USA Act

Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to assist literally hundreds of thousands of families across this country who are out of work through no fault of their own, who are battling with the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, who are chasing jobs that have disappeared, and they are looking everywhere to try to find work. We have the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits for an additional year.

In my State of Rhode Island, people are in a very serious situation. They are struggling to stay in their homes, to educate their children, to deal with the challenges of everyday life. They

have worked hard and long all of their lives, and now they are finding it difficult to find a job.

In every situation previously in this country, we have come to their assistance. We have done so by extending unemployment benefits. We have never failed to do that as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2 or 7.4 percent. Today across the country, it is close to 9 percent nationally. In my State of Rhode Island, it is much higher. We have always done it on an emergency basis because it truly is an emergency. We haven't had to offset because we have always determined that it was necessary to get the money to the people who could use it, who needed it desperately, and we should do that again.

I find it difficult to understand how some of my colleagues on the other side would object to an extension of unemployment benefits for a year that are not offset but at the same time insist that we provide tax cuts to the very richest Americans, without paying for them, and insist that we add approximately $700 billion to our deficit by extending tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year--and many making many times that amount--yet for unemployed Americans desperately seeking work and not finding it, they would insist that we not only have to pay for it, but we have delayed and delayed the process of getting them assistance. It is difficult to justify those two positions.

It is also difficult to justify those two positions because what we know is that unemployment compensation benefits give us a much bigger bang for the buck than the extension of tax relief to upper income citizens. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the effectiveness of various techniques to provide assistance and stimulate demand in the economy. They have found that unemployment insurance is far and away the most effective form--much more effective than tax cuts to the wealthy.

CBO estimates that for every dollar of unemployment compensation benefits that we inject into the economy, we get $1.90 of economic activity, which is almost a 2-for-1 payback. So we are in a situation where this is not only the appropriate policy to pursue, but it is the most effective one in order to keep demand and the economy and growth moving forward.

I am someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. That is why I took, in the 1990s, difficult votes in order to balance the budget under President Clinton, to raise not only our output but also to balance the budget and have a surplus in 2000. I opposed the proposal and the tax cuts favored by Republican colleagues in 2000 because I understood that the difficult, hard fought, fiscal responsibility could easily be frittered away because what looked like a surplus in 2000 could be affected by unforeseen events, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or changes in the world economy that we could not contemplate. I knew how difficult it was in the nineties to get our house in order. I was opposed to these tax cuts. I hope everybody else realizes the demographics of the country at that time.

In 1993-1994, we took tough votes to build up a surplus because we knew what was coming. We had a demographic wave--the baby boomers--that would qualify for Medicare and Social Security, and that would, by the nature of the sheer size of that population, put extra demands upon our budget.

Despite all of that, taxes were cut, wars were pursued unpaid for. For the first time in the history of the country, we engaged in major military operations and didn't even make an attempt to pay for them. That is not the definition of fiscal responsibility. Yet many of the same proponents of that policy are urging us today that we cannot do unemployment compensation insurance unless we pay for it. But, of course, let's extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthiest, and in that case add another $700 billion to our deficit over 10 years. That doesn't seem to make any economic sense.

This proposal is supported by people who are knowledgeable about the way the economy works. In a statement released today, 33 economists, including 5 recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics and 5 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have said:

Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency

unemployment insurance program, which provides extra weeks of

benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic

policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help

maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this

critical point in the recovery. . . . Eliminating these

benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the

long-term unemployed, scale back spending, and weaken the

economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most

effective means available to support overall demand.

Unemployment has remained above 9 percent for 18 months

already and will likely remain high for some time to come,

making a strong case for continuing the current program for

another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for

extending unemployment insurance during recessions have

traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and

this remains a prudent approach. The program will not

contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its

costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and

unemployment returns to more normal levels.

Let me say that again in my own words. Our colleagues are suggesting a permanent extension of tax cuts that will cost, over 10 years, $700 billion, and presumably 10 years after that and 10 years after that. That is a huge structural change to our revenue. Unemployment compensation benefits are cyclical. They rise in difficult times, like today, and they fall as the economy recovers. So we are not talking about a long-term commitment to a program of deficit enhancement; we are talking about short-term relief for struggling Americans.

I think these economists make the case extraordinarily well. I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.

As I indicated before, their view has been echoed by the CBO. Tax cuts, in their view, are the least effective form of economic stimulus, and the most effective is unemployment insurance benefits.

On November 16, the Department of Labor released an independent study that was commissioned during the Bush administration. It found that since mid-2008, the Federal unemployment insurance program has saved 1.6 million jobs in every quarter, averting 1.8 million layoffs per quarter at the height of the downturn, and reduced the unemployment rate by 1.2 points.

Separately, the Economic Policy Institute has found that continuing the programs through the end of 2011 will support the creation of 700,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

People who get unemployment insurance benefits tend to take that money and go to the grocery store or buy shoes for their children or pay down, if they can, some of their credit card debt. Maybe in this holiday season they will buy an extra present for their children. That keeps our economy moving, and it keeps the people in the grocery stores working, people at department stores working, and the manufacturers producing these goods working.

Our economy grew at 2 percent in the third quarter and in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips estimated that if unemployment insurance benefits expired, it would shave half a percentage point from growth. Such a decline would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. So here is a policy that will expand jobs, maintain jobs, and if we don't pursue it, we will find ourselves contracting employment at the very time that all Americans are asking us to do something very clear-cut: get jobs, keep jobs, produce jobs, and find a way to create them. This could also engender a downward spiral because if the jobs contract, that could be the beginning of further contraction, and it could leave us in a worse situation.

So not only will families feel the brunt of this lack of unemployment compensation benefits, it is the small businesses throughout every community--it is the retailers and the people who depend upon their neighborhood customers to come in and buy the goods and services that not only provide them what they need but also provides the cash flow for small businesses to keep operating.

