[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8984-8986]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               EXPIRE ACT

  Mr. WYDEN. I wish to speak for a few minutes about the urgency of 
passing the tax extender bill and describe to our colleagues all the 
bipartisanship that has gone into this important effort.
  This bill is truly urgent because America's employers file their 
taxes quarterly, which means they are paying higher taxes today without 
this tax extender package, which means less money for hiring and 
training workers, less money for buying new equipment, and less money 
for investing in innovation and growing jobs at home.
  For example, a restaurant owner who needs to replace a walk-in 
freezer to keep their business running is going to pay higher taxes 
because they can't, in effect, hold down the costs through the 
provision in the tax bill. That means they will be cutting shifts and 
cutting workers.
  This bill is just as urgent for millions of other American families; 
for example, a family with a college student who is registering for 
summer school this week and is going to lose a tuition tax break and 
homeowners whose place is now worth less than they paid for it. They 
finally caught a break recently from their lender, and without this 
legislation they will now face a real tax increase on phantom income. 
So that is why this bill is so timely, so urgent.
  I am going to spend a few minutes talking about the extraordinary 
bipartisan team effort that went into putting this legislation 
together, getting it through the Finance Committee, and sending it to 
the Senate floor. The process began almost immediately after Chairman 
Baucus went to China, when my staff and I began working with Senator 
Hatch and his staff, as well as other committee members on both sides 
of the aisle.
  We recognized that this would not be an easy bill to write, so 
Senator Hatch and I agreed to limit the focus of the legislation to tax 
extenders, the stop-and-go tax policies that we both think should end 
with comprehensive tax reform. After a lot of sweat equity put in by 
Democrats and Republicans on the committee, I introduced the EXPIRE 
Act, and that was the beginning of the bipartisan odyssey to make sure 
this bill was passed--and passed quickly--so as to deal with those 
urgent needs I described.
  Before the committee met for markup, Senators offered 93 amendments, 
including 36 from Republicans. My team and I worked with both sides of 
the committee to incorporate 13 amendments into a modified bill. Eleven 
of them had Republican sponsors or cosponsors.
  Then when the committee got together for markup, there were 
additional amendments--seven more approved, including three from 
Republicans.
  This bill is thoroughly bipartisan. The committee held to the 
agreement Senator Hatch and I struck to keep the focus on tax extender 
policies, and I want to make one thing very clear. Those bipartisan 
amendments--the ones we have already included--have made the 
legislation better. If you want the best proof, look at the amendment 
offered by our colleagues Senator Roberts and Senator Schumer, a 
Democrat and a Republican. It did important work to strengthen the tax 
credit for research and development. By the way, this bipartisan 
amendment built on another bipartisan idea, a first-rate idea from 
Senator Coons and Senator Enzi to improve the credit; in particular, to 
make it more attractive for the small businesses, those businesses 
across the country starting in a garage. It would allow innovative 
startups to use the R&D credit to help pay their employees' wages.
  This is smart policy--not Democratic policy or Republican policy--
because it

[[Page 8985]]

