[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18992-18997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




LEGISLATIVE SESSION
                                  ____

                  TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative session 
and proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5771, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical 
     corrections, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established 
     under State programs for the care of family members with 
     disabilities, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with this tax bill, the Congress is turning 
in its tax homework 11\1/2\ months late and expects to earn full 
credit. Tax incentives will last just 2 weeks before families and 
businesses are thrown back into the dark with respect to the taxes they 
owe. The legislation accomplishes nothing for 2015.
  The debate takes place against the backdrop of positive economic 
news, showing that unemployment is down and wages are up--just the kind 
of news the Congress ought to build on by providing certainty and 
predictability for families and businesses. Instead, the Congress is 
about to pass a tax bill that doesn't have the shelf life of a carton 
of eggs.
  Of course, we have the power to enshrine tax provisions for any 
length of time we choose. What the Congress can't do is travel back 
through time. The Congress can pass this $41 billion bill, but it 
cannot change anything taxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. Those 
decisions have been made.
  The only new effects of this legislation apply to the next 2 weeks. 
That is not enough time for the key provisions; for example, putting a 
dent in veterans unemployment, to start a clean energy project, to hire 
new workers or to help a student who is on the fence about whether to 
enroll in college next semester. Particularly important is this bill 
drops the health coverage tax credit, yanking away an economic lifeline 
that working-class Americans were counting on this April 15. This means 
that for tens of thousands of our people in States such as Wisconsin, 
Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, who have been kicked down by a 
fiercely competitive economy, they are going to face a very unpleasant 
surprise this spring.
  I am just going to spend a minute talking about how the Senate got 
here and where our tax policy should go in the future. The truth is the 
Senate didn't need to be in this spot. Within a few weeks after I 
became chairman of the Finance Committee, with the help and good 
counsel of Senator Hatch and many members of the committee, we 
unanimously passed the EXPIRE Act, a balanced, bipartisan bill that 
would provide 2 years of certainty and a springboard to comprehensive 
reform. When the bill came to the floor, a host of Senators said they 
were eager to move it forward. Democrats and Republicans all wanted to 
move ahead, but the toxic Senate environment and a battle over 
amendments caused the EXPIRE Act to stall out.
  This fall there were discussions with the House about a bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement. I was encouraged at the outset, especially when 
the

[[Page 18993]]

