of the many broken promises in the health care bill was 
the individual mandate and its impact on the very people on whom he 
said he would not raise taxes--middle-income Americans who make less 
than $120,000 a year. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 77 
percent of those people would see higher taxes.
  It is a significant amount of tax, $54 billion over the next 10 
years. If you think about the amount of revenue raised by the 
individual mandate tax, it is actually more in revenue than would have 
been raised by the so-called Buffet tax designed to get millionaires in 
this country to pay more in taxes. So we are levying a tax on middle-
income Americans that actually is going to exceed in revenue the amount 
raised by the so-called tax on millionaires. It is ironic, but that is 
exactly what the ObamaCare bill will do.
  In addition to that there are a series of other taxes that are 
imposed on people across this country. Many of them strike at middle-
income Americans. There are about $250 billion in taxes that are 
imposed on our economy that will be passed on, in many cases, to 
consumers, and the impact is to raise the cost of health care. Taxes on 
health insurance plans, taxes on pharmaceuticals, taxes on medical 
devices, self-insured health plans--a whole range of taxes that are 
included in the ObamaCare legislation, are going to hit middle-income 
Americans squarely in the face. Not only do we have the individual 
mandate tax but all these others that are included in the ObamaCare 
legislation that will hit working people across this country.
  Look at all the burdens associated with those taxes and the 
regulations that are coming out of many of the agencies in our 
government now, and all you see, if you are a small business, is a 
higher cost of doing business, more uncertainty about what is going to 
happen in the future, and it is just that much more difficult when it 
comes to making determinations about growing your business or starting 
a new business and creating the jobs that are so important to our 
economy.
  When we talk about the economic circumstances that we are in today, 
everybody focuses on the unemployment

[[Page 11217]]

rate, of course. We have now had more than 8 percent unemployment for 
41 straight months. We have 23 million Americans who are either jobless 
or underemployed in our economy. And 5.4 million Americans have been 
unemployed for a long period of time. We have the weakest recovery, 
literally, since the end of World War II.
  Yet what is the prescription that the President and many of his 
allies in Congress have for that? Higher taxes. It is higher taxes on 
the people who create jobs. Can you think of anything that makes less 
sense if you are really interested in economic growth and creating 
jobs? That is absolutely the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We 
should not be raising taxes on those 1 million small businesses--
subjecting them and the 25 percent of the workforce who work for them 
to the possibility that there will be higher taxes. Their jobs can be 
in jeopardy.
  We ought to look for ways to provide certainty, and we should extend 
the existing rates so small businesses out there trying to make 
decisions about what they are going to do in the future can know for 
sure what the rules are, but, more importantly, also know that their 
taxes will not go up on January 1.
  There is a Congressional Budget Office analysis out there which 
suggests that come January 1, when we hit the so-called fiscal cliff, 
which includes the increase in the tax rates as well as the sequester 
on spending that was put into place as part of the Budget Control Act, 
that if nothing is done to avert that fiscal cliff, in the first 6 
months of next year we will see up to 1.3 percent less economic growth. 
But just as important, not only is that a factor we deal with next 
year, it is also something that impacts us right now, today, because 
the CBO also found it could cost a half point of economic growth this 
year, right now. It is because of this uncertainty, because of the 
specter of tax rates going up on small businesses come January 1 of 
next year.
  What we ought to be doing instead of talking about what we are going 
to do or raising taxes on small businesses in this economy is looking 
to extend the rates that exist today so those rates don't go up, giving 
businesses certainty, and then following up on that next year with tax 
reform which broadens the tax base, lowers rates, gets us more 
competitive in the global marketplace, and is more clear, more simple 
and fair for American businesses.
  Until that happens, the very worst we could be doing now, in my 
opinion, is raising taxes, for all of the reasons I just mentioned. It 
creates uncertainty, obviously, and raises the cost of doing business 
in this country. It hits the very people we are hoping are going to 
lead us out of this economic malaise we are in today.
  Again, I also say with regard to this issue, the issue of taxes is so 
important to businesses. The issue of regulations is so important to 
businesses. Those are things, if we are serious about an agenda to get 
Americans back to work, we ought to be focused on.
  That is why we ought to be repealing ObamaCare. That $248 billion in 
taxes--that is not the total amount of taxes; it is over $500 billion 
in taxes that will be imposed as a result of ObamaCare. These are the 
taxes that hit middle-income Americans, according to the Joint Economic 
Committee. Not only do we have the $248 billion or $250 billion that 
hits middle-income Americans, we have an additional 3.8 percent tax on 
unearned income that would hit high-end earners, as well as a new 
Medicare tax on high-end earners. We have so many taxes coming at this 
economy now it is hard to fathom.
  That should not be complicated by doubling down with our small 
businesses and essentially telling them that come January they are 
going to see their rates go up. For the people paying the 35-percent 
rate today, it would go up to 39.6 percent. Capital gains will go up 
from 15 to 20 percent. Dividend rates are going up from 15 to 39.6 
percent. This is a very real issue, a real-time issue. It is having an 
impact on the economy today. We should do everything we can to avoid 
that.
  I hope when we are through with what is a charade, and we have the 
votes on this bill--which, as I said, because the revenue measures 
don't originate in the Senate; they originate in the House, they would 
be blue-slipped if it passed here because this is a process where 
Republicans are not allowed to offer amendments. This is a tax vehicle 
on the Senate floor. But in the terms we use in the Senate, the 
majority leader has ``filled the amendment tree,'' making it virtually 
impossible for Republicans to offer amendments that we would like to 
see debated and voted on.
  When this charade is completed, I hope the majority leader will 
decide we need to have a debate about taxes and what we can do to 
promote economic growth, a debate on whether we are going to extend the 
rates that will expire January 1, meaning higher taxes for nearly 1 
million small businesses to whom we are looking to get us out of this 
recession and get Americans back to work. I hope that will be the 
debate and vote we will ultimately have when this particular political 
exercise is completed today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 2524

