Stand By Your Ad Act of 2010

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we send this bill back to the drawing board, work with the President, so that we can really help the unemployed, the 99ers, and not just grow the deficit. Where are the good Samaritans?

We have voted over and over for tax cuts. I believe in them. The House voted for tax cuts 2 weeks ago, but this tax bill is a budget buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we're going to be called upon to do something about.

I want America to thrive. So they cannot be giving tax cuts to billionaires who do not want them. We cannot cut into the Social Security, costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers, and police who do not get a benefit from the payroll tax holiday. I want middle class tax cuts, but I want the Republicans to stop holding us hostage for hardworking Americans to get a dime from this country. They work hard.

I offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are unemployed. With billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it is time now to work for middle class Americans.

Mr. Chair, I have deep reservations with portions of this bill, especially as it relates to the estate tax and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Nevertheless, I do support portions of H.R. 4853, to extend vital tax cuts for America's middle and working class and extending unemployment insurance benefits that will otherwise expire at the end of this month. I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two weeks ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great State of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month. The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding unemployment benefits and tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

I also have some serious concerns that the temporary payroll tax cut included in this legislation could jeopardize Social Security. Although this is a temporary tax cut, there will inevitably be debate in the future about extending it before its expiration, which could create substantial shortfalls in Social Security's long term viability. Future extensions of this payroll tax at the expense of Social Security could force hard-earned retirement benefits to compete with other government programs for funding rather than remaining self-sufficient. Tax cuts must be instituted without compromising Social Security.

I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward fiscally responsible economic recovery.

I support those provisions of H.R. 4853 as amended by Senate Amendment 4753 that provide necessary tax relief to struggling middle income Americans. Under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, Senate Amendment 4753, middle- class families and small businesses will see their taxes go down. This measure contains job-creating tax incentives, including incentives to create clean energy jobs, energy-efficient homes, and investments in renewable energy. It also ensures that millions of Americans still looking for work continue to have access to an emergency safety net to afford basic necessities, without extending the amount of time these benefits can be claimed for any given household.

The specific ways that this bill will benefit middle-class families and aid the economic recovery include the following:

It preserves the current income tax rate for middle-class families (2 years).

It reauthorizes the current emergency unemployment insurance program (13 months, or through the end of 2011).

It continues vital middle-class tax credits, including the American Opportunity Tax Credit to help families pay for college, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (two years).

It helps businesses by allowing them to deduct 100 percent of certain investments in 2011 and 50 percent in 2012.

It extends the state and local sales tax deduction, which is particularly important for states, like Texas, which have no state income tax (2 years).

It extends Alternative Minimum Tax relief through 2011 (2 years).

I have already voted for all of the above benefits.

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 4853 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while lowering their estate tax rate to 35% on estates valued at more than $5 million for individuals and more than $10 million for couples. These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

I offered an amendment that would require all large businesses and corporations who received a tax benefit under this legislation to report how their tax savings are being used to create or save jobs. Tax cuts for America's largest corporations must be tied to job creation or preservation, which is why I offered my amendment. Failing to tie tax cuts to job creation is irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing deficit without bolstering job creation.

I would like to add my support for the Amendment to H.R. 4853 introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota. This amendment would strike Title III of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4583 and amend the bill to provide two years of estate tax relief at 2009 levels. In calendar years 2011 and 2012, the estate tax exemption amount would be $3.5 million ($7 million total for a married couple) and the maximum tax rate on estates would be 45%. Additionally, the amendment would provide estates from decedents in 2010 with the ability to elect to be treated under the 2009 levels or to be treated under current law for tax purposes. This election will allow estates to receive a step up in basis on inherited property rather than the 2010 carryover basis rules. The exemption level and rate are consistent with the estate tax proposal included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 budgets.

While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 4853 that amount to an expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to emphasize that I fully support President Obama's vision for change. I share his commitment to fighting for low and middle-income Americans who are the backbone of this country and our economy. However, this legislation, especially as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate the deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job creation.

I strongly support the tax and unemployment insurance relief that H.R. 4853 provides to middle-income families, small businesses and farmers. But, my friends, I must express my concern that this legislation does not provide extension of unemployment benefits for those unfortunate unemployed Americans who have run up against a brick wall. These so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work for a very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 4853 proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to provide for the so-called ``99ers.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.