Failure to maintain unemployment insurance will mean that 2 million jobless workers will lose benefits in December. Two million Americans, this December, will stop receiving benefits. Several hundred thousand unemployed workers will lose their benefits every month, culminating in up to 6 million losing benefits by the end of 2011. Now is the time to govern, the time to act, and now is the time to do what we have always done in a situation like this. It is the time to act promptly and timely and pass an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits.

We have seen over the last year delay after delay. We have seen benefits expire only to retroactively be restored through procedural votes and delays.

One of the ironies is that we get these procedural votes that we can't move forward on a bill but, finally, when the bill comes up to a vote, there is overwhelming support, which suggests to me that the process of delay has taken primacy over the substance of policy. That is not worthy of our constituents and the crisis they face today in this country. We have, as I said, continuously maintained unemployment compensation benefits, and we have extended benefits whenever our unemployment rate nationally is above 7.2 percent. Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses, and Democratic Congresses have always recognized that at the level of 9 percent unemployment, extended unemployment benefits were almost automatic--something you had to do for all the reasons I have cited, such as the economic effects on the economy, but most fundamentally it is giving people a chance to just make ends meet until they can find a job.

So I think we are in a position where we must go forward. Acting now is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and the wise economic thing to do. We need to swiftly pass this 1-year extension.

Many colleagues are joining Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee, in introducing this legislation. I urge at this point that we move forward, and at this point I make the following request.

Yes.

I think the Senator from Illinois has stated it very clearly, very succinctly, and very accurately. That, apparently, is the choice. It is a choice I find difficult to understand for the reasons the Senator has laid out. We want to respond to the needs of so many families, working families. And this is one of those programs that, by definition--if you qualify for unemployment benefits, you had a job, you just lost it. So these are working families who are now looking for some support as they search desperately for jobs.

As we pointed out too, not just in terms of the individual recipients but for the economy overall, the benefit is substantial. It is about $1.90 in economic activity for every $1 that we put into the benefit. On the other side of the spectrum, economists have looked at the impact of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and find very little growth in economic activity, and, frankly, that makes sense. This is not economics at MIT or Harvard or anyplace else. If you are struggling at $368 a month, it is not going to go into your vacation fund or for buying objects of art. It is going to go to the grocery store and into all of the demands of a family. If you are fortunate enough through your hard work and through your ingenuity to be making over $1 million a year, your consumption package is not going to be altered dramatically by these tax cuts. That is the conclusion of the economists, and I think the Senator said it very well.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3981

So I thank the Senator from Illinois, but at this juncture, I would like to formally, Madam President, ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record, as if read.

If the Senator will pause for a moment, I am concluding, and then the Senator will have his own time.

Again, I think it is unfortunate that we cannot move this bill. I think, to put it very succinctly, we will try again. I hope we can. I hope we will for the sake of our country, small businesses, and families across my State and in this Nation who need this help and assistance.

With that, I yield the floor.

I object.

Madam President, my colleague from Massachusetts has made a rather vigorous and impassioned statement. What I sense, though, is he is quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the credit card but not extend unemployment benefits, as we have done persistently, decade after decade, without offsets, for people who are struggling without work. So if we are talking about coming together, avoiding increased deficits, let's look at this big issue of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let's look at the offsets there, I suggest.

I also suggest, in terms of his argument we are not doing anything, that the record, unfortunately, of my colleagues on the other side, with respect to this issue--and we are talking about the issue of unemployment compensation benefits extension--has been one of delay and delay and delay. June 17 of this year we tried to extend these benefits and it failed in a cloture vote. They would not even let us get to the substance of the bill or amendments, perhaps, which could have paid for them or tried to offset them.

Then we came back on June 24, a week later, and had another vote. Of course, again, by 57 to 41 it was opposed.

Now we come to July 20. It finally passed 60 to 40, the minimum number of votes. The vast majority of the opposing caucus still says no.

The notion that we are somehow blocking dealing with the economic issues is so far from reality. What we have seen is obstruction, particularly when it comes to unemployment compensation benefits. Now here we are again. As I said, when you look back to Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, when we have had this level of unemployment, we have always managed to come together and to go ahead and pass these measures on a bipartisan basis and not with three cloture votes but with one perhaps procedural vote and then a substantive vote.

The issue, though, is let's not be selective. If we are serious about the deficit, let's take some positive steps to reduce the deficit. One is not to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at $700 billion over 10 years. That is a positive step. If that is something that is going to be entertained by the other side, I encourage that discussion. But as we go forward, we are going to come back, again, because ultimately we have these discussions.

I think my colleague from Massachusetts has passion, sincerity, and great energy which he has brought to this body, but ultimately we are going to have to go to people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, several million of them over the next year, and say: Sorry, you are not getting any unemployment compensation benefits.

Will we go to the wealthiest and say: Oh, by the way, we took care of you folks; you are getting $100,000 in tax benefits. I think we have to deal with the immediate crisis. I think we have to deal with the families who are struggling today. I think we have to do it now. I hope our leaders could work out an arrangement where we could come to this floor and, in a scheduled debate, 5 hours on one side, 5 on the other, and take the vote. That has not been the record on unemployment compensation in this Congress.

Again, I object. The issue, the offset, discretionary spending--I think if you burrowed down into that, you would find that would be funds of a whole category of programs that could be spent, should be spent, to help the economy move forward.

But I again urge we reconvene, that we once again see if we can work our way forward on these unemployment compensation benefits. We have done this before through these procedural delays that were as a result of votes by my colleagues on this side not to take up the bill in a timely manner. We had periods of time where unemployment lapsed and we had to retroactively restore it. We may have to do that again.

If there is delay, if we are at the 11th hour, I, frankly, looking backward, and others would have preferred an extension of benefits that would have gone way past this point, would have gone into next year if we had to. We are talking about a year's extension now. I hope we can get that. We will continue to fight.