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about 
the next vote, which is the Cantor amendment.
  The Cantor amendment, just to review, would give a 20-percent 
deduction to all businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. The 20-
percent deduction is calculated on U.S. source business income and is 
limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid. In other words, the 
business must be paying at least twice the amount of the deduction in 
wages. In addition, taxpayers cannot get both this deduction and the 
90-percent manufacturing deduction; the main point being this Cantor 
bill is a gross giveaway. It gives businesses a 20-percent deduction 
for simply earning income. They do not have to do anything, just earn 
income and get a 20-percent deduction.
  The amendment allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on about one-
fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people. 
That is virtually 99 percent of all American companies. Worse still, it 
provides a temporary reduced tax rate. This would incentivize 
businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or 
increasing wages in order to increase profits. That is because the 
larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under this bill.
  Rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill 
incentivizes the opposite. It incentivizes businesses to sit and wait 
rather than to invest in people or equipment. It does not make any 
sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision, as 
proposed in this bill.
  This is a giveaway, frankly, to almost all companies--99.6 percent of 
the companies in the United States--to hedge funds, to partnerships, 
and private equity firms. Almost all employ fewer than 500 employees. 
It is absolutely the wrong policy for this Nation to adopt.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Under the previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2524.
  A motion to table has been made. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 24, as follows:

[[Page 11218]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Cochran
     Collins
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kirk
     Moran
     Udall (NM)
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague. Mr. 
McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


