tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN December 14, 2010 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
twice as long as we're maintaining federal unemployment benefits. this bill's estate tax provisions provide a windfall for the richest fraction of 1% of americans. and in these tough economic times and with these current deficits, we should be spending money only on those policies that will create the most jobs. but as i mentioned and in spite the concerns i have about this bill, it undeniably provides essential help to minnesota's families. this package reauthorizes emergency unemployment benefits through the end of next year. they are a vital lifelon lifelir families in need and a vital lifeline for our economy. i meet people back in minnesota
who tell me that they hate taking unemployment benefits but that they would have lost their homes without it. unemployment benefits yield $2 in demand for every $1 spent, according to a new report from the department of labor. this is a very effective way to stimulate our economy and create jobs. the same holds for the payroll tax holiday that's included in this package, it's going to put real dollars in the hands of millions of americans, dollars that they're going to spend. i strongly support extending the expanded earned income tax credit which helps about 6.5 million working parents. i'm glad this legislation includes the american opportunity tax credit, making
college tuition more affordable for 8 million students. this bill also extends the renewable energy grant program, the r&d tax credit, the ethanol and biodiesel tax credits, all provisions that i strongly support. voting "no" on this legislation would be voting "no" on all of these vital programs. the economists are in general agreement this legislation will help the economy. mark zandi on his economic analysis, i've frequently relied in the past, has encouraging projections. he sees this package hagd a full percentage -- adding a full percentage point to economic growth next year. he's especially optimistic about the new business deductions, potential to spur spending. many fact, he predicts that unemployment will reach below 9% by the end of next year and will close in on 7.5% by the end
2012. these figures are all significantly better than what we'd expect without this legislation. this wasn't the bill that i would have wanted. if there were a better way, i would do it in a heartbeat. but today we are forced to decide between taking a stand against irresponsible tax cuts for millionaires versus helping struggling families. given that choice, i simply can't turn my back on all minnesotans that desperately need the help that this bill will provide. thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask thatfuthat further proceedings r the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, two weeks ago all 42 republican senators signed a letter threatening to filibuster any extension of tax cuts for middle-class americans or any continuation of unemployment benefits unless and until the senate agreed to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. as many have pointed out correctly, republicans have been holding middle-class tax cuts and benefits for the unemployment hostage to the extent of tax cuts for the very rich. well, mr. president, it appears that the hostage-taking incident is nearly over. the hostages -- the unemployed -- will be released. the ransom will be paid.
wealthy americans who make a million dollars or more a year will receive an average tax break of more than $100,000. indeed, in the course of negotiations to rescue the hostages, republicans demanded and got an even more royal ransom. they demanded and got a giveaway on estate taxes that will benefit only the wealthiest one-quarter of 1% of the u.s. population. the heirs of a single estate worth $1 billion would save $100 million thanks to the ransom demanded by the republicans. mr. president, at this point, i would just like to ask consent to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, no question champagne corks are popping on wall street and in
america's most exclusive country clubs and boardrooms, the super rich and their heirs are i'm sure throwing lavish christmas parties and new year's parties. tiffany jewelers, no doubt, is looking forward to selling a record number of $28,100 -- i'm to her, $29,800 watches. -- i'm sorry, $29,800 watches. that's it. giving those over a million dollars a year $100,000 tax breaks, well, they can buy this wristwatch here for $29,800. advertised in "the new york times." made in switzerland. now, maybe if it was made in america, you'd say, well, at least it's made in america. it's not made here. see, this is what the very rich spend their extra $100,000 on, things like that. doesn't help our economy. but what about the rest of america? what about those who don't shop at tiffany's? is this a good deal for the
american people overall? well, mr. president, i have come to the conclusion it is not. at a time when our annual deficit is close to $1 trillion, much of it borrowed from china, at a time when the wealthy are already enjoying a huge surge in income, even as middle-class incomes are stagnant, it is simply obscene to give another lavish tax cut to the top 2%. let me say what should be painfully obvious about this new bonanza for the rich -- they don't need it and we can't afford it. they don't need it and we can't afford it. and it will not help the econo economy. in fact, in the longer term, i believe it will hurt our econo economy. these new tax breaks for the rich are terrible public policy. let me just briefly mention just four reasons why these tax cuts are harmful. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: would my friend yield for a unanimous consent request?
mr. harkin: absolutely. always glad to yield to my leader. mr. reid: skilled that the record not show the intription -- i would ask that the report not show the interruption. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be considered expired when the senate resumes consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 4853 on wednesday, december 15. except for the time provided for under this agreement. the senate resume the house message at 11:00 a.m. wednesday and there be one hour remaining for debate divided as follows: 10 minutes for the majority -- under the control of the majority and republican leaders or their designees, senator demint, coburn, landrieu and sanders, that the following be -- that the following be the only motions to suspend the rules in order during the duration of this agreement: coburn motion to suspend with respect to amendment number 4765, demint motion to suspend with respect to amendment number 4084. snanders motion to suspend with respect to amendment 4809.
that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate then proceed to vote on disposition of the motions in the order listed. that upon disposition of the listed motions, no further motions or amendments be in order. further, that if any motion is successful and the second-degree amendment be withdrawn and the senate proceed to vote immediately on the amendment covered under any successful motion. that if not motion is successful, the second-degree amendment be withdrawn and without further intervening action or debate, the senate then proceed to vote on the reid of nevada motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853, with the reid-mcconnell amendment number 4753. that upon disposition of the house message, the senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 2:15 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. hark harkin: mr. president,
first, these new tax breaks will make income inequality in the united states even worse. in event years in the grip of the great recession, many millions of ordinary working americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, but the wealthy have made out very, very well. today, income inequality -- inequality -- in america is at an all-time high. the top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 90%. at the same time, the bottom 90% holds 73% of all personal debt in this country. 80% of all additional income earned between 1980-2005 has gone to the top 1%. let me repeat. 80% of all additional income earned from 1980-2005 has gone to the top 1%.
the gap grows wider. in 2009, in the wake of the taxpayer bailout of wall street, goldman sachs paid its employees an average of nearly $600,000 per person. executives at goldman sachs received bonuses totaling $13 billion. so why in the world would this congress vote to make this already extreme income inequality even worse? why in the world would we vote to borrow tens of billions of dollars from china to make the rich even richer? this is foolish. and it is recklessly irresponsible. the second reason why this is a bad agreement, again, the distribution of these new tax cuts is radically skewed in favor of the wealthy. as i said earlier, those who earn $1 million and above, would on average receive an annual tax
break of $100,000. by contrast, an average american taxpayer earning $26,000 would receive a tax break of $670. in 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers in the united states took home an average income o of $892 million. yes, you heard that right. their individual annual income averaged nearly .9% o of $1 billion per person. under this agreement would get an income tax worth as much as $50 million. reason number three why this is a bad agreement, the nearl nearly $900 billion of tax cuts in this agreement would crowd out the necessary investments an priorities such as education,
infrastructure, homeland security, health care, scientific research, in other words, we're eating our seed corn. borrowing money to pay for short-term tax cuts rather than for long-term investments that develop our human capital and our physical infrastructure for the future. now, as a contrast, the united states right now invests about 2.4% of our g.d.p., our gross domestic product, in infrastructure. china invests almost four times our rate, 9% of their g.d.p. annually goes to infrastructure. china invested $186 billion just in rail in the last three years. within two years they will hope 42 new high-speed rail lines
with trains reaching speeds of 200 miles an hour. by 2020 china plans to add 26,000 additional miles of tracks for freight and travel as well as 230,000 miles of new and improved roads an 97 -- and 97 new airports. so what do we have then, mr. president? what we have is we're borrowing money from china in order to pay for short-term -- at the same time china is using its wealth to invest in infrastructure so they will be more competitive in the world economy in the future. now, we're going to try did mark my word, mr. president, mark my word, we are going to be coming up with some bills to invest in
a new highway bill. we have a new highway bill coming up. we're going to invest in new highways, probably invest in other kinds of infrastructure projects. i'm sure that the senator from colorado knows how many sewer and water projects in colorado are going underfunded right now that need to be done. i have the same in the state of iowa. and we think about high-speed rail. i saw a recent figure that said 60% of all of the flights that originate out of o'hare airport in chicago go 300 miles or less. and it's overcrowded. one bad day of weather, like the other day, thousands of airplanes backed up all over the country because of bad weather.
300 miles, that could be high-speed rail. to go from chicago to detroit could take almost all day. high-speed rail could take a couple of hours. maybe you wouldn't want to take an airplane. we should have high-speed rail from boston to miami, from seattle to san diego, and hubs in the midwest from chicago going out to kansas city and st. louis an des moines and only -- and des moines and omaha and cincinnati, cleveland. we're not doing it. we're not doing it. so we're borrowing money from china to pay for -- we're going into debt and then when our bills come up to try to fund programs to build our infrastructure, our republican friends will say we can't afford it. we don't have the money. it will crowd it out. it will crowd it out why? so we can give some of the richest in our country anothe
another $100,000 for people wi with $1 billion estates getting an extra $100 million so they can go out an buy those $29,000 wrist watches or $2,500 cashmere scarves or whatever it might be? if our debt continues to grow at unsustainable rates, we're going to find ourselves very soon in the same position as greece, ireland, and spain today. we'll reach a tipping point where international bond vigilantes will short our debt. this will radically drive up interest rates in the u.s., force us to make even more duran draconian cuts for everything from scientific research to health care. this may suit the agenda of right wing would be delighted to see education and health care
programs gutted, but would be a disaster for ordinary working americans and for our economy as a whole. one last, fourth, reason why this is a bad agreement. the nonpartisan congressional budget office ranks tax cuts for the rich as dead last among the various options for boosting the economy and creating jobs. this is hardly surprising. as i said the wealthy are the least likely to spend new tax cuts, they can only buy so man many $29,800 wrist watches. by contrast virtually every dime of emergency unemployment is spent on necessities such as food, rent, transportation. middle and lower income taxpayers are most likely to spend most if not all of their modest tax cuts. this creates jobs and has a positive multiplier effect across the economy. benefits -- under this agreement benefits for the unemployed are
extended for one year while tax cuts for the rich are extended two years and now more likely to be extended far beyond that. mr. president; if we're going to -- mr. president, if we're going to borrow -- if we're going to borrow additional hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors, namely china, shouldn't we insist that the money is spent in ways that benefit our economy in the long term? we're going to -- if we're going to borrow the money, let's build our infrastructure so that our private sector five years, 10 years from now will be more efficient. we'll be able to compete more effectively in the world economy. and, i might add, in these infrastructure jobs put americans to work. it's one of the best multiplier effects that we have. why is that? it's easy? when you build a new school, the work has to be done locally.