House indicated they would accept the Senate's bipartisan work. We also 
talked about the possibility of making several provisions permanent. In 
my view, any agreement on permanent tax policy has to be balanced--
balanced between support for business and support for working families. 
A deal that is skewed in just one direction fails the test of fairness. 
The Democrats on the Finance Committee felt the same way. The 
negotiations progressed, more offers were traded, and there was real 
hope. However, after weeks of hard work, there was a conflicting 
process and that drove House Republicans to quit the negotiations. 
Senate negotiators, in effect, were left without a dance partner. Our 
team kept making new offers. We tried to suggest proposals that had 
drawn support from Republicans and Democrats in the past, but the House 
settled on passing this 2-week extender bill that is now before us this 
evening.
  However Senators choose to vote on this legislation, I want to 
recognize that this bill proves, once and for all, how broken America's 
tax system is. The Congress is about to spend $41 billion on a tax 
incentive package that when done right ought to lift the cloud of 
uncertainty and strengthen the important parts of our American economy. 
Instead, all of the $41 billion in this legislation is going to go for 
things that happened months and months ago. Virtually all of the $41 
billion has absolutely no incentive power whatsoever. Reforming the Tax 
Code is going to be hard, but it can be done. I sat next to our former 
colleague Senator Gregg every week for 2 years to produce the first 
bipartisan Federal income tax reform bill. I am very grateful to our 
current colleague Senator Coats, who picked up on those efforts. 
Senator Hatch--and I commend him for it--put out an analysis for tax 
reform issues, recognizing that getting more perspectives in the debate 
is going to help advance reform.
  I know Senator Hatch is going to keep working diligently when he 
takes the gavel--and I congratulate him for that--in January, and I 
look forward to working with him.
  Before we wrap up for the year, I also want to congratulate Senator 
Casey and Senator Burr, who worked tirelessly in a bipartisan way on 
behalf of the disabled. I met with these disabled folks in our 
community, and I commend Senator Casey and Senator Burr for their work.
  Here is the bottom line for the future: The middle class deserves a 
tax cut. The tax system in America needs to do more to promote 
innovation and launch a new wave of job creation. Our country 
desperately needs a simpler and more competitive corporate tax system 
that draws investment and jobs to our country. We have to end the cycle 
of stop-and-go policy that leaves taxpayers in the dark time and time 
again.
  I want to yield our remaining time to my colleague Senator Cantwell, 
from Washington and close by saying, retroactive tax bills, such as the 
one before the Senate tonight, may satisfy some, but they leave our 
workers, our families, and businesses wanting. It is the time for real 
tax reform.
  For the last word on our side, my colleague and seatmate, Senator 
Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership 
on the Finance Committee and just point out to my colleagues who come 
from States that don't have an income tax that this legislation before 
us tonight includes making sure we are able to deduct our State sales 
tax from our Federal tax obligations. I hope we will be here someday 
when we can actually get tax fairness in the code. This is a permanent 
solution. We don't have to go back every year to try to get the tax 
fairness our States deserve. My colleague Senator Murray is here and 
knows this issue well. But tonight at least we can say Washingtonians 
can take the sales receipts they have this year and make sure they are 
deducted from their tax obligations for 2014. But as the Presiding 
Officer said, let's make sure we take these provisions that are so 
important for our economy to move forward and give the taxpayers 
predictability and certainty.
  I would say that is making the sales tax deduction permanent, but I 
am glad Washingtonians will at least have this opportunity this year 
and we will move forward to have a more robust debate.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time does our side have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I want to yield 3 minutes to Senator Begich and 3 minutes 
to Senator Casey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to say I 
appreciate the Senator's comments, and what I thought was most 
important about it was the fact that these tax benefits come after the 
fact. It is not going to create new opportunities. The tax reform 
legislation the Senator has been working on with Senator Gregg, Senator 
Coats, and myself is about real reform. It is about setting economic 
opportunities and creating growth. It is not about looking back. It is 
about looking forward. I have the same feelings the Senator has on this 
bill; that doing the short term, really 2 weeks, and then putting 
uncertainty back into the system again for another year would be a 
mistake. From my perspective, it is a $40 billion bill that is not paid 
for. Let's deal with it. Let's figure out real tax reform.
  I will not be here in January. I wish all the Members will sit down, 
after years of work that you have done, and focus on a longer term 
situation that actually creates incentive for small business and not 
after the fact. My wife is in a small business, and they don't spend 
the last 2 weeks trying to figure out what their tax benefits will be 
to help do to investments. They have done it already. If we really want 
to do something for the economy and have real tax reform and real tax 
relief, focus into the future and not the past.
  I commend you for the work that has been done on this, but I agree 
that there are a lot of problems with this and the way it is laid out 
for 2 weeks which is problematic.
  Mr. WYDEN. I want the body to know the Senator from Alaska has 
written some of the really thoughtful provisions with respect to 
education tax credits, and I commend him for that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the Tax 
Increase Prevention Act of 2014, a House-passed bill that extends a 
limited and narrow set of expired tax credits and deductions, and 
includes the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, ABLE Act. 
Once again, Congress has waited until the eleventh hour to address tax 
credits that expired nearly a year ago. Once again, this has resulted 
in needless confusion for families and businesses who have been unable 
to plan and unable to grow, given the uncertainty of the outcome of 
these credits. I heard from Vermonters over the last year concerned 
about the expiration of these credits--and the pending expiration of 
dozens of more tax credits that benefit hardworking, middle-class 
families. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to provide 
certainty within the Tax Code to ensure families in Vermont and across 
the country have the predictability they need to make financial 
decisions. While I support extending these tax credits, I cannot 
support an effort that once again simply kicks the can down the road 
and leaves for the next year the unfinished business of this Congress.
  I am disappointed that, earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate 
squandered an opportunity to consider a more comprehensive package that 
would have benefited small businesses, researchers, the environment, 
and middle-class families. I have been deeply disappointed in the 
process, which has left us with a choice between bad: passing the House 
bill; and worse: not doing anything. This legislation revives more than 
55 expired tax deductions from 2013, and while I agree these are 
important provisions, I cannot support this bill on principle. We 
cannot continue to retroactively fix problems Congress carelessly and 
irresponsibly creates,