If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy.

If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote ``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax Code-- then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track.

I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.

If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make that a reality?

The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.

Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax hike.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this legislation, and so should the Members of this House.

By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up.

Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.

And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or providing direct tax relief to the American worker.

It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million.

Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field,

and the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on.

While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it deserves our support.

Members should also know, and the American people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.

The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low- income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy.

Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job- killing health care law.

My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer.

So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to contrast the Democratic plan, plan A, and the Republican plan, plan B, and what they mean for the working citizens of the United States of America.

Let me start by talking about the Democratic plan, plan A. It is plan A because it is America's plan. Why is it America's plan? First, it benefits every single taxpayer in America. That is the first reason.

Some of my colleagues across the aisle have liked to talk about how the Democratic plan only helps those who earn under $250,000, but that is because they are not paying attention or they are deliberately distorting the facts, because the Democratic plan provides a tax break on the first $250,000 regardless of what amount of money you make. So it helps every single American.

The second is that the recent focus on citizens earning less than $250,000 is because it is the working citizens of the United States of America who have been getting the short end of the stick. The amount of money--the average income for workers in America plateaued in 1974.

Now, that happens to be the year I graduated from high school. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of taking my son to his first day of high school, same high school I went to, exactly 40 years later. So for almost 40 years, the working wages for working Americans have been flat. But during that time period, the wealth of this country has increased enormously.

The productivity of the American worker has increased enormously. Up until the mid-1970s, when the productivity increased, the wage of working Americans increased. They shared in the productivity of our economy because they were the driving factor in our economy. Unfortunately, for the last 3\1/2\ to 4 decades that has not been the case.

Then along come the great Bush recession. This recession, caused by the deregulation of retail mortgage,--allowing predatory mortgages, allowing kickbacks from mortgage originators to create predatory mortgages, when folks qualified for prime mortgages, and then the deregulation of Wall Street so those could be packaged into securities was a 2-year ticking time bomb because they had these teaser rates on the mortgages.

When the interest rates went from 4\1/2\ to 9 or 10 percent, not only did the mortgages blow up but the securities based on them blew up. And we blew up the whole economy. So, thank you very much, friends across the aisle, for attacking the most important financial instrument for American families, the American mortgage, destroying it, allowing predatory mortgages, allowing predatory securities, blowing up this economy, and attacking the American family.

I cannot tell you how many millions of American families are suffering because of the policies that you all implemented over the last decade. What is the result? The American family home has lost value, a tremendous amount of value. Families are underwater. What is the result? Huge unemployment caused by the meltdown in the great Bush recession. Retirement savings are depleted. Folks who thought they could have retired maybe now, maybe in 2 years, 5 years, are realizing they may have to work as long as they are able to work, as long as they are able to keep a job. Their dreams are blown up thanks to these Bush policies.

Well, there is a third reason the Democratic plan is the American plan. That is because four out of five Americans support it. Some 79 percent, or roughly 80 percent, four out of five Americans support tax breaks for families earning less than $250,000, for extending those tax breaks. So that is plan A, America's plan, because it helps all Americans, because it is focused on the American worker who has been hit so hard by the great Bush recession, and, because four out of five Americans support it and understand we need it.

But now let's turn to the Republican plan, plan B. Plan B consists of bonus breaks for billionaires--millionaires and billionaires. Why ``bonus''? Because every person helped under the Republican plan who earns $1 million or $1 billion has already been helped under the Democratic plan. But my colleagues across the aisle want ``extra'' for the wealthiest, most successful Americans.

I respect tremendously the entrepreneurs who have been so successful. But there is a time when we have to ask, Are bonuses to those best off the best strategy for America to go forward? This is quite a tongue twister:

bonus breaks for billionaires. It gets even worse. These are the extensions of the Bush breaks, and because my colleagues across the aisle are trying to sell it as a job creation issue--and we will get to that in a minute--they are bogus.

So we have the bogus bonus Bush breaks for billionaires. That is the Republican plan B, saying they will obstruct any issue on the floor of the Senate so they can get these bonus breaks for their best friends earning millions and billions.

Well, I will tell you, these are expensive. Let's ask ourselves how much is the average value of the Republican bonus break? Well, $100,000 per taxpayer. That is how much. If we take the $700 billion the Republican plan creates in more deficit and more debt, if we take that $700 billion and divide it by the number of citizens--men, women and children--in America, 300 million, that is $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America.