you can't ship the work out to india. think about most of the materials that go into a school. think about it, the bricks, the mortar, the rerods, the wall board, the sheet rock, most of the lighting and the conduits, the piping, switches, floor tiles, windows, doors, most of it is made in america. most of that is made here. so when you spend $1 on something like that, the work is done locally, helps the local economy, plus all the materials -- not all, but most of the materials are made in america. that dollar spins around. you give someone an extra $100,000, they spen spent $29,800 on a watch, i don't think that benefits many americans. maybe the jewelry store. maybe tiffany's where you buy it. maybe they get some. sure they do. but that goes out of the
country. you give extra money to people to buy a new flat screen tv, yeah, there's some benefit here. the retailer that sells it, maybe the shipper that brought it in. the majority of it goes overseas. majority of it goes overseas. that's why i say if we're going to borrow money -- if we're going to borrow money, put it into infrastructure. it provides a lot of jobs and provides a great multiplier effect in our economy and you get something at the end of it. -- of it that's going to benefit our kids and our grandkids. so i repeat with this agreement we're eating our seed corn. instead of borrowing to invest in fruit iewrks we're -- future, we're borrowing to pay for consumption today. within the next two years the hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars will just go poof. they'll be gone. nothing to show for it, not one new highway, not one new bridge, not one new school. our economic competitors are not making these kind of foolish
choices. as for fareed pointed out in "the washington post" on sunday china has doubled its investment in education, rocketing to the very top in the most recent educational rankings of educational achievement. the chinese are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to build the world's most advanced infrastructure. according to reuters, the chinese government is planning to invest $1.5 trillion over the next five years in seven targeted sectors, alternative energy, biotechnology, new generation information technology, high-end equipment manufacturing, advanced materials, alternative fuel cars, and energy-saving technologies. $1.5 billion over the next five years. you know what this tax will cost us over the next five years? about $1 trillion. what will we have to show for it? nothing. nothing.
well, instead of boring yoag -- borrowing these billions, we should use it to modernize our crumbling infrastructure. we should invest in biomedical research, technology for future, educate our young people to perform the high-end shows sectors -- those sectors would create. it would have huge payoffs for future generations. the needs are enormous. a recent report determined that the current need just for improved school infrastructure is more than $250 billion nationwide. e.p.a., enviromental protection agency estimates that we need to invest more than $200 billion in wastewater treatment. and, as we all know, our interstate highways an many bridges are -- and many bridges are in desperate need of repair or replacement. it is simply shameful to continue to neglect the basic
infrastructure investments even as we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for new tax cuts and consumption. lastly, mr. president, my fifth reason for not supporting this tax package is the 2% cut in social security taxes for one year. 2%. so we go from 6.2% down to 4.2%. well, that might sound like a good idea. put some more money in people's pockets. but why are we taking it out of the social security trust fund? mark my word, a year from now -- one year from now, assuming this bill passes and i guess they've got the votes for it, one year from now when we come back, and we're going to want to get that back up to 6.2%, our republican friends are going to say that's a tax increase. it's a tax increase on
hard-working americans. you're going to go from 4% -- 4.2% to 6.2%. and people will be afraid, oh, no, we can't raise those taxes. an thus, we will set in motion -- we will set in motion with this tax package, i think, a pressure to begin the dismantling of the social security trust fund. we haven't done this before. and we shouldn't be doing it now. they'll come in, there will be 4% for one year, 4.2%, next year it will go back to 6.2%, we'll be accused of raising taxes on hard-working americans, therefore, we need to extend it. and as we extend, it that means that more money will come from general revenues. we'll -- will have to come from general revenues to put in the social security trust fund.
okay. let me repeat this. right now every working american puts in 6.2% of their income into social security. that's a trust fund. trust fund. now they're going to take it from 6.2% down to 4.2% and say, ok, you're going to keep in your pocket 2% for one year. a year from now we'll come in there, oh, no, we can't go back to 6.2%, that's an increase in taxes on working americans. okay. we'll extend it. how are we going to make up for the 2% cut? we're we're supposed to make up for it with general revenues. how are we going to make it up with general revenues when it is gb to be argued that the deficit is so high, the debt is owe big we got to cut spending. therefore, we can't put the money from general revenues back into social security. what's the answer? raise the retirement age on
social security. cut back on the benefits on social security. maybe cut down on disability benefits. all kinds of things to cut down on social security so we don't have to take money from general revenues to put back into social security trust fund. mark my word, it is coming. the a coming. -- it's coming. now, what is it that no one is talking about, mr. president? first of all, there is no deficit in the social security trust fund. the social security trust fund can continue to pay out 100% of before thes until about 2037 -- benefits until about 2037. then it can only afford to pay out about 75% of benefits. not zero, but 75%. what could fix that? one very simple thing. it is called equity. it is called fairness.
it is called justice. right now if you work and you make $40,000 a year, you pay on every dollar you make 6.2% into social security. if you make $400,000 a year, you're only paying in 6.2% on 25 cents of a dollar. why is that? because social security payments are capped at $106,800 a year. that means you pay 6.2% up to $106,800. over that you don't pay any more into social security. think of how many people in this country make $4 million a year. they pay on $106,000 a year, a fraction of what they make. it seems to me fairness -- and equity would argue -- that if a working person who makes $20,000
or $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year has to pay on every dollar into social security, why shouldn't someone who's making $400,000 or $800,000 or $1 million or $4 million? why shouldn't they pay in? raise that cap so that everybody pays that 6.2% on every dollar they make. you know what? social security will have no problems for the next 100 years -- well, actually 75. for 75 years. no problems. why aren't we talking about that? why aren't we talking -- why aren't we debating and voting on whether or not we should raise the cap and then make social security fund -- and we won't have to take 2% out of the social security trust fund. mark my word, it is coming. it's coming. the pressure is going to be built to damage the social
security benefits. it is going to start about a year from now. it is going to start about a year from now. so, mr. president, i cannot support the bill that is before us. it will exacerbate income i inequality, it will give tax cuts that we can't afford, and they don't need, to the wealthiest people. instead of investing that money in infrastructure and the future. it will begin a process of dismantling the social security trust fund. these are misplaced priorities, i think bad values. it is a misguided bill that will drive our nation deeper into debt with it would little to show for it in the long run. i might be for going into debt if you got something to show for it, like when my wife and i got married and we bought a house. you go into debt. but i knew if we worked handers saved our money, we could pay off on that house and we'd have something to show for it.
we didn't just borrow money so that we could go to fancy restaurants and have nice meals. or buy a very expensive car or buy nice clothes. no, we put it in the house. because you know you're going to have something. the same with infrastructure. at least if you're going to borrow money, have something to show for it in the end. so, again, it'll drive us deeper into debt, too little to show for it in the long run, and, mr. president, that's why i am going to have to vote against this package. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. over the last few weeks i've met and talked with many people across ohio about our nation's economic future. family and friends, constituents struggling to get by, ministers and pastors who counsel them. i've read letters and e-mails from ohioans who need unemployment insurance to find a new job and provide for their families. i've heard from concerned citizens who are willing to sacrifice for them. erica from cleveland wrote me, i make enough money to get by. i was ready for my taxes to go back up and i could have figured out a way to deal with it but i'm terrified for folks losing their jobs or getting by on low to moderate incomes. i worry if they lose their unemployment benefits or their refundable tax credits that the stress will be too much for too many. i'm sickened at the idea of giving such incredibly wealthy
people a tax break. i worry about the folks on the other end. the debate of whether or not to send bush tax cuts has been revealing about our policies and about the needs of people worried about putting food on the table. my top priority is to ensure that middle class tax holds get tax relief and unemployed ohioans can continue to pay their bills and provide for their families while they look for work. and it's my priority to ensure that people's lives are not used in a cynical, political calculation. a lot of people are angry about this bill and they should be. that's why i filed amendments aimed at easing the financial burden on middle class households, on small businesses, on seniors, on american manufacturers, they're issues that deserve real debate an america's middle class deserve real tax relief. i'm angry that republican senators insist on awarding bonus handouts to millionaires and billionaires.
but i'd be more angry if we let them continue to play games with people's livelihoods. that's why it's with great reluctance that even though i oppose the cloture vote yesterday because i still hoped maybe beyond hope that we could come to a real agreement that would work for the middle class, work for the unemployed, and work for our budget deficit, we clearly could not, it's with great reluctance that i vote in favor of this bill. too many working families, men, women, children are already suffering too much pain and anxiety. they need help now. but let's not forget, mr. president, something -- how something happened this month in the united states senate that we've never seen before perhaps never in our nation's history. a political party, the minority party, all 42 of them -- all 42 of those senators in the minority party threatened for all intents and purposes to stop working. -- to stop working unless the majority party agreed to cut
taxes for america's wealthiest 315,000 people. 315,000 out of 165 million tax holders -- taxpayers. that's less than one-fifth of 1% of all federal taxpayers. the minority party, the 42 minority party members, u.s. senators, were saying, we will do nothing until you take air of the 315,000 -- take care of the 315,000 out of 165 million until you take care of the 315,000 wealthiest taxpayers in this nation. because nothing much happens anymore in the u.s. senate without a super majority of 60 votes. the minority party knew that its threats to stop everything just might work. two weeks ago all 42 senate republicans signed a letter to majority leader reed telling him they would block everything until the senate passed tax cuts for millionaires, for deca
millionaires, for billionaires, it is ironic that -- would effectively engage in a strike itself. this republican work stoppage since i guess senators can't actually go on strike, this republican work stoppage means no tax cuts for the middle class unless millionaires get a larger tax cut. it means leaving middle-class families and unemployed workers in the cross hairs unless decamillionaires got a tax cut. their threat means unemployment for workers would end unless billionaire c. o.'s got their estate tax reduced. it means that we can't provide the earned -- vital assistance, it means blocking a cost of living increase for seniors on social security to help by medicine, food and shelter. it means we can't address national security concerns like
the new start treaty, something that national security experts in every living secretary of state support. it means we can't do any of these things, provide for our nation's economic health and national security until we take care of the millionaires and billionaires first. tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of our country including, i should add, lots of u.s. senators, comes first, we're told. but what about the 86,000 ohio workers who saw their unemployment benefits run out two weeks ago or the 108,000 ohioans expected to lose benefits at the end of the month? sorry, get in line behind the millionaires who get $90,000 in tax cuts. how about the insurance agent in zanesville, ohio, who makes 60,000, and hopes for a tax cut of $800 to help a daughter at a community college. too bad not until a millionaire receives a tax cut of $400,000.