Madam President, I object. And I have a pay-for alternative on which I would like to speak.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, who passionately spoke about his proposal, his bill to deal with a very important problem we are facing in the United States.

I am not the new person here anymore. Somebody came in yesterday. But I will say that it is still new to me that here we are, with 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits will expire, and we are now discussing this. God forbid we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of forethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with some type of solution before being faced with a 6\1/2\-hour deadline before the benefits expire. So, once again, I know I am not the newest guy anymore, but I have to say that this is not the way to do business in the Senate. And if it is, it needs to change.

So here we are. The Senator just spoke about our needing to do this to keep the economy moving. No, we have to start focusing on jobs. That is what we have to do to get this economy moving. We have to start focusing on the things that are important--the deficit, the spending. Yesterday, we couldn't even pass the 1099 fix--something small businesses and all businesses in this country are clamoring for. We could not do that one thing--one thing. Now all of a sudden we are going to do another extension.

I have complete and total sympathy and understanding for this. I want to help. More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep throwing money at a problem when it is not paid for, with 6\1/2\ hours left, to put people on the spot instead of doing it the right way-- working together, getting together in an office with the leadership and the people who care about these issues and coming up with a common solution--makes no sense to me.

The reason we are having this high unemployment which my colleagues keep referring to--9 percent unemployment--is because there is no certainty in business. There is so much uncertainty right now in the business world, whether it is with the financial services people or the estate planners. Right now, we have zero percent. If you die--folks say it is a good year to die because next year it could be 55 percent or it could be less. Who knows. So there is so much money on the sidelines right now that we don't know what to do. It is not coming in to get the economy moving.

We can't do the 1099 fix, we can't do the R&D tax credits, we can't work on accelerated depreciation, and we haven't repatriated any of the monies that are offshore. What do we do? We put up more and more roadblocks for businesses, so they do not want to hire these people off the unemployment rolls. Yet here we are with 6\1/2\ hours left, people aren't hiring, and we spent 7 days on food safety. Listen, I love to eat as much as the next guy, but give me a break. We should have spent 7 days working on the one thing the people who voted in November wanted--and they sent us a very powerful message--and that is getting our economy moving again; focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs; streamlining the regulatory process; and firing away to get this economy moving. But we needed to work on food safety. Oh my gosh, that was so important. I am glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety. Now, I know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099 fix and unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little bit more important?

Some of my colleagues will say--the Senator from Illinois just said it--that we are here debating tax cuts. No, we are not. We are not debating tax cuts. I have been here for every vote we have had. I have been to every meeting since I have been back here. Where were we talking about tax cuts? Am I missing something? No, we haven't been talking about tax cuts. We haven't debated or discussed anything to do with business and getting our businesses and our economy moving again.

The recent job numbers in Massachusetts reflect over 280,000 people unemployed in my State alone--over 8 percent of the Massachusetts workforce. As the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned--and I know Rhode Island well; I eat in Federal Hill regularly--the unemployment is much higher there. They have very serious problems. And one of the reasons we have problems is because we are not focusing on anything to do with business. We are not giving them the tools and resources they need to actually hire the people on the unemployment rolls. It is like a catch- 22.

Nearly 15 million people across the country are unemployed, 6 million of them having been without work for 6 months or more. That is roughly five people for every one job opening. Families in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Illinois are all struggling. They sent that very powerful message a couple of week ago. They are struggling to make ends meet and, as the Senator from Rhode Island said, to buy food, to buy shoes, to buy extra Christmas presents. I understand that. But if they had a job and had the pride of going out and working hard each day and if businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could do that and a lot more. They could actually invest in the future of our country.

We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that. People are unable to find work, and I recognize that as well. The longer they are out of

work, the harder it is to actually find work and become employable.

I could go on and on as to how Congress has chosen to spend its time. I remember that before we went on break, before the elections, we wasted so much time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. So here we are. I figured that when we came back, after the message was sent, we would get it loudly and clearly--big change over in the House. Here we are. We are going to get right back to the economy. But what do we do? We do food safety. Are you kidding me? People deserve better. The people who are unemployed deserve better.

The consequences of our failure to act are the 15 million unemployed workers in our country because they are unable to find that job. So here we are, 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits are going to expire. And I do not want to see that happen. Let me make it very clear to anyone listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my statements: I don't want this to happen. It doesn't need to happen. As many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 Bay Staters will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week and 800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. That number will increase to 2 million by the end of December.

So we are faced with another important decision, as we are with every other decision we make here: Do we provide the important benefits by burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion national debt, or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes on businesses that are already struggling?

If you want to talk about the Bush tax cuts, listen, that was a tax policy proposed by a President, supported by Congress, and it has been the tax policy for the last 10 years. To put a tax increase on anybody in the middle of a 2-year recession is going to add to these unemployment numbers and will be an absolute job killer.

So is there a better way? Of course. There is always a better way, especially when we work together. We can always find a better way, as I have tried to work with the Senator from Oregon and other Senators to find commonsense solutions to our very serious problems. That is why I am once again offering an offset extension of unemployment benefits.

The funny thing is that the proposal--and this is what I find so ironic. I will see where everyone wants to stand. If my colleagues want to do something today, I say to the Senators who are here and listening, we can provide that 1-year extension. In fact, I am offering an offset that was supported by 21 Democrats yesterday when we tried to do the 1099 offset bill, which I supported. I was a cosponsor, in a bipartisan manner. I supported both the Republican and the Democratic proposal just hoping, God forbid, we could get one thing done--just one. Twenty-one Democrats supported that bill.