encourages American innovation, the engine of economic progress, and 
makes that engine stronger than it is today. It is going to make it 
easier for young companies to hire new workers, and it is exactly the 
kind of bipartisanship that the country is making it clear it is hungry 
for.
  There are other bipartisan examples I could cite that all prove the 
same point, but I wish to wrap up by saying now the Senate has the 
chance, using exactly that procedure, to make the bill even stronger. 
It was made clear last week by the majority leader, by myself, and 
others that we are open to amendments that build on what went on in the 
committee. By the way, there are lots of them.
  I was here on Friday until late week and through the weekend talking 
to colleagues, an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. It would 
be one thing if there weren't a lot of germane issues, relevant issues, 
to choose from. That is not the case. There are dozens of amendments 
from Senators on both sides of the aisle that directly relate to the 
topic in question--these stop-and-go provisions that have expired--and 
if we don't move to renew them, our economy is going to get hurt in 
ways I have described.
  Our goal all along on the Senate floor has been to replicate exactly 
the kind of bipartisanship that went on in the Finance Committee. I 
absolutely believe that is still possible. That is why I described it.
  As soon as the vote was cast last week, I spent the weekend looking 
for a bipartisan pathway. We had encouraging calls over the weekend 
indicating that both sides of the aisle wanted to work together to make 
progress. We had additional conversations about this through the week. 
Some Senators were concerned they wouldn't have a chance to offer any 
amendments whether they focused on tax extenders or not. But as I said 
then, and I repeat now, I am open to hearing from colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle about their amendments. I can keep repeating it 
again and again, but I hope the point is getting through.
  If I had brought a billboard to the floor, as sometimes people do, 
the billboard would say: ``BRING ON THE AMENDMENTS'' in big capital 
letters.
  I will wrap up by saying I know the bill is not the legislation that 
every Senator wants, and--if I had my first choice--we would be working 
on comprehensive tax reform rather than the extenders, but it hasn't 
been possible to do that. Today the Senate needs to focus on the urgent 
business at hand; that is, making sure our people don't get punished.
  If the Senate doesn't act on this bill, we would be punishing 
veterans coming home looking for jobs, we would punish innovators, we 
would be punishing small businesses, punishing those homeowners who are 
underwater on their mortgages, and punishing students with the 
mountains of debt.
  I close by saying any colleague who is for that let me know because I 
don't know of a single Senator, not one, who thinks that is a good 
idea--when our economy is so fragile--to weigh it down with a tax hike. 
There aren't any Senators who are telling me they want to subject 
American families and business to yet more uncertainty about their tax 
bill.
  So our legislation, our bipartisan legislation, would keep that from 
happening. It is absolutely essential that the Senate come together in 
a bipartisan way, build on exactly what we did in the Senate Finance 
Committee, and get this legislation across the goal line.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, let me compliment our new chairman of the Finance 
Committee. He is doing a great job on this bill. He is keeping the 
tenor bipartisan as he has done throughout his whole career. He has 
only been there a short while, but he is taking to the chairmanship 
like a fish to water.
  I wish to follow up. There is so much that is bipartisan in this 
bill. It was a bipartisan bill that passed out of committee 
unanimously. I worked on an amendment with Senator Roberts that Senator 
Coons had originated for the R&D credit with Senators Cardin, Isakson, 
and Blunt to improve the section 181 live production incentive so we 
keep the film industry here, not London or Canada; Senators Portman and 
Cardin worked on energy efficiency; Senators Brown and Portman on 
disadvantaged workers; and Cantwell and Roberts on low-income housing 
tax credit. The list goes on and on. As a result, this bill has broad 
support: the Business Roundtable, Grover Norquist, as well as the NEA 
and Feeding America.
  So where are we. And I would like to further elaborate on what the 
chairman has said. We are willing to vote on amendments.
  I always think of my dear friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who 
remembers how the place used to work and constantly reminds us--and 
that is a very good and salutary thing in this body. He would say on 
most bills there would be bipartisan support in the committee. The 
ranking member and the chair would get together with a list of 
amendments, each for his or her side, and they would come up with the 
list.
  We are willing to do that. In fact, Leader Reid has been extremely 
generous. He said we are not going to decide it should be this one and 
not that one, as long as the amendments are germane to this extenders 
bill. Of course we can't open the whole Tax Code for debate or debate 
the merits of the ACA on this bill. This is not the type of bill to do 
that.
  It is a bipartisan bill, as Chairman Wyden outlined, that is very 
necessary. So we would plead, almost, with our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, for the sake of the country, come up with some 
amendments, a list. If it is 100, obviously Senators Wyden and Hatch 
will have to whittle it down. If it is five or six from your side and 
five or six from our side and they are germane to extenders, we will 
have to vote them up or down.
  But the cry from the other side--which I have sympathy with, even 
though I don't agree that they tell the whole story--is let us do 
amendments. We are answering that plea. Leader Reid has made it clear, 
Chairman Wyden has made it clear we are not going to pick and say we 
will do this one and not that one.
  The only two limits that I can tell are time--we can't do 100 or 200 
of these, but as the Senator from Tennessee constantly reminds us, that 
is not going to happen--nor can we go far afield way beyond the bounds 
of this bill. Germaneness makes sense in such a bipartisan and 
important bill, but other than that, let's let it rip.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are discussing 
this. I know they are very serious about it. I have talked to 
colleagues on the floor, in the gym, and in the corridors of these 
bodies about getting this done.
  It is so important for the country. Even beyond that, if we can't 
work in a bipartisan way on this bill, which was put together by 
Senators Wyden and Hatch in such a bipartisan way, which has so much 
input from both sides of the aisle and where the offer is let's do 
amendments, not picking and choosing--we will pick this one, not that 
one--simply limited to what the bill is all about, germaneness, then we 
will not get anything done.
  I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--on my side of the 
aisle, so many Members--and I sympathize with them--who desire to 
legislate and do amendments, we have made that offer. Harry, the 
leader, the chairman, and I am fully part of this, have made the offer 
to let's do amendments.
  We hope the folks on the other side--it is sort of a little bit of a 
test. I am not throwing down any kind of gauntlet, but if we can't come 
up with a way to legislate on this bill, a bipartisan bill that has the 
support of the left, right, and center, that everyone agrees with, as 
Senator Wyden outlined how much America needs them, what are we going 
to be able to be legislate?
  We have a little time. We have 1 week where we can discuss this while 
we are in our districts working away. Let's get this done. I plead with 
my colleagues--``plead'' is the right word, the right verb--come up 
with a list. We will come up with our list, and then

[[Page 8986]]

let's roll up our sleeves, get to work on the floor, and pass this 
bill.
  I believe if we do, the other body will. The other body--one other 
point--has different ideas. They want to make a few of these permanent. 
That is a legitimate amendment in the bounds that Leader Reid has 
talked about. Let's vote on it. Let's debate it and vote on it. That is 
what we are supposed to do. If the other body's wisdom prevails, it 
will make it easier to pass the bill. Even if the other body's wisdom 
doesn't prevail, they will see that our body has a chance to debate it 
and decide on it.
  Again, we are willing not to pick amendments--I know there is a 
complaint on the other side of the aisle that our leadership picks 
which amendments. We are not doing that. All we are saying is they 
ought to be germane to tax extenders, focused on the issue at hand, 
which is the extenders. This is not a bill that came out of a figment 
of the imagination of four Democratic Senators with no Republican 
input.
  If we can't legislate on this bill, then what bill can we? I would 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ask them to get us 
the list they come up with of amendments they wish to vote on.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________