what about a single mother with two children earning $30,000 a year and hoping for expanded child care in expanded tax credit? too bad, wait for the billionaire to get a tax cut of tens of billions of dollars. what do people think is about, that we can't help people who lost their jobs, that we can't extend a tax break to a sales clerk making $27,000 a year who's raising two children until the millionaire gets his tax? that we kutluay the tax until the richest 1% of the country gets tens of thousands of dollars tax cuts. to hold millions hostage, as 42 senators have done may be the most cynical political act i have seen. in a recent plain dealer article, susan harold who doesn't like how tax cuts for the wealthy is a condition for
maintaining unemployment benefit said of the deal, it's like extortion, either you do what we say or several million americans will be living on the street. think about that. this is an unemployed, laid off bookkeeper, like many people who write me, many people have worked all their lives, 20, 30, 40 years, they're laid off. susan writes it's like extortion, give us our tax cuts for millionaires or several million americans will be living on the streets. what kind of country is this that such a cynical, cynical exercise would happen? the same article debbie klein compares the choices weighing tax cuts for the rich and people not eating, living and surviving. some say the republicans are merely obstructing or gaming the senate rules. but i'm with susan, legislative extortion may be a more accurate description. unfortunately we may have to pay the ransom. that income tax cuts that -- that means tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires in exchange for unemployment insurance and middle class tax relief. let me tell you about some people who are caught in the middle. michael from shelby county in western ohio writes me, i'm an unemployed father of four, one of the tens of thousands of faceless ohioans about to be cut off from unemployment benefits. it's obscene to think that a tax giveaway for the wealthy is gaining more traction politically than helping working class people surviesm as an unemployed -- survive. as an unemployed worker, i have no lobby, i have to worry about losing my home, my credit rating and any sense of being a beneficiary of the american dream. what am i supposed to do? 42 republicans say, sorry, get in line. wait until we give the tax cuts for the rich. stacy from megs county on the ohio river. i'm the mother of three school-aged children, honor students. i have a masters in education at
ohio state. i teach at a public school system in employ highway. my -- in ohio. my husband's been unemployed for 18 months. he worked part time, maintaining an excellent grade point average. we worked very hard as a family to adjust to our change in circumstance, however, with loss of $60,000-plus in income, we had to file chapter 13. now we're faced with not having any unemployment benefits. this will be a loss of another $450 a week. we need to feed our family please vote to extend unemployment for all unemployed workers who are trying to better themselves during this economic crisis. what about the budget deficit which concerns all of us? two weeks ago when the deficit commission released its report members of both parties somber i will explained that nothing mattered as much as the increasing debt that will burden our children and grandchildren. a year from now when republicans will likely block extension of unemployment, we will remind
them how they're ow own $128 billion for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires over the next three years alone have blown a hole in the budget. we'll remind of them of what their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will cost when they argue for cuts to education, for privatization of medicare and social security, for scaling back health care. let's not forget the republican -- the congressional republicans who were outspoken about the debt or the people most responsible for it. congressional republicans have said that cutting taxes on the highest earners would pay for themselves. they haven't. the presiding officer sat in the house of representatives in those days when the huge bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 passed. they all said -- they always said they would pay for themselves, not even close. we went from a surplus when president clinton left office, the largest surplus in the united states' history to massive deficits when
president bush left office, the largest deficits up to that point in american history. sea they said the tax cuts -- they said the tax cuts -- those -- the congressional republicans who were the most responsible for this economic situation with president bush, they said that tax cuts for the wealthiest would grow the economy and create jobs. they haven't. under president bush -- under president bush for eight years we lost -- we lost -- 673,000 private-sector jobs. we actually declined the number of americans working in the private sector during those eight years frvment 2001 to 2007 we had below-average economic growth. republicans say that if millionaires have to pay the same tax that they did before the bush ta tax cuts -- that is, during the clinton years -- then job creation will sumplet but it is fact that during the clinton years yeted 22 million jobs in those eight years. again, 21 million private-sector jobs, 22 million overall.
21 million private-sector jobs compared to private-sector job loss during the bush years. congressional republicans voted for the iraq war but ignored its cost charging it to our children and grandchildren. 2003, republicans voted to bail out the drug and insurance companies in the name of medicare privatization and charge it tower children and grandchildren. the last decade is any indication, it is a trickle-down economics simply don't work. the last decade has showed its failed history as an experiment. meanwhile, the last two years alone, democrats, usually without republican support, have already passed $500 billion in tax cuts through the recovery act, through the small business act, through the "hire" act. our economic policies that are focused on the middle class are helping to create jobs and turn around our economy and for the past 50 years republicans have actuals -- congress, republicans and democrats alike have also acted to provide extended unemployment during tough economic times. that's because it is not only a
moral obligation but also an economic stimulus for our economy. the same goes for the child care and the earned-income tax credits. they strengthen the middle class, they give people opportunity to join the middle class, they help those -- they help the economy by injecting money into the economy that's spent. so this debate, mr. president, in closing, really comes down to whose side are you on and who are you fighting for. it is a choice between paying an extortionist ransom, we're going to do a work stoppage unless you give tax cuts for the rich -- it is a choice between paying an extortionist ransom or letting the middle class shrink and struggle. it is a choici can't look an unemployed work in the eye and tell them that our political principles stand in the way of their earned benefits. as much as i shrike what they did -- as much as i dislike what they did and how much they did it, as much as i dislike these tax cuts that go overwhelmingly
to the rich people, the estate taxes, as much as i dislike that i just can't imagine saying to an unemployed worker, sorry, as much as i would want to help you, i just don't believe this is fair that we should do this. i can't look at a single mother making $27,000 a year and say that the earned-income tax credit is not important because it is for you and turn my back on them. they should -- the unemployed worker, the single parent makerring $28,000 a year working two jobs should not have to spend the holiday season and enter the new year worried because politics and arcane senate procedures stood in their way. i may not like the choice, may have to standed with the ohioans who wait until midnight when their unemployment benefits are activated to buy basic necessities like milk and bread. i hear those stories too obvious. we have to stand with the mother, the father the teacher, the nurse, the farmer who need missile defense class tax relief
to care for a child, to afford college to build a small business. it is with that in mind that i snroat favor of this bill, with people like erica and susan, with debbie and michael and stacey who say enough is enough. please help me. it is because of them, i'll continue to fight on their bavment i hope that my republican colleagues, mr. president, learn something from this. legislative threats of a work stoppage, legislative blackmail may have helped their rich friends and may continue today, but in the end it is bad for our economy, it's bad for the united states senate, it's terrible for our country, it's terrible for our future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
quorum call: mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator voinovich, my state's senior senator, be recognized at 10:30 a.m. wednesday to if i had farewell to the senate for up to
20 minutes. further, at 2:15 p.m. tuesday, december 21, senator specter be recognized to deliver his farewell to the senate, provided further that on wednesday, december 15, upon the conclusion of the vote and proceeding to executive session the senate return to legislative business -- session in order for senator link done say farewell to the senate. that at the conclusion of the remarks and any of her colleagues, the senate then resume executive session, prior to senator lincoln's recognition in executive session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask that the senate proceed it a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4005 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4005, a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to prevent the proceeds or instrumentalities of foreign crime located in the united states from being shielded from foreign forfeiture proceedings.
the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. brown: mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i further ask that the bill be read three times, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday december 156789 following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to condition cur with respect to h.r. 4853, the vehicle for the tax compromise, as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, senators should expect a series of up to four roll call votes at
approximately noon tomorrow. at 2:15, the senate will proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to executive session to consider the start treaty. as reminder, under the previous order, there will be several farewell speeches tomorrow. senator bayh at 10:00, senator voinovich at 10:30, senator lincoln following the 2:15 vote. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate you i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until
wheeler from going senators kit bond and judd gregg. this is 50 minutes. . rei >> mr. president, last night i was at home and received a message on my very good ambassador richard holbrooke hal died. i really felt very, very sad about that. he was such a nice man.he was so, she was the epitome in hisdt dealings with me have been aeryw gentleman. everyone i worked with and knew how hard h he worked and i joinw the many thousands of people who mourn the passing of the master, richard holbrooke, a champion diplomat and a personal friend.e
administer ambassador holbrookee dedicated entire life to keepin, america safe or tough, sensible diplomacy. i will miss him, his friendshipn his counsel in our nation willes miss his tireless leadership on foreign policy. o i had the option to work closely with him on a number of occasions during my tenure here is majorityde leader. co he appreciated in many insight conversations and his insights into the central national security issues of thess day.nt the world bears the imprint of ambassador holbrooke's effortsos to bring peace and security to y place with leadership to negotiating the dayton accords to his latest efforts at stabilizing afghanistan a passivhae man.at the cter of ambassador holbrooke is that the son of the toughest security challenges of a givenll area. ad america is safer and more m respected around the worldbe
because of richard holbrooke. our nation mourned his passing may offer my condolences to his family's and loved ones during this most difficult time.e >> andre, p. have of myself and wife kathy, i'd like to thank the people of new hampshire for giving us the great order and this is an extraordinary body of we senate. it is filled with wonderful people. t ihe look around us and a few otr friends, people that i've had the chance to do work with and r admire immensely.d when and i thanked him for theg i'm o friendship. when people ask me about leavinp the senate, was the thing in going to most?d to mak iowa state people come the people of the senate because they're special. dedicated to making this a job better place, dedicated to doing their jobs well, dedicated to
d so serving, serving america. and so i thank you for the great honor and privilege that she's given kathy and i to allow us td save and participate in this body with yourself and yourlse spouses.een i want to thank everybody else who's been so helpful throughout our her career, the folks here, and this staff, people in the i mean cloakroom, throughout throughout this, building. senate there were so many people make the senate work, people workingg in the furniture room, in the hallways, our staffs obviously.m this is a special place filledae with people whork are committedd making the senate i work while d i thank them for allowing me to be part of that, allowing kathya and i to be part of that.ri i want to take the personal pecial privilege here. i especially think -- iay.