           SENATOR COLLINS' 5,000TH CONSECUTIVE ROLLCALL VOTE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, 
has just passed an important milestone, her 5,000th consecutive 
rollcall vote, a tenacious accomplishment indeed that represents the 
work ethic and dedication Senator Collins has for the people of Maine 
and for the Senate. We all know she is one of the hardest working 
Members of the Senate.
  Listen to this. Since she was sworn in, in January, January 3 of 
1997, she has been present for every single rollcall vote. That is over 
15 consecutive years, never missing a vote.
  Senator Collins is actually in quite an elite company. Recently, she 
passed Senator Byrd and is now third all time behind Senator Chuck 
Grassley and the late Bill Proxmire from Wisconsin. I know she took 
great pride also in being in the company of her role model, a woman who 
played a major role in her decision to run for public office in the 
first place, fellow Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who is 
currently No. 5 on the list.
  On behalf of the entire Senate, I congratulate Senator Collins for 
this milestone.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a remarkable accomplishment. I hope 
I do not get her into trouble with her colleagues, but I truly like 
her. I appreciate her capability to work with us, work with everybody. 
She is somebody whom we never have to guess where she stands on an 
issue and I admire and appreciate her so much for that. I have worked 
with her on issues going back for many years and I again say I 
appreciate what she has done.
  She has great genes. Her mother and father each served as mayor of a 
small town in Maine, a place called Caribou. I don't have fond memories 
of Caribou because in my, I think, 1998 race, there was a great mailing 
we did. One of my consultants from--not from Nevada, that is for sure--
instead of having deer, they had caribou on my campaign literature. It 
took me a while to figure that one out. I am sure the town of Caribou 
was bigger than my hometown, Searchlight.
  Her family ran a lumber business. Her father was also a State 
senator.
  I am confident Susan has learned to be the Senator she is because of 
Bill Cohen. I had the pleasure of serving with him. He is a good man--
from Maine. I served as a junior Member when he was chairman of the 
Aging Committee and he was such a wonderful man. I still talk to Bill 
Cohen. She has many of his traits. As we know, she worked for him. He 
has been a great Secretary of Defense. He has just been a good person, 
and I am confident her ability to be the legislator she is, a lot of it 
is attributed to him.
  She has always been known for her ability to compromise. Legislation 
is the art of compromise, and she works with all Members.
  I think the tone she has set working with Joe Lieberman is 
magnificent. They have run that committee with dignity and on a totally 
bipartisan basis.
  Five thousand votes--frankly, a number of us have cast 5,000 votes, 
but it is ridiculous, the example she has set, never missing a vote. I 
wish her the very best and many years to serve in the future of the 
Senate.
  (Applause.)
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to honor 
Senator Collins, a colleague and dear friend, on her landmark 5,000th 
consecutive vote.
  Since becoming a Senator in 1997, Senator Collins has never missed a 
single vote. This is a sign of her commitment to the people of Maine 
and the entire country. The commitment began in her home. Her parents 
taught her what it meant to work hard and serve the people, both in the 
family-owned lumber business and both as mayors of her hometown of 
Caribou, ME. She has carried on their legacy and deep commitment to 
public service.
  I stand here in recognition of Senator Collins because her 5,000 
votes have stood not only for the people of Maine, but for our great 
Nation. She has stood for science, innovation and research, women's 
equality and veterans. Her voice and her votes have shaped and will 
continue to shape our Nation.
  Let me tell you a little bit about what her votes have accomplished. 
Senator Collins is a fighter for funding for science, innovation and 
research. Together we cosponsored the Spending Reductions through 
Innovations in Therapies (SPRINT) Act which would spur improvement in 
research and drug development for chronic health conditions such as 
Alzheimer's.
  When I reach across the aisle, I know Senator Collins is there to 
find a sensible center that will be good for America.
  Her leadership has extended beyond her bipartisan efforts. She 
continues to serve as a role model for young women nationwide. As a 
fellow Girl Scout, we both learned that determination, principles and 
respect for others are the foundation for a productive future. We 
designated 2012 the ``Year of the Girl,'' in support of Girl Scouts and 
the organization's lasting lessons.
  Today we celebrate Senator Collins' record of integrity, unsurpassed 
work ethic, and a steadfast commitment to the people of Maine. Her 
voting record is exemplary of the fact that we are continuing to crack 
the marble ceiling. Not only are women getting elected to the Senate, 
we are raising hell, holding powerful leadership positions and taking 
on America's biggest issues.
  She is a valued Member, colleague and dear friend. Congratulations 
Senator Collins on your 5,000th vote and your extraordinary commitment 
to the people of Maine and our great Nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to add my voice to this 
chorus of congratulations for our colleague on her singular and 
remarkable achievement.
  It seems fitting that Senator Collins would reach this historic 
milestone just after the All Star Game because this really is a Hall of 
Fame sort of accomplishment.
  With that 5,000th consecutive vote she cast moments ago, Senator 
Collins now holds the third-longest voting streak in Senate history. In 
the entire history of the United States Senate, the only Members with 
longer unbroken voting streaks are William Proxmire, who is way out 
front with 10,252 consecutive votes, and Senator Grassley, with 6,393 
consecutive votes.
  But here is the thing about Senator Collins: She is the only Senator 
who has ever hit that mark without missing a single vote--the only 
perfect voting record among the 5,000-consecutive votes Hall of Famers.
  Senator Collins' historic voting record is a reflection of her 
dedication