So my colleagues across the aisle are proposing taking $2,300 out of every child's and adult's pocket in America to give breaks, $100,000 tax breaks, to millionaires and billionaires.

So let's look at the total cost. Total cost, $700 billion, before we add on interest. Let's add on interest. It is almost $1 trillion. That is a huge increase in our deficit. So it is deficit busting, debt adding, financed by China, and placed onto our children.

Is that what the excited Republican team, coming fresh out of an election, wants to say is their top priority in America, taking $2,300 from every man, woman, and child in America so they can give a $100,000 tax break to millionaires and billionaires?

Well, they have a way of trying to camouflage this. That camouflage is to talk about jobs. So let's talk about jobs. Let's look at the Republican plan in terms of job creation. Well, CBO ranked the Republican plan against many other plans, and where does it come in? Dead last.

I have the detailed chart from the Congressional Budget Office, and up here at the very top is the Democratic plan. That is to provide assistance to the unemployed. Here at the very bottom is the Republican plan, which is bonus breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Let me tell you just how different these are. Increasing aid to the unemployed is estimated to create 8 to 19 jobs for every $1 million in expenditure, 8 to 19 jobs. How many jobs are created by the Republican plan? One to three, one to three jobs.

So the Democrats are saying, let's take the dead-last plan in job creation, the Republican plan, and let's replace it with the best plan, the Democratic plan.

Republican plan, one to three jobs per $1 million, one to three for $1 million; Democratic plan, 8 to 19. Well, my good friend from South Dakota was here saying it is all just common sense. Yes, it is common sense. We take the plan that is the worst for job creation, and we replace it with the plan that is the best for job creation.

Well, friends across America, this is about jobs, and the word ``jobs'' will come out of the rhetoric on the opposite side of the aisle with every speech. But it is bogus. Their plan is dead last; Democratic plan is top of the list. Check the CBO study.

It hurts to hear folks who are out of touch with the foreclosure crisis in America----

I ask for the chairman to yield me 30 seconds.

One minute.

I thank my friend from Montana.

It is summarized like this. We have American families who are hurting. They have lost their jobs, their retirement savings, the value of their houses. Let's have the plan that is best for creating jobs, not the plan that is worst for creating jobs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think what we have just heard illustrates why it has been so hard for us to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to resolve the tax issues all Americans face in just 4 short weeks.

Last Tuesday, a group of us went down to the White House to visit with the President, the Vice President, and some of his folks in a spirit of cooperation, I must say, and a spirit in which the President reached out to us and said: All right, the elections are over. My party didn't do so well, but it is time now for us to get together and work together, and the first piece of business we have to resolve is this tax issue. We have to figure out how we are going to fund the government for the remaining 10 months of the fiscal year, and we have to figure out how we are going to prevent Americans from getting a big tax increase come January 1. What I would like for you all to do-- talking both to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate--is to sit down and try to negotiate this in a bipartisan spirit that truly would give credit to the Congress and give the American people some confidence that they can move forward with some degree of clarity about what their tax obligations are going to be. We agreed.

The President asked us if we would be willing to sit down, literally immediately, to begin these discussions. We said yes. He named two of his chief spokesmen--the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and Jacob Lew, the head of OMB, to discuss those issues on behalf of the administration, and each of the four leaders in the House and Senate named someone to join the discussions as well. Leader McConnell asked me to do that on behalf of Senate Republicans.

We immediately scheduled a meeting and we got together to discuss the parameters of how we should move forward, and it was a very productive discussion. But it also became apparent, and it became apparent the second time we met, that actually there weren't going to be any bipartisan negotiations to reach a decision until there had been a political catharsis on the Democratic side.

So let me respond briefly to comments made by the majority leader this morning, who seemed to lay at the feet of Republicans the delay in getting this tax issue resolved, when, in fact, it has been due to the fact that House and Senate Democrats have had to demonstrate to many of the people in their political base that they can't accomplish what their base would like them to accomplish and, therefore, ultimately, they will have to negotiate something with us. I understand sometimes you need to go through a process whereby it makes it easier for you to make concessions, and I suspect that is part of what this is all about.