especially thank my wife, kathy, who is here today. the rules, not a lot of knowledge people, really sad. my wife is sitting right there. kathy -- [applause]ried we've been married 37 years and 432 of those years we've heard a lot of office come the nine major campaigns come and wenumerable campaigns c like tht for other people we've participated in. and through this whole intensity in this intensity of the elective process in the nation.a it is a sad force and her o family. she has raised threeur s extraordinary children, melissa and joshua who have done and jo. exceptional things, even though
they are still young by our but standards. some of them think they're aging young.be and their value system and theie belief in this nation and theira willingness to give ofrect e themselves to their people as as direct expression of the values that kathy has given them.at han sometimes for a little over competitive on occasion, but that's one of her strength alsod we've been through hard times and good times and i wish he hag been there to basically be ourt. lake house and saw express my love to her and thinks.20 bismarck at the beginning of th- 20th century that -- first i a should say cathy told cathy told me it should walk back and forth like this. i've been doing it for 18 years and she says it makes people sick watching on tv. -- were it's like the famous time she called up and were having ai'm a >> caller: he and their french people talking. cal i'm talking tols johnny isaksona
and she called the four plan go out turnaround and face the cameras. century bismarck at the turn of the 20th century. of course bismarck was one of throughout the late 1800s and into the 1900s, said that the ae defining fact uof the 19th century for england and the united states spoke the same fte language. what i think he meant is that the defining fact of the 19th century was that england and the united states have a value system, which believed in the individual, and liberty, democracy. it was a value system that grew out of enlightenment, people like john locke, hutchison, ada, smith. in the 20th century, if youf look at it, was a test of thatvs
valu we system against the other value systems which have come up over the years.tari mostly totalitarianism.cy it was a test of democracy totat against fascism, a test of democracy against totalitarianot socialism and we won. we won the test. was it was also the second bigs, itw charge of the 20th century. it wasas a test of how you would create prosperity for people, a test of markets versus communism, of markets against totalitarian socialism.ocialism by the end of the 20th century, there was no longer an issue. the american philosophy of governance had come to dominatee the world. democracy, individual libertythe and markets.that diron. the whole world was moving innto that direction. are
now we're 10 years into the next century and we are challengede e again, challenged again. this time the challenge is different, substantive, significant. l maybe not at theev same level oo the soviet union represented a challenge because they have the capacity to destroy us. same maybe not even at the same level that fights against japan, fascist japan and fascistes are germany, but the challenges area huge and they will determine our future as a country. two and they basically come in my opinion break into two primary areas. t the first is of course the threats of a terrorist group using a weapon of mass destruction against us and we must acknowledge that they fundamentally changed our vulne. culture, our nation and caused us to realize our vulnerability. that threat of terrorism history
of the by a fanatical belief int a religious velocity. that and we shouldn't deny that. undd we should acknowledge that. because in order to defeat that threat we have to understand not. c the second major thrust that ideas are concerned as we go forward is clearly of our own king, making and it is a positive making, but it is still an issue. and that is that we have aextray nation, which has always been pd extraordinarily prosperous come or one generation is always generation generation of tighter, more prosperous, more secure country. and today we are on the cusp of not being able to do thato thata because we have this population of which i am a member of the tr baby boom generation, which is i taking our retired population and as a result, we in the rest of the world and japan for thats
matter, because of this finour demographic shift, find ourselves confronted with governments, which are struggling to figure out how o they're going to pay for what our entitlement society is.the the way it sort of phrased it is that when a populist government government -- a government that lives by election of a the peope when a populist government meetd the massive demographic shift, unsustainable debt and that is. something we confront right nowp and need to stand up to. ggest con those two streams are our biggest concerns are my biggestl concerns is that with the senate.si how do we defend ourselves against a fanatical movement a which is an asymmetry base,do us which want to do us harm. can'tn they're not a nationstate. we can find them easily come up
a lot to do us harm and would dw us harm with mappings of westanc destruction. and secondly, how do we deal with this shift in our society, this aging that is driving the populist movement, which is make in our structure of government unaffordable in many ways.ca's well, there is greatness comes, i believe, in our ability topeoe address issues like this comes ,rom our people and from ourcotn constitution.s and if that constitution which r embraces a sickly the liberties that allow our people and allow our people to create prosperity and give this nation isabsolutey strength. our freedom and prosperity is absolutely resilient. there's no question about that.e but itgovernment can either be n enabler of that freedom and the where the period and whether or not we are going to succeed, ihr
believe is whether or not we continue to assert the core to values which allows us to govern all. and they all basically arrays from our constitution.he i had the good fortune to sit at webster was from massachusetts, new hampshire and inactive appropriate filthiness has the beste designated for the senioi senator to new hampshire by statute in theor 1970s. at it is a great honor to have the right to sit at this desk. a webster and i kept this nation together at a time when had it been torn apart it would nowe wr longer have existed because we were not capable -- we had no lincoln and we had no strength of the north to survive. mise and webster, in a speech on the compromise of 1850, said i needr to stand upon the constitution. i need no other platform.
i know. no man can suffer too much. no man can fall too soon if he r suffers on or if he fails in defense of the liberties of the constitution of our country.tutm and at the center of our constitutional form of government, which was designed t by madison in randolph, which was built on the concept that -- they should never be an overly powerful branch of the powful government. at the center of this governmene is the united states senate. it is the cauldron of liberty for nation. why is that? because he is the place where issues are aired, people are heard, and amendments are made and no one gets to shut down the minority and silly supermajority decides to do so. the rights of the minority ofme. the source of the power of our e
government. they are the source of the power of our constitution. they are the source of the power of our liberty. cente and this is the center. this institution is the center of the rights of the minority.iy i've been in the minority here.a and the majority here. it's almost irrelevant from a standpoint of the importance of the role of t the senate. because it is the senate that gives voice to all americans.can it does not allow us to shut out eny american or any thought t process in america that is legitimate and can come to the floor of the senate and make its i'veve often wondered, what woud this government be like if there nmre no senate.parliamenty gover well, it would be a parliamentary government from intents and purposes, merging- the left, lurching to the right. and as a result, in many ways,
but more importantly, having no continuity of purpose or force.n we played politics in this city and in this country between the 40-yard lines from intents and purposes. atur are in not a government th. ever goes to radically left or to radically right. and that's the way it should-- . is req the way it should be. in thisui institution, compromis required. to govern, you must reach pple. agreement. of we have 300 million people, obviously that the first few. ln if we are going to cover the 300 million people, we must listen to those who loved the ta janet cruz on both sides of the aisle. so if i leave this chamber, i want to say this simply. it is been a huge honor to have the chance to serve here. it is something that is the highlight of her career as aervn
nine. move on we move on the reservations, bu- we hope to move on to something equally interesting, but it will never have the same status as being in the united stateshe senate. this is thee jo ultimate job iny governance of america. i simply k ask you and i know cr this'll be done. continue to carry the torch. ctf understand that it is the senate that is the center of the our liberty, th pat leads to the prosperity better people expecte it isr the centers -- senate tht is the leader of our constitution. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]
[inaudible conversations] >> ester president. >> republicanmr leader.or >> mr. president, i would hope that it is not the intention of the senior senator from new hampshire to leave the floor. >> republican leader. n >> mr. president, the accolade that our friend and colleague, senior senator from new hampshire has just received froc both sides of the aisle richlyab deserved. stay and i would hope that he might be able to stay just a bitcommn longer, as some of us has a chance to comment on hisr.