[[Page 18994]]

without addressing the same tax provisions that will expire in just a 
few short weeks from now, only to have the same fight next year. It is 
time we have a meaningful, full debate about tax reform, and how 
Congress can ensure that our Tax Code reflects the needs of all 
Americans, not just those who are the wealthiest among us.
  Included in this patch bill is the important ABLE Act, which allows 
those with disabilities to plan for their futures by creating tax-free 
savings accounts. I have strongly supported this legislation, and 
continue to do so. This legislation creates opportunities for 
individuals with disabilities to save for college or retirement or 
other living expenses and opens doors for families across the country. 
The House of Representatives held two votes last week related to taxes: 
one on the extenders package, and one on the ABLE Act. If the Senate 
were allowed to do so, I would cast my vote in strong support of the 
ABLE Act.
  I asked Vermonters to elect me as their representative in the Senate 
because I wanted carry their voices to the decision centers in 
Washington. I strongly believe in the best of what the Senate has been, 
should be, and can once again become. There are many Vermonters, and 
people across the country, who are counting on us to provide 
comprehensive, long-term solutions to our country's problems. I hope 
that in the new Congress we can work together instead of kicking the 
can down the road, yet again. We were elected to find solutions, not 
excuses.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the House has sent us a $42 billion year-
long extension of several tax provisions known as tax extenders. This 
year-long extension is unpaid for, and while I will support this 
measure because several provisions in this bill need to be extended--
and soon--I must raise concerns about the approach here to once again 
stack the deck against middle-class families. They rightfully are 
concerned that they have been left out--and continually so--in policies 
that this body finds the will to pass.
  Case in point is the effort I engaged in all year with my Republican 
colleague, Senator Heller, to restore emergency unemployment insurance 
benefits for 1.3 million Americans. Now this program is typically 
considered an emergency measure because it has been fundamental to 
supporting our economic recovery, and as such the $24 billion cost to 
extend the program through 2014 would normally not be paid for. Well 
this year that was not the case and several of my colleagues, 
particularly House Republicans, insisted that this typical emergency 
measure be offset for it to get consideration.
  So Senator Heller and I worked with several of our colleagues to 
craft a paid-for measure that would extend the program for 5 months. 
That paid-for bill passed the Senate, but the House has since refused 
to give it an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that it met the 
condition of being paid-for and the Congressional Budget Office had 
estimated a full year extension of the program would create 200,000 
jobs and boost economic growth by 0.2 percent of GDP. So it strikes me 
as incredibly one-sided and patently unfair that House Republicans 
would send us a $42 billion unpaid-for retroactive year-long extension 
of tax provisions that would not generate the same kind of economic 
boost as UI, but they still would not consider helping the long-term 
unemployed as they search for work. Indeed, in the bipartisan Senate 
extenders bill, we included a provision that would encourage employers 
to hire the long-term unemployed--but even that modest change to the 
Work Opportunity Tax Credit was not included in the House bill.
  This is part of a troubling pattern created by some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle and in the other body--if it helps a 
small set of businesses or special interests, well the deficit does not 
seem to matter to them. But if a proposal or initiative is aimed at 
helping low and middle-income Americans get a foothold in the economy, 
then the standard is much higher and constantly changing.
  The 1-year tax extenders bill does have some good provisions, like 