I certainly don't denigrate the motives of any of my colleagues because this is hard, and they are getting a lot of pressure from people in their political base about not giving in to the Republicans and so on. But the President asked us to discuss this in a bipartisan way, and Republicans have been willing to do that. But, first of all, Speaker Pelosi scheduled a vote in the House that was the Democratic position to allow taxes to be increased on hundreds of thousands of small businesses and others in this country. A vote was finally held, and I might add that 20 Democrats left the fold and joined Republicans in saying: No, that is not the way to reach a consensus. Then the Senate Democrats decided to schedule the same vote and one more vote to try to accomplish the same purpose. Because of the lateness of the time in which that was done, the cloture didn't ripen until this morning, which is why we are here this morning getting ready to cast these two votes.

But I wish to make it clear that I have a disagreement with the majority leader if he is suggesting that somehow it is Republicans who have delayed these negotiations. The fact is, we have had three meetings and I have sat there and we have been very genial with each other, but it has been very clear we are not going to be negotiating anything until this political process is over with--until the partisan votes have been cast--and then and only then will people sit down to seriously negotiate how we are going to resolve the issue. The problem is, of course, there is very little time before Christmas. The President has some other things on his agenda, as does the majority leader. I now understand we are going to have to schedule time next week for an impeachment trial, for example, that can take about a day and a

half. The President would like to see the START treaty brought up in the Senate and resolved before Christmas. There are other things that have to be done.

I wish to make it clear that it is not the Republicans' fault that these things are taking time and we still don't have the tax issue resolved. It is interesting, we have now been in the lameduck session for 2 weeks and we have accomplished exactly one thing: the Senate has passed a food safety bill which now turns out to be unconstitutional. So 2 weeks of lameduck session and essentially nothing accomplished.

Our Democratic colleagues have been in caucus for hours--hours-- trying to figure out what to do while Republicans are ready to negotiate, ready to act. But until this political catharsis has finally run its course, it appears there will be no more negotiation.

I am assuming that the next time the negotiators get together--I hope it will be Monday morning; whenever we can get together--we will then be able to actually sit down and work through the process so we can extend the tax policies that have been in place for the last decade so that no Americans have their taxes increased, so that businesses will have certainty and families will have certainty about what their tax obligations will be going into the next year. If that process can begin quickly, then I think we can reach a bipartisan agreement that would make the American people proud and would demonstrate that we actually can come together on an important issue such as this for the benefit of the American people.

But let there be no mistake, the votes that were taken in the House of Representatives and that will be taken here are not because Republicans wanted to take these votes. These are votes the Democrats believed were necessary to demonstrate essentially that they cannot get the support they need to do what they would prefer to do, therefore enabling them to sit down and talk to Republicans.

Those are the facts. We understand this takes time. I just don't want to be blamed for taking the time when it is, in fact, not the Republicans' fault that negotiations have not been completed.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, I am allocated 10 minutes, I think. Can you let me know when I have used 9 minutes?

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus.

I guess the first observation I would like to make is that we are here on a Saturday morning. This is democracy, in many ways, at its best. People understand the two votes are going to fail. But it is good for Americans to have genuine differences to be able to discuss what makes us tick, why we want to go one way versus the other. So the fact that America is divided on a lot of big issues is just the result of living in a free country.

What was the lesson of the last election? They are what you would like them to be. But here is my observation, for what it is worth. Our Democratic friends took a beating. As Republicans, we have been there. In 2006 and 2008 we took a beating. In 2006, the Iraq war was going very badly, and Americans were very frustrated. President Bush's popularity plummeted.

In 2008 we had an economic meltdown that I thought was related to housing, where we lent money to people who could not afford to pay their mortgages. The mortgages were being packaged and sold as all kinds of exotic instruments throughout the world. It brought the whole world economy down, and we have been struggling ever since.

We can talk about how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the cause of this problem, how loose the practices were when it came to lending, but I think most people understand that our economic crisis was created by the housing market being overextended and people getting into that market in exotic ways without a whole lot of regulation.

Here we are a couple of years later. I think the last election was a message to our Democratic friends: For the last 2 years, you have been going down the wrong road. The health care bill, which about 80 percent of Americans, if it ever becomes law, will be under government- controlled health care, was an overreach.

The stimulus package was $780-something billion that has not done what it was billed to do. When we look at the amount of spending the Democratic Party is engaged in, way above what every American has been able to do, this was an election basically not to pro-Republican, just to our Democratic colleagues. Stop. And the way you get stopped around here is to get replaced.