extraordinarily distinguished he career. he's devoted his entire life toa public service. always served with a deep sense of purpose with the overriding conviction that we mustct save america and a better place than we found it, as each is so articulately express. he's worked tirelessly for the people of newor hampshire. uly in andy's been a truly invaluable member of the republican conference. he's the smartest guy in the room, usually the most strategic and as witty as they come. even and yet even as judge the national profile is increased over the years as a result of his many natural gifts, he never
lost sight of where he came frow what the people he represents back home in new hampshire. that judd grew up in nashua in southern new hampshire and was introduced to the world of politics early on. in 1952, when he was just five years old, his father hugh craif was select the governor of then state. when i'm to the academy for high school and in the mid-60s at coa the columbia university after that graduated with a degree in englis th in 1969. it was an eye-opening experience being in new york city, inrticularly in those years.hatm and judd took it all in. he jokes that is minor in college with subway explorationl even after he witnessed all the, student demonstrations and clashes with police on campus,rt
he found time to dress up as the school's mascot for a time, the columbia royal lion and working the sidelines again. got h judd returns or to attend law a school at boston university and got his jd in 1972 and al i'm i. tax law in 1975. and then he returned to new hampshire to practice law. meanwhile he began to venture into new p hampshire primarympal politics, coordinating the primary campaigns for ronald reagan in 1976 and george h.0. debbie bush in 1980.ally it was during this time that he really developed his conservative principles. the pri and over the years he has stuck. to those principles of the voters have rewarded him for it- never lost a race, not one. part of the recent judd went is
he is not afraid to lose he would rather lose for the neght reasons than win for the o wrong ones. over the years, become somethinp of a political legend in new god hampshire and for good reason. he's the first person in new hampshire history to serve asser congressman, governor anderve senator. first elected to congress inn terms allnd at what some vieweds a political gamble, he followed. his father's footsteps to run reelgovernor in 1988. he was elected andec easilyhire, reelect it in 1990 and during the second term, new hampshire late the rest of the country faced a difficult recession. pee lease was pressure to raises the state income tax or salesea tax, he cut government spendingb instead. the new hampshire union leader
would later credit judges being able to manage the state to t t, crisis far better than anyonere" expected. him n and the wallin street journal ad ranking ninth in the good governor tried for cutting spending and keep militantsun f waxes during a serious budgetref crisis. fisl in 1992, judd decided to run for the u.s. senate on a strong record of environmental protection and fiscal discipline. he won a close race and uponmbe, arriving in this chamber he j immediately sent out to work fo. the people of new hampshire.7 and i know one of the thingsct he's proud of it is nearly 17 years in the senate is the work is done to protect more than 300,000 acres of land forof development. it can also be justifiably proud reican of her remarkable work is done as republican, top republican ot the senate health labor and budt commissions company and most were they from our point of view in the budget committee, where his knowledge and command of th. issues has always impressed the rest of us dared he was clearly
the right man for the job. and when the budget came out, i think we would all agree we would all agree on our side of the aisle, when jed stood up and not something to say, everybody quieted down and listened. and he can't say that about all of us on every issue of the time. we recognized his talent from the b very beginning. as just two years after arriving here to me was selected to servr senateef deputy whip as well as cochairman of senator argentobln working tasked with developinght and managing the republican in agenda back at that particular s juncture. it was the first time in 20 years that a senator from new ht hampshire at third in the senate leadership role. he never hesitated to work across the aisle to get things done. judd understood that to makens something happen in this body is he just described, it happens between the 40-yard line and
that means both sides have toor participate. he teamed up with senatorleft kennedy to co-author no child leftng behind.ink any of congressman, judd said i don't think any of us ever give up our basic principles. l ted understood that even though he had strong beliefs, he understood you hadeg to legislae to accomplish things. there was no point in just shouting. history will member that judd also plays a central role andch the response to the financial crisis should do the innate in which we all remember very, very onomic well. ,ith our nation on the brink of economic collapse, i knew i was to select one person to view represent our point of view at that critical moment. the choice was completely we obvious. the one person we had that
everybody knew had no other agenda and would at the end of the day to what was right for i mad the country. emeency so i made him the top republican negotiator on the emergency economic stabilization act. i'm physically referred to astht t.a.r.p. his top priority then andirer te throughout the entire debate wae to insure the original package e protected the taxpayers by pay including language in the bill that stated all the proceeds from the paybackba would go to d reducing the debt and he did a fabulous job.princies, it was because of judd's principles,, intelligence, commn sense and ability to work acrosh le aisle, as they i just ubdicated, that i asked him tolp join the leadership team as i was select a republican leader.s i relied on heavily these last y four years. judd has been rated the middle of every legislative debate
we've had since i've been in this position and he's never disappointed. fac l's been so affect his --knames excuse me, senator reid gave him a couple of nicknames late in wr his career. first, this was senator reid about her colic and speaking prefers to call them the quote, af the wickedness of the legislation guy, etend h qeuote. after that he described judd ast somebody, quote, comes onto the basketball game, not to score gt points, just to kind of rough." people up, just to kind of get the game going in a differentme. direction. and i think judd and i would both agree that's a heck of a compliment. t in fact, this is senator craig'n
reaction to does make things given to them by the democraticn leader. he appreciate the senator's comments.la i take them as ati complement. i've been a good legislatively." but it's obvious our job. a it's funny how people see things differently. i never saw judd assayed ellen. bayer thai person on the court d just to mess people up. i always thought judge just,s sticking with tabasco metaphors for a moment as the intelligent point guard, as the ideas guy with the extraordinary judgment, the type of guy who could see the whole floor, the big pictura and to make the unselfish play we want him beginning. and over the years, that's
exactly what judge did for our team.umenta he's been instrumental. he's been instrumental in our efforts to hold the line, slowrs down or call out the democrats these past two years and indelyf particular on an agenda that wer viewed is deeply harmful to ourt future.ea he's been an indispensable member of the team. in fact, i'm not sure where we and sometimes i wonder where we'll be a few years down the road without him. but he leaves his example and he
leaves the passed along along the years and will continue to draw in a in the years ahead. judd was recently asked what the hardest thing about being a hare senator wes. and he answered without beingy hesitation. the hardest thing you said was being away from his family. it's another principle you never ever had shown.r he said i made a decision early on in my career, which i've carried throughout my career hee that it's a choice was between b being here and been with something that was important to my family, i would be with his family. now maybe my children feelren fe differently, but adults think in i've missed anything that was really critical in their upbringing. which brings us to kathy.
as judd indicated, a wife of 37 years -- a cherished member of the senate emily -- family. we are so gracious for patientss with the demand for public like, a lot with her importune abortion education promoting the arts, environment and historic preservation as well as her work in raising awareness and child abuse. somehow she and three children, molly, sir joshua on manage toad put up with three decades of public w service. we thank them all for sharing judd what does us all these years in washington. this one of judd's greatest assets an a senator has been his profound love for this institution andit.
his gratitude for having had a chance to serve as a member of e it. he never took this place or this job for granted.rein in as he once put it, for my first. in my first in the senate they have remained in all this obviously interesting place, which he just expressed again.nk it around and take in its history,e it never ceases to hit me that this is the most successful, deliberative democracy in there history. it's an honor to serve their. not to say that i try to convince a judge to stay is an understatement. but he knew it was his time to x move on and to write the next chapter, the next chapter in hie
life. all ththe time, i can't help but note that when jed walks out of his chamber, when he walks out of this chamber for the last time, he'll leave an enormous void behind. and so i'll close, old friend and b colleague by saying that u certainly are going to be missed.ure we wish you well in your future endeavors. thank you for your service.job. you've done an extraordinary job . >> the senate today also debated a bill on tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits. is the result of a compromise
between the white house and national republican leaders. we'll hear from jon kyl in arizona, or boxer of california, kay bailey hutchison of texas and kent conrad dakota. this is an hour and 15 minute period >> i just wanted to speak for a few minutes about the taxate package or tax legislation that the senate is debating and will be voting on here before long. is made on both sides ofemphast the albert mining the merits of the package and i emphasize the point that has been made thes others.fect no one thinks this is a perfecte though. u none of them are so stunned ando the tax rate exemptions are notx permanent. on the left, there are those whl dislike the death tax reform would've preferred the top marginal income tax be reached and their other concerns asservv well.fr i agreeie with some of the criticisms my conservative
friends of may. this is not the bill i would'vea written.pack there is some provision in the package i disagree with her ob on the other hand, this is not the bill president obama would've written. i he's made it clear that he doesn't like anything in eithere the package represents a truebia bipartisan compromise. about b that is something we talk a lot about, but seldom seem able tont do. eit but political circumstances will not allow either partyhe to take kate it's perfect bill. got so while neither party gotprovie everything up on it, there are i provisions in the package to appeal to both sides of the us aisle and most of the korea would be very bad for americans to allow taxes to be increased. most important things the bill does my view is to freeze all existing income, capital gains and dividends tax grades and reform the death tax. without t legislation, taxes ar7 set to go up for every taxpayer in just 17 days. and so by maintaining current tax rates and instituting deathl
tax reform, the bill wills provide positive economic certainty to both families and the job creators. this is a very important development for american tax tears and for our economy. in fact, according for group ne% data from morgan stanley this can boost economic growth to 4% or more nextr. year. that's a lot better than the 2% anemic 2% achieved in the third quarter of this year. ironically, some commentators argue this economic growth will benefit president obama reelection prospects and therefore should beor opposed. that is not clear thinking. some other conservatives say if tax l we wegait until next year to pao tax legislation, then the gophis controlled house could pass a better bill than this one. that's true from my perspectiveo could -- such a bill or that we could get a better compromise in
the end. in the meantime every taxpayer would have been hit with a tax increase. tax increases would almost certainly hurt the economy. look back to 1936, for example, when president roosevelt raised taxes on high earners. the shaky economy plunged back into depression and unemployment skyrocketed. freezing tax rates, on the other hand, has the potential to help the economy and job growth. the economy and job growth. tax provisions in this bill should implement their particular philosophy of class warfare but the tax code is not a vehicle for punishing certain taxpayers.heir as someone the left seem toax think. i would hope we all agree we want to help job creators as well was job-seekers. ideology should not trump those concerns n on either the right r the left. the key thing is the tax rates ma mattertter to growth. businesses must be allowed to retain earnings so they can expand and invest and hire new