the extension of credits that help families afford college, make it 
easier for homeowners and lenders to keep families in their homes, or 
promote the production of renewable energy like wind. But the bill also 
has tax breaks for race horses, rum, NASCAR and is skewed towards 
corporations. All equaling a total of $42 billion in unpaid-for tax 
cuts.
  Indeed, we also considered an appropriations bill, which included a 
snuck-in provision that allows pension cuts on the backs of middle-
income employees and retirees in multiemployer pension plans. We should 
not have considered such far-reaching pension reform without 
thoughtful, strenuous, and open debate. So the insertion of a pension 
deal, negotiated behind closed doors, that hurts middle-income 
employees and retirees at the waning hours of a lame duck Congress is 
untenable and further cause for Americans to think that their 
government does not have their back or care about their economic 
security. They will see Congress giving tax deals for race horses and 
NASCAR, while their pensions are cut. That's not how this body should 
govern.
  Now as we enter a new Congress, we will have to confront the 
impending sequester that we will face head on again in fiscal year 
2016, which will seriously frustrate our ability to provide for the 
national defense and general welfare. Those sequestration cuts, brought 
on by the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to reach a deficit 
reduction agreement that included raising revenue, total $109 billion 
per year and will impact non-defense and defense spending equally. So 
again it is striking that many of my colleagues on the other side will 
have no problem voting for $42 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts--or even 
as was reported last month, a $450 billion unpaid-for permanent 
extension of these tax breaks--but when it comes to helping American 
workers or confronting and undoing the sequester cuts to our domestic 
programs my colleagues on the other side apply a tougher standard that 
is tilted against everyday Americans.
  I have made the tough choices in the 1990s to balance the budget and 
I have supported over $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction since 2010, 
over two-thirds of that coming from spending reductions. The deficit is 
on its fastest decline since World War II and has been cut by more than 
half since 2009. But the economy has not been growing fast enough and 
many Americans have seen stagnating wages and have the sense that the 
economy is stacked against them. So I will work with my colleagues, as 
I have consistently tried to do, to urge them to join with Democrats to 
spur broad-based growth for every American and ensure the economy and 
government works for them--not just for large corporations or special 
interests.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate will likely pass 
legislation to extend several dozen expired tax provisions. While I 
support a number of the individual provisions extended by this bill, I 
rise today to explain why I reluctantly plan to oppose it.
  The so-called ``tax extenders'' package includes the 1-year extension 
of a hodgepodge of over 4 dozen tax provisions. This extension is not 
for the year ahead of us, as one might reasonably expect, but rather 
for the year that's mostly past us. In other words, we will be 
extending for 2014 tax programs that expired at the end of 2013. This 
means that, for the most part, the bill will offer credits and 
deductions to reward things that have already happened while doing 
absolutely nothing to help businesses and individuals plan for the 
future.
  If tax policy is intended to influence behavior, the extenders bill 
is a double failure: it spends money rewarding things that have already 
happened and offers no incentives for businesses and individuals for 
the year ahead.
  Let's take for example the production tax credit for wind energy, a 
program I strongly support that encourages the construction of wind 
farms. The provision in the extenders bill offers this incentive for 
properties for which construction has commenced by the end of 2014. 
That's 3 weeks from now. Instead of giving energy companies time to 
plan and prepare wind