So the House had a dramatic election. We picked up seats in the Senate, and some of us thought maybe we could pick up about two or three more. We made some pretty poor choices when it came to candidates, but that is now behind us.

What I would like to tell my colleagues is, when I look at America I do not see an undertaxed nation. I think our Tax Code is far too complicated. Now 35 percent is the rate. How much is enough? Is it 39.6? Is that the difference between a social justice country and a land of the rich? I mean, are we going to increase taxes for the upper incomes by 10 percent when we cannot create enough jobs for Americans who are unemployed?

I do believe in this idea that upper income Americans are the ones who create most jobs for the middle class and people looking for work. That is just the fact.

Here is how our Tax Code works today. Forty percent of Americans pay no Federal income tax. Forty percent of us really do not pay any income tax at all. Of those who do, 50 percent of those who pay Federal income tax pay 3 percent. The other 50 percent pay 97 percent.

The top 10 percent of wage earners in this country pay 70 percent of the taxes. Now, I am for a progressive tax system, but that is not right. That seems to me to be taking the country in the wrong direction.

There are 750,000 small businesses who will get a tax increase if we do not extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody.

I will make a prediction. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries in the world, a lot of things we would like to know that we do not know the answers to. This is not one of them. What will happen, hopefully, next week, is all of the Bush-era tax cuts will be extended because we have high unemployment, and

now is not the time to pass on to businesses or upper income Americans more taxes.

I hope we can extend some of the Obama tax cuts. I do not want to raise taxes on anyone. If you do not pay taxes, then you should not be getting a tax cut because you have no tax liability. But if you were in the EITC before, you have some tax liability. The Obama tax cut and the stimulus helped you. I am one who considers that to be something we should be looking at, that no one's taxes should go up, Bush-era tax cuts or Obama tax cuts.

When it comes to the unemployed and unemployment insurance, we are going to extend that. But we have to have a package that makes sense. So once we get this vote behind us Democrats on the other side will join with Republicans on this side to say no to the class warfare approach.

One of my good friends from New Jersey said something that got everybody stirred up, that negotiating with Republicans is like negotiating with terrorists. Well, I know Bob Menendez. He is a fine man. But these are heated times. We say things that sometimes maybe sound good to our base but upon reflection we should not say. Nobody over here should be considered in that light. To our Democratic friends, we have a genuine disagreement. That is all it is. The one thing we have in common, when the real terrorists do come to visit America, they could care less how much money one makes. They will kill the janitor and the business owner just as quickly because they don't see any difference based on income. The one thing Americans have in common is, we do believe in free speech, open debate, religious diversity. That is not something we believe in based on income. That is something we believe in based on being an American.

I ask my colleagues on both sides to understand that not only are we in this war on terror together, we are in this economy together. A lot of Americans are suffering, some more than others. The ones who are struggling in the middle class and lower incomes are trying to do one thing everybody agrees on--get a job. I believe the best way for struggling Americans to get a job is not to raise taxes but keep them low in a weak economy. That is what I genuinely believe.

I did not come from a rich family. I am the first person in my family to ever go to college. My mom and dad owned a liquor store and a restaurant. They worked long and hard to make sure my sister and I could go to college. When my parents died, I was 22 and my sister was 13. If it were not for Social Security survivor benefits, we would not have made it. She received Pell grants to go to school when her college days were there. I was in the Air Force and helped where I could. I get it. People are struggling. There is a role for the government. But this is not the time for our government to raise taxes on anybody because all of us are struggling to try to find a way out of this economic mess. There are tough days ahead, economically. There are tough days ahead in the war on terror.

Let's have these votes, come back next week, and see if we can solve some problems that all Americans are dying for their Congress to solve: get us back on sound economic footing, deal with debt.

Hats off to Senator Durbin, Senator Crapo, and Senator Coburn for their votes on the debt commission. They did some very hard things. That product is going to serve the country well. We are all in this together.

I wish everyone good holidays and maybe a time to reflect that we do have more in common than we have in differences.

I yield the floor.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The compromise before

us clearly requires painful choices. These choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? And does it promote fairness?

For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration.

This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.

In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of all estates.

I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.