workers. as i've come to the floor to to play again and again many successful small businesses thal create jobs, pay taxes of the individual rate and would bewoub hurt by the increases in the ton marginal income-tax brackets inm according to thee irs data cite. by economist kevin haslet, and i am quoting here, 40% of the nete income of the sole sol proprietorships, partnerships and s corporations report on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007 which is the last year incidentally for which we haveee these figures. other businesses would have bees taxes. raising capital gains and dividends would greatlyge thenvs discourage thetm investment our economy so urgently needs.indeec indeed capitalap taxes are among come most distorted and least lt efficient taxes the government in my view in a comprehensiveta tax reformx should include some kidcare reductions in capital taxation.lad but for now line glad members os both parties decided to back the
east bloc a capital gains taxh increase which would have a severe impact on job-creating investment. the death tax reform is another measure this bill will provide certainty to job creators and in for her leadership on this t issue. we've spent a lot of time together the past few years and working on the issue and shech c deserves much credit for her expertise and devotion tootiono crafting this plan which will wh provide relief to job-creatingam small businesses. the result is a true compromisei there will be a large increase from this year's 0% estate taxee rate which is one that i favor 3 to a 35% rate, but that's much5l less than 55% that will be in place on january 1st and the exemption is $5 million which ie much preferable to the january 1st. tax should death tax reform not a career of the ra rte rise to 55d small businesses can be forcedtt to reduce payroll by more than 500,000 workers over the next 1e
years according to former cbo ds director douglas paul seeking. that is a half a million people whose jobs could be threatened.. the effect of the compromisee will be to eliminate the death tax liability for about 90% of the stage the would otherwise according to the institute for research of economic taxation the death tax proposal would add more than $200 billion in annuat economic growth relative to thec current law. he given to the wealthy as some have asserted most of the people helped by this measure or smalld business employers. a final word about the deficit, it's true that extending the c unemployment compensationut without cutting other government spending will add to the deficit, and there are tax incentives in the bill similar at spending in the show also beh it's important to note we shoulv not raise taxes to provide the
revenue would grow the size of the federal government and democrats are willing to find ct spending cuts so we are left accumulating more debt instead.o unemployment benefits would certainly pass both chambers and there are not and will not be the votes in the senate to cut f spending to offset the costs either o this year or next. t i admit i am surprised to hearie some conservative commentators lob the extension of current tat rates that tax reform into the a same argument about the deficit. theoretical revenue from theti annual emt relief for example because we all know there was at never any intent to collect it.i likewise republicans always have the tax extender package and ths extension of other rates as vw exactly that come extensions of existing law, not new tax cuts.a the left in the some commentators delight in misrepresenting the legislation as providing tax cuts for there
rich. but these are not tax cuts come only extensions of a decade oldt existing tax rates for everyone to read the only new tax cuts pensing are expense for business sought by the president with which republicans generally agreed and the payroll tax holiday. los the actual revenue therefore ise aout $237 billion not the 900 billion some assert.ny incre weigel any increase of the is deficit is not welcome, the overall merits of the bill including preventing the massive tax increase on each and every asxpayer outlay the deficit ince increase in my opinion. in conclusion americans are looking for economic growth ando solutions to unemploymentates keeping tax rates where they arc and providing some certainty is. a good place to start.upport i urge my colleagues to support the bill and seek to meet theb-i job killing rates are not imposed on anyone.setor from
>> madame president?mrs. boxerak >> the senator from california. >> thank you so much, madame president. i just had a number of issues i wanted to bring up today for the record to explain a lot of the d things that we are faced with here as we wind down before christmas eve may be. to p the first thing i want to ask you to do is pleasing to the record the california connectede service members who have died in i put afghanistan and iraq. the i put their names in the record continually, and sometimes if i have time i read them.ay i want to say this, sincervice v august, 52 more californiaied connective service members havef died in afghanistan, and two hae more have died in iraq, and iesn
would ask kill us consent to place their names in the record. thank you. these heroes, these americans who have sacrificed and havel f given it all for this nation, i am a humbled by this service, iy am humbled by the service of their families because this is a family commitment. i am so proud to be the co-chair of the military family caucus committee by pledged to continue what i can do to make sure thatl our commitment to our militaryir families this constant in thatca we are fulfilling our role to make sure that they get treated with honor and respect and that thr we listen their hardships and cannot take away the pain of thn
loss. can i also want to the and working in every way. i can't in this war in afghanistan. bring i support beginning to bring the troops home in 2011. there is some talk it might be extended to another year. i don't support that. asomeone as someone who voted to go after osama bin laden and taliban ando going to afghanistan, we lost a lot of years because president . george w. bush turns and focuset attention in iraq, a war i do not support, do think it was bad based on truth, turnout wasn'tak coming in history will speak to that. afg but we've been in afghanistan ad long time and they are going to have to stand up and defendthein their own country as all nations have to nadefend themselves.we'o
we've given so much and today the california connected service members since august 5th is an ongoing sacrifice. we just heard the others yesterday about a tragic no explosion against nato forces on the headquarters southernre afghanistan where we lost six. so i support that withdraw and doing it in a way that makes tht sense, not going to do it in ont day or six months, but we shouln start it. to the second issue i want to brine up is the passing of investor richard holbrooke, someone i consider to be a friend, and
ve personality, a man who lived for his work and his family. a it's so ironic in a sense i sawt him twice last week as he and hf his wife had gone to the kennedy center that he seemed to find ss engaged and so well and was shocked to read what happened we and i send my love to his wife and his family and children and he will be missed so much because he had a very unique lo approach to diplomacy.whthat it was what he did that youo can't create and when you talk to him he engage you because of his deep commitment and love of his work and understanding thatr diplomacy is the answer, not wa. and then you had to be tough and
as he pointed out, to meet with people that you didn't, youn't o wouldn't want to be in a roomado with, as he had to do when hed e negotiated the end of the war il bosnia. ms but i will miss him both as a personally and certainly as a member of the foreign relations committee with you, madam president.ple i wanted to talk about a couple of other issues just to expressly disappointment that laid down by the colleagues on side that theyivil wouldn't vote on a civil-rights matter to and don't ask don't tell which is a policy thatker,t makes our nation week, not strong, it's a policy thattrings brings tint to so many of our fellow americans where they havs to keep a secret as to who they
are a and how they live their, life and it just runs counter to because the this country because the thing in is when you are in the military he and you are side by side and you are in trouble, whether your are gay or straight has nothingi to do with the mission it more facing. it's a very strict military cods of conduct in the military thatt says whoever you are, you cannou abuse your rights and privileges whether it is about sexual whetr harassment or anything else. that is very clear. so we already have a code ofcont conduct that could apply to everyone, and i was proud that t in the survey and that was takei our military said they didn't
think it would harmless in terms of our ability to have a strong defense. defen good for them.of i read into the number of cases that he rose to have been run te out of the military. s orientation, couple of them have been reinstated. the courts are going to do awayh with don't ask "don't ask, don'y tell" so i would ask my colleagues why on earth wouldous believe this to the courts whenn we can have the pride in standing up for civil rights? it's just unfortunate, is among the other side have flip-flop ol military leaders say it's okay i will be there and now they arett not. t it's wrong and we should get it done. now there was w an excuse let'so the tax cut first.
okay so i'm hoping they will let us go to this and vote on this and we could be proud americanse here across party lines put aside differences when it comesl to civil rights. i just was watching a tv special 1954 and the beautiful part of e it was to coming together thet part of the end of the day on an issue right for this country. ds i hope we can do this again. can i just hope we can do thisin. again. and if not, i would say to the you're d court do theoi right thing. you're doing it, but keep it upr because weon are not any strongr as a nation. we are weaker when in incredibly talented patrons are turned away for absolutely no reason, and so
i want to talk about that asdre" well as the dream act and other areas where we -- this country is made stronger when we'll get a child that we have been a brought here by their parents, their parents broke the law, brought a child here three months or four months the child4 grows up, don't even know theyen don't have't their papers untilr they get to be 18-years-old.heir this is their country, they lovo their country. a lot of them are president by. student body. t since when do we hear in the chi crimes ofld the parents on aand child? we don't do that here., wh and again, what are we gaining? the dream act the start off with a huge bipanlrtisan support hddenly has got into the place where "don't ask, don't tell"e g has gotten when we are moving away from justice and of devotee
has got we can't be part of the military will come and then if it's part of the military -- if it's not part of the militaryl, build a see why isn't it part ot the military bill?l? it just seems to be a moving bae there was a big meeting i read t about called no labels where sad people got together and said we are tired of the two parties nor working together. of and it was sort of interesting because it was on the day when the two parties did work our t together subscribe kump and we here are two issues that haveith hething to do with partisanauset politics because it's good for the country to help our young people and to make sure peoplent can serve in the military if they are qualified and their sexual orientation essentiallyon has nothing to do with it.
we have a chance to comeof together for the good of the country on this coming and i bd i still still hold that hope that we cao do it i, we can also take care t heroes of 9/11 who went to new york and looked for the survivors and then looked for tc the remains and briefed thatrs toxic errors which the epa saids was safe wasn't safe and they're are six and we can't seem to ge. the votes to help them.'t but i don't give up. i think we can do this. we so let's work together on thoser things.e have and now another area where we'vk been able to work together in we the past where i hope we will w continue toro work together is e transportation bill. we usually enact our highway trust fund programs for about four, five, six years at the tie
time. last time we extended for a year and now the extension is sending and we need to extend again the existing transportation authorization.n i am optimistic on this one because in the house it didn't d seem controversial, they addedhe it to the continuing resolution, extended it to the end of the fiscal year 2011, september 30th is the date.o it is important to note that 900,000 jobs nationwide depend i on this highways trust fundt and reauthorization and all those mh programs. 85,000 jobs in my home state of california, and it's a very important we do this workit whether through an omnibus solution budget for the continuingt resolution, however it ends up. this is an area again where thep
my rankingng member, jim inhofe and i have been working very we closely on this and we support as h this extension to read it haspof the support of the members ofere the americans for transportatiom mobilitey collation. i will name some of them to thea american public transportation association, american road and transportation builders, the dit associated equipment distributors, associated genera, contractors, society of civill f engineers, international union lf operating engineers, labor na international, national asphalt paving association, national stone sand and gravel, united w, brotherhood of carpenters and joiners and u.s. chamber of commerce. now listen, that's quite a group. when you've got unions and aou you've got the employers and the u.s. chamber c of commerce which is negative on so many thingspoe unfortunately, positive on this, that is a good matchup.