[[Page 18995]]

projects, we are saying: if you happen to have one ready to go, you 
have got until the end of the holiday season to break ground. The clock 
is ticking.
  In contrast to Congress's temporary, year-to-year treatment of the 
wind tax credit and other incentives for renewable energy, Big Oil and 
Gas enjoy permanent subsidies in the Tax Code. It is long past time to 
reform the Tax Code so it reflects America's 21st century energy 
priorities. Permanent incentives for oil and gas and temporary programs 
for renewable energy is simply upside-down public policy.
  In total, there are 50 or so extensions in this bill, and the only 
thing they seem to have in common is that Congress repeatedly packages 
them together. It is truly a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. 
Let's start with some of the good provisions. In addition to clean 
energy incentives, the bill extends a popular tax credit that 
encourages businesses to hire veterans, a host of incentives for energy 
efficiency, and a provision that ensures that families that lose their 
homes in foreclosure do not incur tax bills for the deficiencies. These 
provisions have strong bipartisan support.
  Then there is the bad: the unjustifiable tax giveaways. These include 
so-called ``bonus depreciation,'' a program that allows corporations to 
deduct the costs of equipment right away instead of spreading out the 
deductions over the life of the equipment. Congress first included this 
provision in 2009 in the Recovery Act when it made some sense. The idea 
was to encourage businesses to accelerate their purchases when the 
economy most needed the investments. We have extended it so many times, 
though, that now we are just giving money away to corporations for 
buying things they would have bought anyway. That is a nice subsidy for 
the businesses, but not a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
  The bill also includes tax giveaways for NASCAR tracks and 
racehorses. While I know these sports are popular, it is hard to 
justify subsidizing them with taxpayer dollars at a time when we are 
running large deficits and face the prospect of more budget 
sequestration.
  And then there is the ugly, the stuff that does actual harm. There is 
a pair of provisions in the bill--the ``active financing'' and 
``controlled foreign corporation look through'' provisions--that reward 
U.S. corporations for shifting money overseas to avoid paying taxes. 
Sadly, there are already a number of provisions in the Tax Code that 
encourage companies to move operations and assets overseas. We should 
repeal those provisions, not enhance them as the extenders bill does.
  This 1-year, retroactive mixed bag of extensions will increase the 
budget deficit by over $41 billion. To put that figure into 
perspective, that is more than the annual budget for the entire 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Earlier this year, my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, 
led an effort to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of 
Americans who have struggled to find work in this uneven economic 
recovery. Republicans repeatedly filibustered his unemployment 
insurance legislation, with many citing the $17 billion price tag and 
the offsets included to pay for it.
  I expect many of these same Republicans will vote to pass the $41 
billion tax extenders bill, legislation which is not offset and will 
add to the deficit. If Republicans are truly as worried about the 
deficit as many of them claim to be, they need to raise these concerns 
consistently and not forget them when it is convenient. Spending 
through the Tax Code is still spending, and we should offset it.
  Mr. President, next year this body will have new leadership and a 
fresh opportunity to tackle our Nation's problems. I hope Senate 
Republicans will show us they can exercise the power of being in the 
majority responsibly. President Obama says he is eager to work with the 
Republican majority on several major bills including tax reform. I too 
am eager to work with Republicans on sensible, responsible tax reform--
reform that ends the era of year-to-year extensions, eliminates 
wasteful tax spending, and decreases the deficit.
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the rest of our time to Senator Casey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to rise tonight. I 
will have a longer statement later to talk about the ABLE Act that 
Senator Burr and I worked on coming through the Finance Committee and 
talking with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch. I want to thank 
the two leaders--Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell--
for not having just a bipartisan effort in the Senate but really a 
bicameral support for this legislation--over 400 Members of Congress 
supporting the ABLE Act, simple. For years we have created incentives 
in the Tax Code to save for higher education, the cost of college, to 
save for retirement. Now at long last for Americans who have a 
disability, those families will be able to save for a disability, 
whether it is to pay for health care or education, the basic expenses 
that these individuals with disabilities have wanted to save for, for 
many years.
  I am honored to be part of it. I will have a longer statement later. 
This is a great testament to bipartisanship, coming together on such an 
important issue. We believe--this is what undergirds the ABLE Act--
people with a disability have the ability to live a full life if we 
give them the tools. One of those tools is an incentive in the Tax Code 
to save for the future for an individual with a disability.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the 
Finance Committee and the current chairman of the Finance Committee for 
the their help. I want to turn to my good friend Bob Casey about this 
in just a second.
  This has taken 8 years to bring to this point. The amazing thing is 
that we have taken the opportunity to meet with every group on every 
side of this issue and to find agreement finally, and to go out and 
tell the American people what we are doing, and they look at us and say 
this makes commonsense; what took so damned long. I am embarrassed it 
took so long, but this is a product that Congress, the Senate, can be 
proud of.
  Senator Casey just covered a lot of the specifics of the legislation. 
I will not go over those again.
  I want to say to my colleagues: One of the clues that something was 
wrong was the fact that we penalized individuals who had disabilities 
from holding assets. It meant they couldn't buy a car and have it be in 
their name. It meant they could only earn so much before they were 
penalized. What we have done is changed the landscape, and we have 
actually put into effect something that allows them to accumulate 
something for the later years when parents are gone and when they are 
going to need the funds. We have tried to be fiscally responsible in 
capping the annual amounts, capping total amounts, affecting benefits 
if they exceed those amounts, and automatically reinstate them if they 
fall back below.
  I think this is a bill that the Senate and the House of 
Representatives can be proud of. I thank the chairs, and I thank 
Senator Casey. I also want to take the opportunity on behalf of our 
colleagues in the House to say to Congressmen Crenshaw, Sessions and 
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers that we couldn't have done it without 
their leadership and an overwhelming vote in the House of 
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to not only vote yes but to be 
proud of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to personally thank the 
distinguished Senators from North Carolina and Pennsylvania for their 
work on the act. It is a very important bill. I want to give them 
credit for doing such a good job. The Senate will soon vote on