So here I am with my offer. My proposal is to offset the unemployment insurance--sorry, I need to take a breath here--the offset they supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. It is the same offset we did yesterday. So what is the difference? Do you know what the difference is? People are hurting, and they need the help in 6\1/2\ hours. The 1099 fix we can address down the road, but others need it in 6\1/2\ hours.

So for those who supported it yesterday, I am certainly hopeful that they will support it again today. I don't know, is it me? I ask my colleagues to join in and be cosponsors. Is it because I am a Republican that we will not pass it? It is because it is my idea? I am the almost new guy. I get that. But what about looking past party politics, as I have done since the day I got here, to try to find commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. And trust me, there are a lot of people hurting. Why don't my colleagues join me in supporting this proposal that 21 other Democrats proposed yesterday and who actually went down in the well and voted on? This is a truly bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around. I am confident that we can work together, as the people demanded only a couple of weeks ago.

As we enter the final weeks of this 111th Congress, there are several priorities that lie ahead. As I said earlier--I know I am getting worked up, but it just incenses me--we are here with 6\1/2\ hours remaining, and we just found out really today, or late yesterday, that we were even going to talk about this. We have to provide that certainty to businesses, from small mom-and-pop businesses all the way to the biggest corporations. They need to know what is up. They need to know they can actually rely on us to set policy that allows them to plan for the future, so they can get those 9-plus percent people off of unemployment.

Do you think we are going to keep creating more and more government jobs; that is it? We are just going to keep printing the money and there is no consequence? There is plenty of consequence. The consequence is not on our grandchildren now; we are at our great-great- grandchildren as to paying this obligation back.

We still have to ensure that the Federal Government keeps running. Let me see: We have the estate tax issue, we have dealing with tax proposals or policy at all, we are trying to get the regulatory scheme in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money back from the offshore accounts they are holding so they do not invest in other businesses in other countries, we have this issue--we have a lot of other things on the table and we have done nothing. We spent time on food safety.

I love to eat. I have seen many people around here, we all love to eat. I want my food safe, make no mistake about it. I do not want to belittle that effort. But we need to provide money so people can actually go out and buy the food we are trying to make safe. We cannot keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future, to our fiscal future. We need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the initiatives and policies that we think are important.

When you talk about the money--listen, it is not the government's money. It is people's money. When they have money, they traditionally invest it, and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that economic engine going. It is not the government's money.

It is also very clear to me that people want to work and they want us to focus on that one issue. I do not know why we are avoiding it--I do not. Did you know we are avoiding that one issue that can get our country back on track? Let's just say we took all the recommendations from the debt commission that have been proposed. If we do not do the other things, it is going to be short-lived, if it works at all.

Creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the Senate. There is nothing more important. I encourage the administration to immediately drop everything and focus on the economy. It is the one thing that is our ticket out of the economic mess we are in right now; instead, we are doing food safety.

I also think we need to give people that lifeline in order to get them through the tough times. Make no mistake, I agree they need help. But I look at it, are we going to do it from the bank account or are we going to put it on the credit card--bank account, credit card? How about you folks up there--bank account, credit card? OK. I know what I want to do. I will use the bank account. Let's use money that is already in the system and put it to good use immediately by 12 o'clock tonight. Let's do it.

We can settle this tonight. We can provide that extension of benefits tonight. My bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent millions of Americans from losing their benefits. Providing this 1-year extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities we have and that we have to handle before the end of the year.

You want to stay through the holidays and everything. Hey, I am here. Whatever. My kids are grown; they do their own thing anyway. Do I want to stay here? Sure, I will stay. We will stay and we will go out and celebrate Christmas here. Whatever. But we have so many things we need to do and we could do them right now.

I am glad food safety is done. We do not have to do it anymore. So what is next? Let me see--just pick something. I guarantee, I bet--I know betting is illegal here--I will bet we do not do anything that has to do with the economy. I will bet you.

I encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit card and burdening additional generations with this tremendous debt that we cannot afford.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915

I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I yield.

Madam President, once again, make no mistake, I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We worked on many regional issues--fishing and military issues. I respect his service not only to the military but also to his State. But I have to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on some of the issues.

He keeps referring back to the tax cuts for the rich. That is great. We are not dealing with that right now. It is not something we are dealing with because we have not dealt with anything to do with any tax policy or structure since I have been here--zero. We have not done the estate tax, we have not done any tax policies, we have not done anything. Now you want to kind of muck it up and talk about if you do this, we should not do that. Listen, we are here, we have 6 hours and 15 minutes to deal with this issue. I am not quite sure why it took so long to get to this point. Why couldn't we have spent the last 7 days, when we were doing food safety, dealing with this? Why? Because there is no priority in taking care of people who are hurting and dealing with the issues that are affecting our economy and our country on a very real and personal basis.

My colleague says there have been delays, we should just do it for longer than 1 year. He wants to do it for longer than 1 year? Great. Pay for it. The reason there have been delays is because we wanted to find a funding source. We could have initially taken it out of the unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as special slush funds for folks and agencies. That was one of the delays, I remember, being part of that. That didn't pass. I think I got two Democrats.

Yesterday, we did a 1099 fix and 21 Democrats supported it. What is the difference? Now we are talking about real people--about kids. It is about the kids. I keep saying it is about the kids. It is not just about the kids who are here right now; it is about the future generations who are going to have to try to figure out a way to pay for this insurmountable debt.

I reiterate, it is pretty simple--bank account, credit card. That is all I am saying. Happy to help, folks. The folks up there listening, go back and say to your friends and family: Senator Brown of Massachusetts said bank accounts, credit card. It makes sense.

I want to help. But I also want to streamline, consolidate this, weed out any fraud, waste, abuse, any money we are not using properly, and get it out the door into businesses and families and get the economy moving again.

So here we are. I am very curious to see what is next. I enjoyed the food safety. I voted for it. I gave some input on it, and I voted for it. I am happy to help. It is not going to be implemented in 6 hours and 15 minutes. The people need our help right now.