so i as canada's consent thee letters for the transportation mobility placed in the record pace of this extension will save jobs not only in the short termv but it gives certainty to the states, madame president to beur we know the nation's highways, bridges and transit system need to be in good repair. thi i can say thiss. with the indus construction industry still in a for them hewnturn, it's tough for them t because of the housing crisis the h construction work is few d far between and we have a very high unemployment rate in the construction industry. this extension is important and has the certainty it will savei. hundreds of thousands of jobs and improve our infrastructure p and provide the foundation that we need for the solid recovery. an that up. madam president, the last topic i want to talk about and i ask
hon much time remains in my 25d5 minutes. islamic the senator has used 15p minutes.o talk >> thank you.t w the last topic of a to talk yesd about is my note yesterday to move forward on the tax bill t - that was the framework of which was sent to us by president were obama, and there were negotiations with republican colleagues and then one very important addition is made to b theil bill because many of us in the sesenate wanted that and i'm grateful to that addition, it was the 1603 program which is critical to our clean energyl businesses and will result in tens of thousands of jobs it a because itll allows companies tt are moving forward with a sore lower, wind, clean energygy projects to the essentially gett
a tax credit a of front and it e the essential because there's a lot ofla plans on the drawing board and if this hadn't been renewed, we would have loste lot those plans and of those jobs sd i'm very pleased about that.aid madam president, so much has been said about this tax bill,i' and i don't know that i am goinh to say anything that is going tt add to the debate, but i wanted to just lay out some of what to compelled me to vote yes to move it really kind of summed up in a "san jose mercury news" "san joy editorial where they say more than three-quarters of theof the spending will go to the middle and lower income families through tax cuts, tax creditswog for the working families and unemployment insurance. that is the san jose mercuryne news. qui ma more than 50% or maybe it is 60i
held to the middle class. when you look at how the bills become law, when i was a kid ina school we had a big lecture on how a bill becomes law, and it sounds so easy.he you start in a subcommittee in e one house or the other,committes subcommittee marks up the bill,s full committee marks of the bill bennett goes to the other house and they do it. diffences, if there are differences theyly all need happily in a conference and chat a little bit and then a define the differences and the result them and the bill goes ta the white house, the president either signs the bill and ofnt t liberty celebrate or he vetoes it and you've got to get to three-quarters of the chamber to doesn't override.hat it doesn't exactly work that way in real life. e real life, you can't reallyay explain in a textbook different parties bring different passions toho the table and they are held
deeply and if i could tell youas where i see the passion coming from on either side, it is my ts view there's no science on thisy is just my view i think the the passion the democrats brought to the table was that we needed toe make sure first and foremost the people who have been desperatelo hurt by this slow economic for recovery are less than a lurch for the next year because evenis though technically the recession is in terms of gdp growth, thes fact is it's a very painful, pa, agonizing in recovery going on.. yes, jobs are being created about 900,000 since january, buo it's not enough to make up for the millions of jobs that werehe lost in the recession. so it is painfully slow and we w
aree worried. we brought that passion that wee had to make sure that middledles class families who lost their jobs don't lose everything elsei don't lose the ability to send to school, that they this have a bridge of on the planet insu insurance which by the way they. paid for, they have to be activl actively looking for work in order to get. that passion brought to the waso table, the other passion was to sure make sure that the middle classc atdn't get a tax increase.on we weree passionate on the plan, and we wanted tax credit forbuss business t resulted in jobs. those are the passions we think' brought to thes table. the it's fair to say that tensionscs the republicans brought to the t table were to help make sure tht wealthiest of taken care of in d any deal. t why do i say that?it's is a fact of evidence. they are not negotiable terms
included extension of the taxon, cuts to billionaires', millionaires, that was it, passion that. passiate a just as we were passionate abouy helping the middle class they were passionate on his plate ano they were passionate and have been of the largest states inthy america.eel they feel a lot of them don'tn'e even think states ought to be ix any way taxed.any now we in america for many years we have had a i would call it an epic that this american dream ih crucial. we want everyone to have it.ud p we are proud wheneo people get i the mumilti millionaires and a billionaires.ent t but we have a defense departmene to run, and education system too help, roads to be built, or n national security costs money,
our domestic security costs money, social security has to be taken care of, people pay intono the system, health care, andrefe therefore we believe four years that the wealthiest estates that have the tax are something thata worked because frankly somebody who inherits let's say a seven , million-dollar estate from their parent, they are going to beng o okay. the and by the way, that is injury small percentage. 9 democrats feel 99% of these states wouldn't have any taxt tr under our plans but the republicans were passionate about this, and they wanted toln million dollars state and a lower tax rate. law i would have a different wa, of writing it. i would say technically this is what happens to get us to thede,
president, but what you need too know is what the passions are,hk and i think at the end of the day, though both sides could come away saying what we felt it passionate abouthi in this billl good.was one thing that wasn't addressed is the deficit, and a lot of us, on both sides feel passionate about that, but i think it's the decision, perhaps not a voice but certainly understood that cr this is a stimulus bill, and that we are going to have to dod serious deficit reduction and anyone who thinks you won't havk to pays the piper for these taxg cuts is living in another world. ofourse of course we are and the we d question is do we do it now or when in this economy truly turnn around and then there will beere another w passionate debate,bouo passionate about who's going to help solve the deficit.e a i have a feeling you're going to see the same thing and the going
democrats are going to say thess middle class aren't responsible. for this let's look to the upper income in our republican friends areca going to say it's class warfare. don't look to the wealthy. so we are going to have this v battlewagon. but i voted for this bill because i think our economy continues to be in a fragileomes state when it comes to job growth, and i feel we have toooe move forward on this, and i am glad that we did because thisree has been the worst recessionat since the great depression. i hate to o remind people of wht it was like, but when george bush was president and he came s to less with hank paulson, then secretary of treasury and been bernanke and they said to us this economy is going to collapse, nobody is lending.
capitalists frozen. we are in desperate shape. i was almost 50% down those were tough, tough times. and we took many steps to get this economy back on track. and i have to say things have stabilized. 10, w since january 10th we have added 937,000 jobs to this economy. but because 8 million jobs were lost in this recession come in this great recession that's just not enough, and the president pt knows this and that is why he knew he needed to come to us ush with a framework that basicallya said we are not willing to put a burden on middle class.ey've s they suffered enough and he hado to swallow hard to do things we
know he didn't want to do. would but i would reiterate the "san jose mercury news" said. more and three-quarters of spending will go to middle andsi lower-income families.income and that is an important point. i have talked about the importance of the extension ofot unemployment benefits in my sea0 merkin 400,000 workers in california will lose their benefits by the end of o december 2 million workers nationwide, and i've got to say wh mark zantia, who was one of the top cui said when you extend unemployment benefits to get tht best bank for the buck. i would ask for two morebuck. >> so this tax bill that i voted to move forward on will help oug
working families. there is a 2% cut on payrolls. taxes on know some say is that g going to hurt social security? we have a statement from thevicp executive vice president and ofe the aarp, the association of say retired people singing the h proposal is no financial impact on social security because the trust fund is made whole, and tu madame president, that is critical and when we have the administration and our caucus, r we make sureat of that. there is the extension of the child tax credit from the tcovery act, the income-tax credit, child care tax credit, the education relief, a refundable tax credit for the college, and again, those clean energy incentives which wereiveh critical of a 1603 provision, 13 job creation, tax incentives, ce r&d tax credits, both appreciation come veterans work, opportunity credit, small siness capit business capitalal gains exclusl
in closing, do i feel passionate the people who were over $1 million don't need a tax cut? you bet i do. i am passionate. to me, that adds to the deficit. while we are into wars to help people come so many of them don't even do this. we had a letter we put in the record from 90 millionaire said this is ridiculous. this is ridiculous. so i feel passionate of a that. that site will the one because frankly it is a disagreements a between the two parties and that is fine.we c we can't be expected to agree on everything. but i think moving ahead with vr this was very, very important. s most economic forecasters will estimate the legislation willh, increase gdp growth, and i think that is critical at this time. r my staff isug struggling for 12' with two major provisions, the estate tax which is a giveaway to the states over $10 million e
it is a giveaway to the 's a wealthiest few and it ads to tho deficit because of that committee there is no reason too do it. but on the whole i think this in something that we should do ands i look forward to getting this done so that maybe my colleagueg on the other side will join us as we finish up a whole list of things we need to do before we l leave for the holidays. thank you very much, madame president. i yield the floor.ho. >> skype in the record a tributg to georgeeo voinovich. >> the senator from texas. spriggs before, madam president. madam president, i rise today to say i think the president of the united states and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell have to be great job as i hear the talking heads and the pundits and the different people
talking about this compromise on the way forward, i am sure of ie because no one is completelyth happy with it. people who think that we shouldt have aax death tax are not happi with this bill. that people who think as i do the unemployment goes too far and ad should have been on the other side. we are now faced with a choice. are we going to allow the taxeso for every single individual in our country who pay taxes to goo up on january 1st? 1 and we can talk all day about how we should have addressed this much earlier yes, that's a. true, but we are where we are. it is now mid december and it ig
long past time when we should have told the american people every family, every business in this country what the tax policy is going to be for two years. madam president, i have to tell you i come from a businessf background. i wish more of my colleagues bus have had real business i experience because sometimes when i hear the academics andnde the talking heads and people acs talk about what we ought to do,o people say let's just wait. we can do this better next year. are you kidding me? year. have you world trying to make a decision about whether you can have one more piece of machinery to your factory floor and how your people to run it or not?g to m the decision if you don't know a what yourt commitments are going to be
care bill that is looming beforb every business in this country.a now not only did i come from adt business background but i do talkpl to people in business throughout my speech. and they are not hiring.s two-thirds of the job in this country are created by small business and that is exactly what we should all hope for. we don't want jobs to be in the government sector, that's a cost you can't recoup. we need to cut down on the government sector jobs and makee sure people in the private sector are working because that is how you build a strong andnd vibrant economy and two-thirds ob those are small business andj small business people areting operating generally have low margins and they are not hiring people wednesday know that this
health care bill that they are seeing all kinds of estimates os the cost of that to them, and gi their taxes are going tong go up next year at every level taxes will go up if we don't pass thil bill this year. capital gains and dividends are going to go up. have seniors who have saved theirli lifetimes to be able to retire and they know they can't live ol social security, socialist cuba the was never meant to be a a complete retirement plan. it was meant to be a cushion, yn help with your savings that would allow you to have a standard of living. you talk to a senior today whoa, has seen and they are not earning 1 penny of their they savings, and they certainly are