[[Page 18996]]

a 1-year tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively 
extend tax provisions that expire at the end of 2014. It is quite 
literally the best we can do. At this point it is something we must do. 
We are actually disappointed that 1-year package that was sent over to 
the House was basically rejected by the President. We would have 
preferred to have had that package. On the other hand, this is 
reckoning time at the end of the year. I might add in his epic speech, 
Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, ``Never in the field of human 
conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.''
  In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in 
the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and 
been so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, 
we will ensure that the new Congress will start with all of the regular 
so-called tax extenders already expired at the end of the first 
session, as the distinguished Senator from Oregon has explained. That 
is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable in our view.
  The problem of course is the President and some of his allies in the 
Senate pulled the plug on a bipartisan negotiation that would have 
produced a more satisfying result. As we all know, the Speaker of the 
House and the Senate majority leader were, just a few weeks ago, on the 
verge of reaching a deal that both sides could reasonably support. 
President Obama caught wind of the emerging deal which had yet to be 
finalized and promptly issued a veto threat. That threat was then 
ratified by many in this Chamber, including some at the negotiating 
table. For those who wish we were voting on a better extenders package, 
they should know who to blame--President Obama and his supporters in 
the Senate. At this late hour, passing a 1-year extension is the only 
option left for us.
  I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same. I should also note this bill includes, as we have said, the 
ABLE Act--a great piece of legislation that our colleagues, Senators 
Casey and Burr, have worked on for years right up to this point. I want 
to applaud them for their work on behalf of families affected by 
disabilities. I take a great interest in that myself, so I am very 
pleased to see these two leaders getting this bill finally through.
  I am pleased we are coming to the end of this session; hopefully in 
the next year, we can all work together to do an even better job than 
we have done this year.
  How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time does the other side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. The Senate will soon vote on a one-year tax extenders 
package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that 
expired at the end of 2013. It is, quite literally, the least we can 
do, and at this point, it is something we must do.
  The remarkable thing about this tax extenders bill is that no one 
seems to be happy with it. I don't know a single Member of Congress 
that is pleased that we're going to pass a simple, one-year extension 
of expiring provisions. But, sadly, that's where we are. Of course, it 
didn't have to be this way.
  There was a time in the not-too-distant past when we were working on 
a package that would not only extend most of the expired provisions for 
a longer period time, but also make a number of important provisions 
permanent, thus eliminating much of the year-to-year roller coaster 
that individuals, families, and businesses have to go through when 
planning for their taxes.
  There was bipartisan agreement on such an approach. And, in fact, at 
one point it appeared that a deal--a bipartisan, bicameral deal--was on 
the immediate horizon. But, as we all know now, that deal came crashing 
down after the President and some of his more liberal allies here in 
the Senate decided they were unwilling to compromise.
  I came to the floor to talk about this debacle a couple weeks back, 
but some of the points bear repeating.
  Just before Thanksgiving, the Senate majority leader and the Speaker 
of the House were very close to reaching a deal on the tax extenders, 
one that would have included all of the provisions of the Senate 
Finance Committee's extenders package--the EXPIRE Act--while also 
making a number of tax extenders permanent.
  The emerging deal was a reasonable compromise. It would have been 
something both Republicans and Democrats could support, and I have 
little doubt that it would have passed easily through both Chambers.
  It wasn't perfect. There were certainly parts of it that I, 
personally, could have lived without and provisions that most 
Republicans that I know didn't really support. But, as a compromise 
between two negotiating positions, it was a very good deal, and, as I 
said, I believe it would have passed easily through both the House and 
Senate.
  Unfortunately, the deal was not good enough for President Obama, who 
was apparently less willing than the Senate majority leader to 
compromise on the extenders package. Before the negotiations were even 
completed and a deal was even reached, the President issued a veto 
threat. That's right, the President issued a veto threat on a deal 
still under negotiation. That's how eager he was to put the kibosh on a 
compromise.
  That was unfortunate. What was even more unfortunate, however, was 
that parties to the negotiations decided to ratify this threat and pull 
the plug on the deal being negotiated by the leaders of the two 
Chambers. The President's excuse for issuing his veto threat on the 
emerging deal was that it did too much to help the business community 
and not enough to help individuals and families.
  For those of us who have been working on tax issues and have been 
asking the President to engage on these matters, this statement from 
the White House was more than just a little bit strange. After all, 
while Republicans have for years been strongly advocating for 
comprehensive tax reform, encompassing both the individual and business 
tax systems, the President has only expressed a willingness to engage 
in tax reform on the business side. Indeed, he has more or less refused 
to even talk about tax reform for individuals and families, unless, of 
course, such reform amounted to a massive tax increase.
  In other words, he threatened to veto a tax extenders package that, 
in his eyes, only helped businesses and not individuals, while at the 
same time, maintaining a vision for tax reform that did just what he 
said he opposed--helping businesses and not individuals.
  The mental gymnastics at play here are dizzying, and you would be 
forgiven for being confused by the White House's attempt to be on both 
sides of this issue.
  I am definitely confused by the President's statements. I am even 
more confused as to why some of my colleagues here in the Senate opted 
to go along with it.
  It is no secret that things are going to change around here in the 
next Congress. I can't imagine that any of my colleagues really think 
they are going to get a better deal on the tax extenders than the one 
that was being negotiated by the current Senate majority leader. But, 
as is too often the case around here, simple and obvious logic can 
easily be cast aside when there is a political point to be made. That's 
what I think is going on here. Pure politics. Sadly, as is also too 
often the case around here, the American people are the ones who are 
going to suffer.
  Rather than a longer tax extenders deal with some permanency in some 
key provisions, the American people will be left with a 1-year, 
retroactive extension. Rather than being able to plan for the future, 
individuals, families, and businesses will instead have to wait around 
and hope that Congress can do better the next time around.
  Don't get me wrong, I plan to support the 1-year extension, as I have 
said before, but, we could have done better. And, it's unfortunate 
that, once again, politics and an unwillingness to compromise stopped a 
good deal--one that