Madam President, I appreciate your paying attention and leading us. I am just hopeful that we can come together and use some common sense and start to focus on the economy. It is the economy, period.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we come to the end of the year and the end of the session, I want to talk about what is happening for the American people, for small businesses, what is happening in terms of the Senate, and what is at stake as we come to the end of the year for American families, folks who are struggling every day, people trying to keep in the middle class, get into the middle class, a small business trying to keep its head above water, as well as our manufacturers, and so on.

It is extremely concerning to me that colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and they have shown it again today in a letter that was written to the leader--are willing to risk everything in order to get a bonus round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They are literally willing to stop everything, risk everything in the economy, in order to get an extra tax cut.

The reason I say ``extra'' or ``bonus'' is because we have in front of us an agreement that 97 percent of the public who earn less than $250,000 a year for their family should be continuing to receive tax cuts permanently. Everyone who has income up to $250,000, whether their real income is $1 billion or not, they get a tax cut up to $250,000 of their income. So the question we will be answering this month is whether millionaires and billionaires get a bonus, get an extra tax cut on top of that.

Here, as shown on this chart, is what the Republicans are willing to put at risk. I say to the Presiding Officer, who heard it as well as I did throughout the year, talking about the deficit, how we needed to stop the exploding deficit, that we need to bring deficits down, in order to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to risk the Federal deficit, balloon it another $700 billion--not paid for.

Now they are saying we ought to pay for unemployment benefits for somebody who lost their job in this economy through no fault of their own. But $700 billion? The average tax cut is $100,000 for somebody earning $1 million. Mr. President, $100,000 is more than the average person in Michigan makes. My guess is, in West Virginia it is the same.

So in order to keep $100,000 a year going in a bonus tax cut for people earning $1 million, they are willing to risk the Federal deficit exploding. They are willing to risk jobs because we have seen a policy in the last 10 years of basically giving tax cuts to folks at the top and everybody else waiting for them to trickle down. My folks are tired. I think colleagues on the other side of the aisle just think we have not waited long enough for this to trickle down to everybody else. But the reality is that policy they want to continue, that explodes deficits, gives a bonus tax cut for people at the top, has not created jobs.

In fact, my question is, after 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? My State has lost over 800,000 jobs during the period of this bonus tax cut policy for millionaires and billionaires. If it had worked, if we had created 800,000 jobs in Michigan rather than losing 800,000 jobs, I would be on the floor of the Senate fighting to continue this policy.

This is not partisanship. This is about common sense and what works. We have had a policy in place that has not worked, so why would we continue it? They say we have to continue this because we are in a recession.

This is part of the reason we are in a recession in terms of the fact that it did not invest in the right way. If we want to take those dollars and put them back into clean energy manufacturing and focus on making things in America, if we want to put it into what that we know is actually going to focus on jobs, good-paying, middle-class jobs, I am all for it. But $700 billion of a policy that has not worked for 10 years makes no sense.

So that is my question. Where are the jobs? Show me the jobs, and I will be the first person on the Senate floor voting yes to continue it. But they are willing to risk the deficit. They are willing to risk jobs. They are willing now, in the letter they have sent to the leader today, to risk tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses by saying: Do you know what. We are not going to do anything else until we continue the tax cuts for everybody in this country, including millionaires and billionaires.

They are not willing to work with us to make sure middle-class families, who are the folks who need to have money back in their pockets, and small businesses, that need that money back in their pockets, get permanent help. Then we can work on the rest of it where people disagree.

We are going to hear a lot about small business. And I find it quite surprising that colleagues have filibustered in the last 2 years 16 different tax cuts for small business--a small business jobs bill to make capital available for small business so they can keep their heads above water, refinance, grow their business. Personally, I am not going to be lectured by people who voted against 16 different tax cuts in the last 2 years for small businesses, who are now using small businesses to hide behind--the folks who are hiding behind small businesses that they are holding up as the ones for whom they are fighting.

We are happy on our side. We take a back seat to no one on fighting for

small business. I thank our Chair, Mary Landrieu, who was on the Senate floor over and over from the Small Business Committee and a wonderful group of colleagues who fought and fought to make sure we put forward a bill--it took way too long because of foot dragging, everybody trying to throw sand in the gears, but we finally got it passed, a tremendous amount of effort to increase capital and to add eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill, on which only two Republican colleagues had the courage to step across the aisle and join us. We are very grateful they were willing to do that.

But the Senate Republican caucus is willing to put all of that in jeopardy, hold hostage tax cuts needed by people--working people, middle-class families, small businesses--if they cannot get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

They are also willing, frankly, to jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. We have a debt commission coming up with proposals that are very concerning. There are tough decisions about Social Security and Medicare going forward because we have a deficit. They are saying: Oh well, wait a minute. First, you have to increase the deficit by $700 billion in order to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. No, we don't care. We don't care if that impacts Social Security and Medicare and tough decisions that have to be made for seniors who live on Social Security and Medicare.

The most important thing--and we have heard this over and over--is we don't care if it is paid for, it doesn't matter if it is paid for or if anything else gets done for national security. We are not going to take up the START treaty. We don't care about our relationship with Russia. We don't care about national security issues. We want a tax cut for our friends, the millionaires and billionaires, adding $700 billion to the debt. They are willing to risk it all, stop the tax cuts for middle- class families and small businesses, in order to get that bonus tax cut.

Finally--and most insulting to me of all--is they can stand and say we will not support helping people who are out of work in an economy that is way beyond normal, where there are five people looking for every one job. In my State, you are talking about folks who have never been out of work before in their life and they are mortified and they are doing everything they can to hold it together. They are trying desperately to keep their heads above water, while their houses are underwater, and they may not have been able to have their kids continue in college this year. Folks are trying to make it, and they are saying we didn't create this economy, create the crisis on Wall Street or create all the rest of this. They have done nothing but play by the rules their whole lives, and now they are in a situation where they can't find a job.