[[Page 11219]]

to the hardworking people of Maine and a testament to her respect for 
this Senate.
  We have heard about some of the lengths Senator Collins has gone to 
to preserve her unbroken voting streak, including how she once twisted 
her ankle running in high heels to cast a vote.
  That vote was to protect the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, and working parents and their children in my State of Illinois 
and throughout America are grateful to her for her pains.
  That is the other remarkable thing about Senator Collins' voting 
record. It is laudatory not only for the number of consecutive votes 
Senator Collins has cast but also for the courage behind many of those 
votes.
  Senator Collins and I were elected to the Senate in the same year, 
1996. As freshman Senators, we cosponsored a successful bill to repeal 
a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry.
  We have worked together to combat Medicaid fraud and improve food 
safety.
  Along with Senator Snowe, Senator Collins voted for Wall Street 
reform and for the economic recovery plan that may well have kept 
America from tipping into a depression.
  She voted for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and she voted to 
confirm both Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I hope I don't get her into trouble with this list.
  Her voting record is in keeping with Maine's tradition for 
independent thinking.
  When Susan Collins was a senior in high school, she came to 
Washington and had an amazing experience. She was able to talk to her 
hero and home State Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, for nearly 2 hours 
in her office.
  Senator Collins later told a reporter: ``I remember leaving her 
office thinking that women can do anything and that women can get to 
the highest levels of government and make a difference.''
  Years earlier, Margaret Chase Smith had made history of her own when 
she delivered her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech. In that 
speech, she urged Senators to reject the destructive anti-communist 
hysteria being whipped up by Joe McCarthy.
  Senator Smith said then: ``As an American, I want to see our nation 
recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy 
instead of ourselves.''
  We can hear echoes of that famous plea in an op-ed Senator Collins 
wrote for The Washington Post a few months ago.
  As Senator Collins wrote: ``[N]either party has a monopoly on good 
ideas. The challenges we face will not be met by those who believe 
compromise is a dirty word. . . . The center will hold only if we put 
the same effort into unity that partisans put into division.''
  She is right.
  On a more personal note I want to say that not only does Senator 
Collins have one of the best voting records in this Senate, she also 
has the best taste in books of just about anyone I know. She reads 
constantly, and I am grateful to her for the many good books and 
talented authors she has introduced me to.
  A year ago, some gay veterans and other Mainers hosted a reception to 
thank Senator Collins for her courageous cosponsorship, with Senator 
Lieberman, of the bill to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in 
America's Armed Forces.
  At that reception, a Navy veteran who spent her time in the service 
hiding her sexual orientation presented Senator Collins with one of her 
ship's coins, which are awarded to Navy personnel for going beyond 
their duty.
  And an 80-year-old man and lifelong independent voter praised her by 
saying, ``Senator Collins is . . . filling the high heels of Margaret 
Chase Smith wonderfully.''
  We know that even when those high heels cause her to twist her ankle, 
they cannot keep her from casting her vote and making history.
  Once again, I congratulate Senator Collins on this singular 
achievement.
  And looking forward to the happy milestone she will celebrate next 
month, Loretta and I give Senator Collins and her husband-to-be our 
best wishes for many years of happiness together.


                           Amendment No. 2521

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think we are on the Landrieu 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I discussed this amendment in great 
detail yesterday, so there is no reason to review it. I thank many 
Members of the Small Business Committee on both sides of the aisle for 
putting forth some terrific, very popular, and effective ideas for 
small business: 100 percent exclusion of capital gains, decreased 
deductions for startup expenditures, S corporation holding period 
reductions, carryback on business credits, and expensing of 179--all 
very familiar to this body and absolutely critical for investing in our 
small business. The bill only costs $4 billion compared to some of the 
other numbers that are being thrown around here. We think it is very 
cost effective, and I ask for the support of the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous 
order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to 
invoke cloture.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and 
     Tax Relief Act.
         Harry Reid, Mary L. Landrieu, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Carl Levin, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Barbara Boxer, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Tom Udall, Max Baucus, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Richard J. Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2521, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for 
Ms. Landrieu, to S. 2237 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts

[[Page 11220]]


     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Moran
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think minds are made up. I just suggest 
that both sides yield back the remainder of the time and vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the chair 
directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 2237, the 
     Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Mary L. Landrieu, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Barbara A. Mikulski, Carl Levin, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Udall, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Richard J. Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased 
payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Kirk
     Moran
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, S. 2237 is returned to the calendar.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, today I voted in support of invoking 
cloture on Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, offered by Senator 
Landrieu. I supported cloture on this substitute amendment because, 
overall, Senator Landrieu's legislation would help our Nation's small 
businesses grow and find new markets. However, I had some concerns with 
aspects of the legislation that would increase sole-source contracting. 
In general, we need to ensure that where noncompetitive contracting 
programs are authorized, they are narrow and fair. In light of the fact 
that cloture was not invoked on the amendment, I look forward to 
working with Senator Landrieu on her legislation in the future.

                          ____________________