a lot going to do well if we raise the tax on capital gainseo and dividends. what are we thinking? tax to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends that is the level- that allows many seniors to live at a decent standard?wh about t what about thehe tax rate? every person who pays taxes ise going to have an increase becau january 1st because they are going to go into a higher level bracket, a higher level of eachd brackett. now if we do that, let's go back to small business. the national federation of independent business which a ass the largest small-businessn ame, organization in america saysf tl that 75% of the small businesses
in this country are taxed at individual rates. so if their taxes didn't go up, that is t going to be the barrir to their being able to plan forv the future and higher. bess w what peoplane in business what y predictability and stability. that is why having at least two years is so very important, and doing it now so they can pay for next year is so very important predictability. now if i had written this bill dahuk pas with nobody else have opinion on the floor would havem made them permanent because i know that small business would much rather have the idea for ten years of what's going tos happen or at least five years but i didn't get to write it by
myself and neither did neier mr. mcconnell but had we writted it, weid would have made themrin permanent. we have all sponsored the billof to make the tax cuts permanent because we want jobs to be created in the private sector because those are the good jobss of the future that can be sustainable and grow our t tax economy. if we allow the tax cuts to go marriage penalty is going to come back. now the marriage penalty is my amendment that finally would pus in to the tax cuts of 2001 andme to concentrate. t my amendment was to relieve the marriage tax the people pay a policeman and a schoolteacher s get married and given to a higher bracket just because thet got married not because they increase their income and that t is wrong.o
school teachers get married into a higher bracket, with theteachi marriage penalty relief bill the greatest extent. it doubles the standard deduction instead of hearing itw backed and thahat is what we ned to have. what about the amt? the amt relief in this bill goes to the lowest income earners int this country. if we don't pass this bill, 21 million21 american taxpayers will have to pay the alternativu minimum tax because the government says they are nothins paying enough. i feel it is a fair question atk what point does the amt kagen? a today. person kicks in for a single person whd
makes $33,000. a married couple that makes$45,. $45,000. if we do not pass this bill let through this congress is to let, the president signed it, a married couple making $45,000 will have to pay the alternativx minimum tax. our bill gives relief, the bill that is on the floor gives relief so that it would go up to a married couple making 72,000 not to have the alternative minimum tax kick in, asingle single-payer at 40,000 so the we bottom line is if we think a single person making $33,000 ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax that i n can't explain it to you. that, if you think that, i can't explain it toi you.hink that i don't think that single person making $30,000 should be subject to an alternative minimum tax
because you're not paying enough taxes. the amt belief in the bill willl bump it up to a level it is more reasonable, 47 .53 single person and 72,000 for a married couple. the state tax relief i think tar that was a significant advanceo. for the real world. le, f again, small business people, farmers and ranchers. if you have the $1 millionill extension you will force farmers and small business people whose equipment is valued at more than it can produce, what happens is the heirs to the state will havp to sell the equipment or the business or part of the farm or all off the farm to pay taxes o
the government, and the irony is the money in an inheritance tax is money that has been taxed ana taxed and taxed again. people pay taxes on their earnings. people pay taxes on their profits in the business. they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings. the death tax doesn't make sensn in the american dream because wi haves always said this is ak had country where you can work hard and give your children the fruits of your leader. t but because of the death tax, family businesses are cut by 50t in this country because thebusio heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. that doesn't just affect the
family, it affects the people business. and i went to keep the american the dream alive and i think the bee inheritance tax should be doneah away with completely. because it is notis money that . never been taxed.m it has been taxed in our system again a and again and again. every time something is earned on earnings to pay a tax. so there is no policy reason for the death tax.o wte i didn't get the right the bill by myself yet neither did senator mcconnell or we would have made it permanent. but it's not going to be going o permanent and it's not going to go away. it is goinge to be the two-yearo extension with a $5 million exemption and a 35% rate after that. i think at least if we can allow people to plan for their state and hope that we can make itbe
permanent so that people will be able to plan into the future sol that the small business, their farms, their ranch will be ableb to be held by their ears and keep the job those family owned businesses have produced.s so i just think it is importanto when we get down to the bottomhs line, do we pass this bill or not? altertives. there are alternatives.ay, we y could say you know what, io want to write it differently. ya first of all, if we do that and we open up what i think is a very balanced approach, then wet are going to talk a that is awhe whole lot longer than about a tn week next year.xt yr. it's going to take a while. and in the meantime people are not going to be hiring becauseln
small business won't know what their tax liabilities are going to be. and we will not have this leasto settled at least for two years so we can work on the long-term tax reform. -- i thought to the commission thay just reported had three good ideas for tax reform whereeryo everyone would pay more of a flat tax. it would be slightly higher at the higher levels, but it would- bring more and lower the tax onu everyone and bring more because o would be simple and fair. ougt i think we ought to look at. that. need we might need to make changes ie one way or w another but it wasa good starting place.t if w if we wait until next year to pass pass a bill, we are going to throw this economy into of people, and we will certainly
not create the job that is the motivation behind this agreement. esid the president if the republicane agree on one thing and that is the goal should be to spur themy economy and create jobs. now we get there and have but at differences. but at least there are some o parts on both ends that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of t the jobs so that they can n start hiring, and that should be the positive part of thecisionte decision we all need to make to vote for this bill. you have written a different from mr. president, i would have written it differently. the president would have written a differently and so would senator mcconnell if we were the
king and queen of america.ely, n fortunately we are in a democracy, not in on our key soe we cannot have everything exactly the way we want. this is a good start. let me end by suggesting once we make this decision, and i hope we will make the decision to move forward.i hope the i hope the house will join then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for two years.going to people will know what they are r going to over two years and thes will be able to start making plans on that. that is i but the argument is being made that this is going to createoren more in the deficit does need to be addressed, and once this bilt was passed we must get about the business of cutting overall
ndending in this government.gova discretionary part which is ainr minor part of our budget. it is also the entitlement. what can we do to make theontinu entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to pay for it and a reasonable economy? we must get the debt down and the deficit down and we will be able to concentrate on that ifct we have put the tax cuts to bed. one of the things we need to address is the implementation of the health care bill, which is the other factor jobs not beingd created right now. rep i hope that we can repeal what we have passed and start all over so the business people knot
what we've passed is not goingoo to work.be in t courts it's going to be in the courts for a long time because of the constitutional issues and let's go about the planning for health care reform that doesn't put the fines and the penalties on on business and individuals. let's give them options so that for them. we don't have to do that with a hammer. we can do it with options that are incentives for people to geb health care because it will be affordable and let them make not choices for what suits their family, not a big government prescribed one-size-fits-all ang let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cud the spending and c the debt and the deficits and let set some pt
parameters around extending the unemployment so that more people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable giving back areart to the community if they areave able-bodied and have been unemployed for two years and and more. work if we are creative and we work n together we can do this. but te aaring this package apart and saying well i want it my way means we are not going to have the stability and predictability that will create jobs startingnd next year and that is our stated goal on both sides. the i hope the members of the house will realize that anything know we do next year is going to have
to be with the democrat-controlled senate, republican controlled house, and that means everything is not going to be our way.s i wouldn't have written this way agreement exactly this way and neither would senatormc mcconnee to revive sure the president wouldn't either but senatorll mcconnell and the president havo done what leaders need to do. the have come together on a bill that will move this countryill forward, and it will not increase taxes on anyone that is paying taxes today.ve how can anyone believe that there will be good for the economy of our country to raise taxes and a recession? to i'm sure we are going to hear at lot of debate on the floor about
what different individual senators would have done botto differently, but the bottom line is the senate willly overwhelmingly pass this package.hat when i just hope that when all of the debate is finished this bill will be signed by the presidente and we will move forward in a joint effort to reduce the debt of this country has of leaders should do. next two years as we now have settled the tax cut issuehopefuy hopefully we will go with a vengeance against the debt and d with tax reform and some reform in the entitlement programs we can do it. won't be easy but we can get it done and that is why we ran for
these offices. be to be the leaders when our gnuntry needs leadership. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.lso >> i also want to add my voicecd and respect recognition for ther service of senator kit bond. he has been a terrific colleague. we have just went over issues like water policy affecting the two states, but he's also alwayo conducted himself with honor an integrity, and he will be missed in this chamber. aoment mr. president, for just a moment i also want to know to the distinguished ambassador, someone who has played a key a k role in working with the policy towards iraq and t afghanistan. richard holbrooke was a giant in
che american diplomatic history. richard holbrooke was a friend.h i actually was with him in the sunday before he passed away ann was shocked to learn he had beea stricken, even more shocked to learn he passed away on monday. richard holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace and advancing the interests of the country.ooke tchard holbrooke will be missed separately i have to be mee unanimous consent request for ti committees to meet duringthave e today's session. dee have the approval of the lea majority leader's and i ask be d unanimous consent that these ree requests be agreed to and requests be printed in the record. i >> without objection, sordered. >> mr. president, have come to the floor to discuss the tax extension package before us. i support this package because u
they will provide i believe a significant boost to the economy next year. it is necessary because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millionses of middle class families in and just a matter of weeks. ficit mr. president, i recognize this will increase the deficit overbe the next two years that we needw to distinguish betweenha what it the right economic policy mhort-term and long-term. ter is any question that thisemains economy remains weak, unemployment is high and that means we need to do more to do provide liquidity in the short shou term. that doesn't mean we should ignore thero growing debt that s all around us. that is a longer-term challenge but it requires our urgent attention. put
mr. president, we need to put together a plan this year to deb deal with our deficits and debt. that is with the fiscalhat commission was all about what senator gregg and i and was just recently concluded its fourth with 11 of 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt long termby by $4 trillion.pack there elements of this package with which i agree. in fact, part of this tax package i strongly oppose. most noteliably, i am topped -- most noteably, i am opposed to those provisions that i think giveoverly generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax area. but i understand that the president did what he had to do to get an agreement. this economy clearly remains in a fragile state, and we can't