I have talked to a lot of folks, 50, 55, 60 years old, who worked all their lives. We are coming up to the holidays now. All they want to do is what we have always done as a country in the case of high unemployment; that is, allow them to receive unemployment benefits to get them through a tough time temporarily, while we should be focusing on jobs because people want to work. People don't want to get $200 or $300 in unemployment benefits. They want to work. They want the dignity of work. Americans know how to work and they want to work. They are looking to us to create a climate of certainty in the marketplace, working with businesses so they can get a job.

But here we have a situation where the Republicans in the House turned down unemployment benefits yesterday. Senator Jack Reed came to the floor to ask unanimous consent--which I will ask again--to be able to extend unemployment benefits, just the regular system. I also believe we need to add additionally for people who have run out of their benefits, the ``ninety-niners.'' We need to help them as well. This is just to keep the regular system going, so somebody who loses their job today or is beginning to lose their job is treated as fairly as the person who lost their job on Monday. Right now, the system is up in the air.

We hear on the other side: My goodness. We can't possibly extend unemployment benefits without ``paying for it'' and cutting someplace else. It is, for a year, about $50 billion. That is a lot of money; I am not saying it is not. But how about we help pay for it by not giving a bonus tax cut to millionaires in this country--$700 billion--and colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that should be paid for. Somehow tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires have different rules than a little bit of help for somebody who lost their job, through no fault of their own, and is trying to keep their family together and a roof over their heads in these times.

That is a heck of a choice in terms of values. I am amazed. But what we have, as we come to the end of the year, is a situation where colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated they are going to continue to block everything. Well, the filibuster is not new. It has been done every day on this floor for the last 2 years. Now they are saying that in addition to extending--obviously, getting the budget done, and we all agree with that. But if we don't extend the tax cuts for everybody--meaning millionaires and billionaires--then they are going to filibuster everything else, including unemployment benefits.

Let me say, in closing, that we are in a situation where right now, today, we could give 97 percent of the public certainty going forward about tax cuts, small businesses, middle-class families, by simply joining on a proposal to protect and extend permanently middle-class tax cuts and those for the vast majority of small businesses. We certainly can come together in a way that does more for small business. This is the side that voted 16 times for tax cuts for small businesses. But we believe it is economically and morally wrong to allow an average $100,000 in additional tax relief for a millionaire next year, while somebody who worked all their life and lost their job, through no fault of their own cannot keep a roof over their head this year. It is absolutely not right.

By the way, let me just reiterate--because we are going to hear a lot about small businesses--this is not about small businesses. We are willing to come together, as we always have, for small businesses. This is about a few people, and not even everyone in that category is asking for a tax cut, by the way. A lot of these folks understand we have the biggest deficit in the history of the country. They are blessed through their circumstances to be very well off, and many are saying: I want to do my part and I am willing to do my part. Ask me to do my part and I will. They are not asking to hurt people who are out of work in order for them to get another tax cut.

Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, our colleagues are willing to risk everything--the deficit, jobs, Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, and help for people who are out of work in order to give a bonus tax cut for a privileged few people. That is not what we are about. That is not what we are about or what we are going to fight for.

At this point, because it is absolutely critical that we understand what families are going through now in this holiday season and that someone who is losing a job today should be treated as fairly as somebody who lost their job 2 days ago, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I simply want to say it is a sad day for millions of families in this country. This is a message we should

all be embarrassed to have sent; that millionaires and billionaires should be the ones who are being fought for on the floor of the Senate and that millions of people who are out of work don't count. I regret that.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor and talked about how the economy is fragile but going in the right direction and how many of us on this side of the aisle--as a matter of fact, all of us on this side of the aisle--took a lonely road over the last 2 years on some controversial issues that the public sees as controversial, but we knew we had to do something--something--to get this economy moving, and we are now seeing the benefits.

Every time I open--I do not care if it is the Wall Street Journal, Business Week--you name the business magazine or newspaper--which are not the liberal magazines; they are very conservative magazines and newspapers, or on the Internet--they will show you statistic after statistic that we are moving in the right direction. For this last month, I think it is 92,000 new jobs the private sector created. But in order to do it, we need to do some more.

I am a little frustrated by the letter. I also have a unanimous consent request that I hope to be able to bring up on HUBZones and to amend the Small Business Act. It is the idea of rebuilding local small businesses. What amazes me about this letter is it seems as though for some reason we can only do one thing at a time in this place.

Now, I come from local government where, as a mayor, we had to do multiple tasks because we always had many of them on the table. It did not matter whether it was public safety or creating jobs or rebuilding a neighborhood or working with the community, we had to do multiple things.

This country has multiple issues in front of it. We have an important START treaty that needs to be done. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our national security is at risk, but for some reason the other side wants to wait until we give--I am not even going to call it a tax cut. I call it a bonus for the millionaires and billionaires. It is a bonus. It is not a tax cut. It is a bonus they want to give, $700 billion of money we do not have. We cannot afford it. The working class of this country cannot afford it. The middle class cannot afford it. My son cannot afford it. My son's future kids cannot afford it--$700 billion of more debt to give a bonus to the people who drove our economy into the ditch. I do not really get it.

It seemed as though when I came here there was going to be a logical thought process, great debate. Once again, we are down here. Nothing on the other side. They will come out. I know they will have their charts and one-liners about how the economy will fall if we do not give millionaires and billionaires another tax break or bonus. It is not going to. We are on the road to recovery because this side took that lonely road when people told us: Wow, that is politically going to hurt you, and it did. We lost some people this last election. But leadership is not about taking the easy road, the easy answer, the simple solution.

We are in a very complex time with many issues facing us internationally and nationally--economic, energy, world issues. We have to be able to juggle those all and move them forward. The public demands it of us.