[[Page 18997]]

would have satisfied the majority of both parties--from being made.
  In his epic speech on the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston 
Churchill stated: ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much 
been owed by so many to so few.''
  In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in 
the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and 
been so disappointed.
  In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, a new Congress will 
start with all the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at 
the beginning of the first session. That is a dubious distinction that 
was entirely avoidable.
  I have been pretty hard on the President for his actions on this 
matter. But, it is not just him. There are many in this Chamber who 
supported and went right along with him, and, as a result, the package 
we will be voting on is not nearly as good as it could have been. But, 
in the end, we don't have much choice on this matter. Passing the 1-
year extension is the only option left to us at this late hour. So, I 
plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Finally, I just want to say I am very pleased that an extremely 
important bill will accompany the extenders package. I'm talking about 
the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, or the ABLE Act.
  The ABLE Act makes permanent changes to the tax code that will 
provide critical assistance to families saving private funds for the 
support of individuals with disabilities. These funds may be used to 
maintain health, independence, quality of life, and pay for all manner 
of disability-related expenses. The funds may be used throughout the 
disabled person's life, an important feature for parents that worry 
about providing for children with lifelong challenges. The funds will 
supplement, but not supplant, benefits provided through private 
insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, and employment.
  I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Casey 
and Senator Burr, who for several years have done the heavy lifting 
necessary to make this law a reality. For decades to come disabled 
Americans will owe these two Senators and their fine staffs an enormous 
debt of gratitude.
  I yield the floor without losing any time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, what is especially 
troubling to me is that we are talking about $418 billion, in effect, 
that is supposed to provide incentives. But it cannot change anything 
taxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. The decisions have been made. This 
is a 2-week bill.
  I would just say, from my own standpoint, having worked with our 
colleague Senator Coats to present a bipartisan alternative, that the 
lesson out of this debate is that this cannot happen again. Senator 
Hatch and I put together a bipartisan bill, the EXPIRE Act. We thought 
that was the way to go. I continue to believe that had we had the 
opportunity, without an alternative process coming out in the home 
stretch, we could have built on that. That is not going to be possible 
tonight.
  I hope that Senators will say, however they vote tonight, that the 
real lesson out of this is when you have an opportunity to provide 
certainty and predictability for the American economy, take it. Do not 
walk away from it. Unfortunately, because this bill is only 2 weeks 
long, that is what we are doing. We are walking away from the chance to 
provide some certainty and predictability.
  Instead, our citizens are going to be in the dark come January 1 with 
respect to taxes. Let's make sure that next time on a bipartisan basis 
we do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will 
yield back ours.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield back the time on our side.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--16

     Bennet
     Brown
     Coats
     Coburn
     Crapo
     Flake
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Portman
     Risch
     Scott
     Toomey
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boxer
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Lee
     Sanders
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, 
the bill (H.R. 5771) is passed.

                          ____________________