I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an active member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Madam President, the job market is still suffering from the fallout of the recession from the end of the Bush years. The unemployment rate nationally is near 10 percent; in my State, it is well over 11 percent. The proposal of Chairman Baucus would inject hundreds of billions of dollars into this faltering economy, helping struggling families make ends meet and creating jobs in the process. On behalf of the 65,000 Rhode Islanders who are out there currently looking for work, I express my support for the Baucus 1-year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. Without this extension, thousands of Rhode Islanders will soon be left with no source of income as they continue to search the want ads, no money for the mortgage or rent, no money for food, no money for medicine or for holiday presents for the children.

The 1-year extension of this lifeline will quite literally mean for Rhode Island families the difference between keeping a home or facing homelessness this winter. The vast majority of unemployed Rhode Islanders are out there looking for work. They are out of work through no fault of their own. They are looking for work every day. The jobs simply are not there.

I was at the Cranston senior center yesterday for their Christmas holiday party and spoke to a lady whose son had been in the workforce for 28 years. He had a substantial career. He was out of work. He is stocking shelves at the minimum wage. People are not ducking work. The jobs are not there.

Historically, Congress has extended unemployment benefits when the national unemployment rate has been above 7.2 percent. It is over 9 percent. It is 9.8 percent, according to a report Friday. This 1-year extension will give the 65,000 unemployed Rhode Islanders and over 15 million unemployed Americans the support they need to continue weathering this tempestuous economy.

In addition, this tax package would continue a powerful incentive for more investment in smaller companies. Under the proposal of the chairman, qualified investments made in 2011 in small businesses would be eligible for a 100-percent capital gains tax exclusion, if they are held for at least 5 years. As the credit market continues to slowly thaw, I have heard from numerous Rhode Island business owners that they would like to expand operations, but they can't get the capital. This provision will encourage much needed equity investments so businesses in Rhode Island and around the country can create and expand jobs.

The Baucus proposal would make permanent the current tax rates for 97 percent of taxpayers and deliver tax savings to 100 percent of taxpayers. I am sure my colleagues hear from their constituents, as I hear from Rhode Islanders, that it is getting more and more difficult for families to balance their budgets. Each year ticks by bringing higher fuel, food, and medicine costs. Budgets are stretched paper thin. It would be harsh now to let taxes go up for middle-class families. The Baucus proposal would keep tax rates where they are for individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and families earning less than $250,000 per year. Continuing these rates will spare middle- class families considerable tax increases. For example, a family of four earning $60,000 per year would save $2,500 under our plan. I can assure my colleagues that for some of my constituents, that $2,500 could be the difference between paying their mortgage and facing foreclosure or sending a child to college instead of into the minimum- wage workforce.

In addition to continuing the middle-class tax cuts, this will inject about $200 billion into the economy over the next 2 years. When middle- class families get additional resources, they tend to spend them, invigorating the economy and supporting local and regional jobs. From family budgets to the national economy, extending the middle-class tax cuts is a clear win-win.

This is not necessarily the case for extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Under the Democratic plan, the first $250,000 of income for a wealthy family would benefit from extended lower rates. This means $6,000 to $7,000 in savings. But our Republican friends want to go much further and give the average multimillionaire a $100,000 tax bonus. Every economist knows a middle-class family is more likely to spend an extra few thousand dollars on groceries, on clothes, on pharmaceuticals, than a person who already has millions to spend will with an extra $100,000. In an age of large deficits, we need to start to make tough choices on our budget, and this should be an easy one. Let's keep rates where they are for the vast majority of Americans and permit the rates at the very tiptop to go back to Clinton-era levels.

We are warned that if millionaires and billionaires have to pay the same tax rates as the 1990s, the economic recovery will suffer. But were the Clinton years a time of economic suffering? Of course not. The economy thrived in the 1990s under Clinton income tax rates, far better than it did under the Bush tax rates. There is no reason to think the recovery would suffer if we restored the Clinton-era rates for the very wealthiest and most fortunate.

I find it astonishing that our Republican colleagues continue to filibuster our efforts to get a tax break for all Americans in order to secure a bigger tax bonus for the top 3 percent of the American population at a cost to our debt and deficit of $700 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn about 21 percent of all income and own over one-third of our Nation's wealth. Those figures are at their highest levels since the Roaring Twenties. Quite simply the rich are richer than they have ever been, and Senate Republicans are holding hostage a tax benefit for all Americans to demand a superbenefit for the superwealthy.