So this ultimatum, or whatever it is, this letter that they wrote just shows the classic tactic they have used the last 2 years. I mentioned this morning, and I will mention again, that I read in one of the political news stories yesterday that someone on the other side, one of the Senators from the other side, one of my colleagues, said: I can't believe it took us a week--a week--to do food safety. Neither can I. But it was not anyone on this side of the equation. Over there, they demanded us to have two 30-hour periods to debate food safety that ended up passing with over three-quarters of the body supporting it. Why? Because it is a good bill. But they wanted to delay it so we don't get to the main issues.

Again, Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I want to give it. We thought they would be down here at 3:30. We thought they would be down here at 3:45. Now it is 4 o'clock. They told us to get busy. We are trying to get busy by doing some unanimous consent requests on job creation. But I will just tell you, it is important for us to recognize what their goal is here: delay, delay, not helping the American people, and basically giving bonuses to millionaires and billionaires, which is unreal.

I see my colleague from New York wants to jump in, so I am going to yield for my colleague from New York. Again, I am hopeful there will be Members on the other side so we can get on with propounding unanimous- consent requests to get the Senate moving.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent I wish to do, but before I do that, I want to say that I know the Senator from Wyoming is not here right now, but I want to echo the point that we are going to deal with the 1099s. It is a question of making sure we pay for it the right way. I do not think anyone in this body--we are motivated and I think a lot of us are working in a bipartisan way to resolve that issue.

As someone who has been in the small business world since the age of 14, who has had a business license since that age, I have aggressively talked about the issue of small business, I have lived small business, and I clearly understand what the 1099 is all about. I talked about this issue back in July and made it clear that we need to deal with it and get rid of it. So we are going to be working on it. We will see this, hopefully, as part of the tax package, a tax extender package, and we will deal with it.

I come to the floor because I also have a unanimous consent I would like to do in regard to small business. This is a bill that will help what they call HUBZones, HUB areas that are high unemployment to the tune of 140 percent of the average adjusted unemployment rate. These have been very helpful for many different communities across this country as well as in our State.

This is the Rebuilding Local Business Act of 2010. It amends the Small Business Act and designates HUBZones and gives them another 3 years of opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3563 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, still having the floor, let me respond. First off, I want to make sure, as the public is watching this, what that means. Keeping the tax rates where they are means millionaires and billionaires continue to get a bonus because that is what it is, with no disrespect to my colleague on the other side. I mean, corporations, businesses today--and I can speak about this, again with no disrespect to my colleague, as someone in the small business world. Our family is in this business. My wife owns four retail stores, started from scratch, just as I did in many of my businesses. The small business community--the small business community--benefits not by the people over the 2 percent, the top 2 percent; the small business community are the ones below that. Half of the businesses in this country, the small businesses, gross less than $25,000. That is a fact.

So for us to just kind of continue business as usual and keep these tax rates where they are for the millionaire and billionaire club--that didn't help us the last 3 years. The fact is, right now they have those tax breaks. Right today, they have those. They had them last year. They had them the year before. And what happened to this economy? It crashed and burned almost to the ground. What has happened to the millionaire and billionaire club? They have more money in their bank accounts today than ever before. That is not me saying it; that is other independent data out there. Corporations have more cash on hand today than they have had in decades.

So for us now to say: Hey, let's give the millionaires and billionaires another bonus for the next year for running our economy into the ground doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make sense to the people back home in my State, the Alaskans I talk to every single day. As a matter of fact, when I came here in January of 2009, we were in our fourth or fifth month, if I remember right, of losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month. Do you know what that is equal to? That is the total population of my State every single month being lost.

People who are saying we have to make sure the millionaires and billionaires have this $700 billion bonus, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, to drive us more into debt, and believe that is going to solve this economic problem is absolutely wrong. I have had to scratch nickles and dimes together to build businesses. I have done it before. I have succeeded and failed. That is not what grows business, giving millionaires and billionaires breaks. What makes a difference, for example, is the small business bill we passed, where we only got two votes on the other side, a small business bill that brought money to loan small businesses. That is what makes a difference, or extending the tax credit, which we did, not only during the recovery bill, the stimulus bill, which I know everyone on the other side hates, but also during our small business bill so people can buy equipment and depreciate it in the first year, write it off in the first year. That is of real benefit to small businesses. Extending the SBA loan program, expanding it from the limitations they had before to $5 million to make sure that the front-end fees do not have to be charged, what did that do in my State? It tripled--tripled--the loan capacity of SBA to small businesses. That was supported on this side. You want to grow small business. That is how you do it, because the way it has worked, we drove into the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

So I respect the comments on the other side, but for us to say to the American taxpayers: Hey, we are going to give another $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires, is beyond comprehension--beyond comprehension, especially when we tell them: Oh, by the way, it is going to be debt financed. So my son, who is 8 today, and his kids, my grandkids, maybe, in the future, will still be paying that bill because we were told that by Monday we have to make a decision.

I am not doing that. I didn't come here to play those games, to swap off the START treaty or national security for the benefit of millionaires and billionaires.

The other thing I have learned about this place, we can multitask. I came down here this morning, no one was on the Senate floor. I go to committee meetings--there is supposed to be 15, 25 people--2 people show up, maybe 4. I don't know what other people are doing. I am showing up because that is what I was sent here to do by the people of my State, to come here and work. For us to sit around and say we can only do one thing at a time--I talk to families every single day. They are doing multiple things every day, every single day. Why we can't, with all the staff we have, all the abilities we have, focus on more than one thing is ridiculous.