I hope our Republican colleagues will stop obstructing this important tax reduction and emergency unemployment legislation. From funding the government to authorizing the military, we have so much work to do this year. The price for regular Americans of obstruction in the Senate is becoming too high.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, let's start with a basic fact: the legislation we soon will vote on represents a tax cut for every single American taxpayer. From the poorest to the wealthiest, every single American taxpayer will pay less in taxes under this legislation than they will pay if we do not act.

But prudently, given the concerns all of us profess about our fiscal situation, this legislation draws a line. While every taxpayer would enjoy a tax cut, that cut would only apply to income under $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals. This is important for two reasons. First, it focuses on the middle-class families that were struggling to get ahead even before reckless mortgage lenders and Wall Street traders drove our economy into a ditch. Second, drawing that line respects the need to address our fiscal situation. Extending the cuts for income above the $250,000 level would increase our budget deficit by $818 billion over the next 10 years.

Let's focus on that for a moment. Just a month ago, we concluded a political campaign. During that campaign and after the votes were counted, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly characterized that election as essentially a referendum on the deficit and jobs. In a joint opinion column published in the Washington Post, Republican leaders in the House and Senate wrote that the message from voters is, ``They want us to stop the spending binge, cut the deficit.''

So what's the first major policy position taken by our Republican colleagues after that election? It is a proposal to increase the budget deficit by $818 billion. They say the deficit is important to them but apparently not so important that they would give up additional tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in order to cut it.

This change of heart extends beyond the question of tax cuts and the deficit. In that same opinion article, the Republican leaders say voters in 2010 told us ``they want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job growth.''

Well, here is our chance. This legislation includes an extension of unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs in this recession. There is no policy option more effective in helping ``create the conditions for private sector job growth'' than extending unemployment benefits. Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said before the Budget Committee on September 28:

The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary

cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the

unemployed.

Let me repeat that:

The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary

cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the

unemployed.

Director Elmendorf isn't alone. Economist Mark Zandi told the Finance Committee earlier this year:

No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective

during the past two years than emergency UI benefits.

These economists and others, across the ideological spectrum, base these judgments on empirical studies and complex statistical models. But the reason what they say is true comes down to common sense. If you are without a job, you don't have much money not just money to spend on luxuries but money to spend on food and shelter for yourself and your family. So the relatively small amount of money you receive in an unemployment check almost certainly will go to pay for

those necessities. You have little choice but to spend it. And that spending helps generate economic activity. A wealthy taxpayer, by contrast, has the luxury of taking the money from a tax cut and putting it in his or her pocket a luxury they are likely to exercise, meaning that tax cut for the wealthy does little to stimulate the economy.

The legislation we will soon vote on includes other important provisions that would fulfill the Republican leaders' self-proclaimed goal of working together to stimulate job growth. It would permanently reduce capital gains tax rates, and permanently extend the expanded child tax credit for working families. It makes relief from the marriage tax penalty permanent. It makes permanent provisions that reduce taxes for small businesses, freeing up capital for those businesses to generate new jobs, and extends temporary provisions to help small businesses such as exclusions for small business capital gains and increased deductions for start-up ventures. It continues initiatives to boost investment in advanced energy technologies that are increasing employment in my state and others. It extends the research and development tax credit. It repeals a provision of the Affordable Care Act that added to small business reporting requirements, a provision that I would think our Republican colleagues can support.

In short, if you say you ``want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job growth,'' and if you say you want to rein in the deficit, you should support this legislation. And if you say you support more jobs and less deficit, and then vote against this legislation, you are guilty, at best, of a real inconsistency.

So I will vote in favor of the cloture motion on the Baucus amendment. And I should add that, if Senator Baucus's amendment fails, I will vote in favor of Senator Schumer's amendment. If we cannot agree that those making over $250,000 a year can endure a slightly higher tax burden at this time of great concern over deficits, surely we all can agree that those enjoying incomes over $1 million a year are able. We should not, and I hope we would not, reject tax cuts for the vast majority of middle-income Americans, and even most high-income Americans, in order to pursue tax cuts for those who are least in need.

I urge my colleagues to support cloture so that we can get this much needed tax relief to middle-class families and small businesses and contribute to private sector job growth and a growing economy. It is time for our Republican colleagues to back up their rhetoric with their votes.