Again, no disrespect to the Senator from Tennessee. I mean him no ill words. I am frustrated. I didn't come here for these kinds of games. We put a 1099 amendment on the Food Safety Act. People are asking: What are we doing? I heard yesterday, why did we spend a week on the food safety bill. The other side wanted to delay it because it was good politics for them to delay and drag it out. So here we are. We have a deadline. We have to get this passed or we are going home. If you don't want to be around here, then go home. But the fact is, the American people sent us here, Alaskans sent me here to not just do one issue but to do multiple issues. That is what our country is about. It is complex. There is no single issue that drives the economy. But giving millionaires and billionaires a $700 billion tax bonus is ridiculous.

I appreciate the comments. I am sorry my colleague objected to this one item because in order to build this economy, we have to have multiple things in play. This gives more tools to the private sector to grow their neighborhoods and businesses.

I appreciate the opportunity to rant for a little bit and yield the floor.

Madam President, I agree with my friend from Wyoming. We need certainty in the marketplace, and we are happy to do that. We are happy to create certainty right now that middle-class taxpayers and small businesses will be able to receive tax cuts permanently into the future, that we will be able to extend those tax cuts.

We also believe it is important to give certainty to people who are out of work through no fault of their own, who yesterday began to lose unemployment benefits. Now, I personally believe, as long as the economy is as sluggish, as slow, as challenged as it is, we ought to extend benefits beyond 99 weeks. But the bill in front of us is not that. It is the bill Senator Boxer talked about, which is just the basic program. The program basically says, if you lose your job today you have the same opportunity to receive some temporary help as the person who lost their job on Monday or Tuesday because, right now, the Republicans have been blocking us from even extending the basic program for anyone who is newly unemployed, newly out of work.

So I think people who are out of work at this holiday season would like some certainty.

I was interested in a story in the paper today--I believe it was today--quoting the Michigan Retailers Association concerned about Christmas and the inability to have unemployment benefits extended would directly relate to the ability of families to have any kind of opportunity to have Christmas, and it would affect retailers and small businesses. They would like to see some certainty. I would also like to see a more robust effort and certainty as it relates to jobs.

When we look at the way to stimulate the economy, the way to create jobs, the budget folks tell us the No. 1 way right now to keep the economy going is to help those who have no choice but to spend the dollars in their pockets. That is somebody who is out of work. That is the No. 1 way to stimulate the economy, to try to keep things moving, and certainly we have heard that from our retailers. On a long list, the least effective was to give another bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. That was the least effective.

So I agree we want economic certainty. What I would love to see is to take those dollars that have been ineffective for 10 years--and we know that simply because it hasn't created jobs. I have lost over 800,000 jobs in Michigan, 10 years of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I have one question: Where are the jobs? If my colleagues can answer that, I am happy to support that policy.

What I would suggest as an alternative is that now, just a little under 2 years ago, we invested in the recovery to, for the first time in many, many, many years, invest in American manufacturing: battery manufacturing, new clean energy manufacturing, making things in America, making things at home. And we are beginning to see every month now manufacturing slowly coming up. The investment in the American automobile industry has paid off for us in turning things around, in keeping manufacturing jobs here. We are moving from 2 percent of the manufacturing of advanced battery technologies in America to 40 percent of the world's manufacturing in 5 years because of a strategic investment.

I am happy to talk about those kinds of investments, but what we have heard from Republican colleagues is that they are willing to risk everything. They will risk everything to get another tax cut, a bonus tax cut on top of the one everybody is going to get if we extend tax cuts for the first $250,000 in income per couple. They want a bonus tax cut, and they are willing to risk everything and stop everything if they can't get it. So it is very clear what their priorities are.

I can speak from Michigan that these are not our priorities. When I look at our manufacturers, our suppliers; when I look at small businesses; when I look at families who are struggling to keep their homes to stay in the middle class--maybe trying to get into the middle class--working families, their priority is not to give somebody making $1 million a year another $100,000 bonus on top of the regular tax cut.

So what are we talking about? We are talking about everything being risked for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. What are some of the things we are risking? Another $700 billion on the national debt. If we want to deal with the debt--and I don't know about my colleagues, but I heard an awful lot about the debt, concern about the deficit in this last election and through this last year. There were concerns when we were investing in manufacturing, investing in other things to create jobs, helping small businesses; the tax cuts for small businesses, lending for small businesses. We heard an awful lot from the other side of the aisle about the fact that we shouldn't be doing these things because of the deficit. The most important thing was the deficit.

I am not willing to be lectured about the deficit. I voted to balance the budget when I was in the House under President Clinton. We handed President Bush a balanced budget, the largest surplus in the history of the country. So I am not willing to accept that. I have great concern about the deficit, but that concern means I don't want to see $700 billion put on the national debt for a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

So they are willing to risk the national deficit. They are willing to risk jobs. Again, the least stimulative way to create jobs is to put another bonus round of tax cuts in the hands of millionaires and billionaires who, if they invest it--we don't know whether it will be overseas, taking jobs overseas or where it will be--but we know it hasn't trickled down to the people I represent, certainly, in Michigan.

The sense I get from the other side of the aisle is that they think we just haven't waited long enough; we haven't waited long enough for it to trickle down. Well, we are tired of waiting. We are tired of waiting, and we are tired of an economic policy of tax cuts geared to those up here when it doesn't work and we are losing jobs. Under that policy of trickle-down economics, Michigan lost over 800,000 jobs in the last 10 years. I am tired of that. I want to see a policy that is going to work. That one hasn't worked. I don't see why in the world we are willing to extend it.

They are willing to hold up the tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses. Again, I am not willing to be lectured about small business when we have seen 16 different small business tax cuts filibustered in the last 2 years on the other side of the aisle; eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill that only two colleagues from the other side of the aisle courageously stepped over to support. So we understand the importance of small business.

Social Security and Medicare: We have a debt commission that has a number of proposals that are very difficult on Social Security and Medicare, and that is based on the deficit we have now not another $700 billion. I wonder if my colleagues are willing to support cuts in Social Security and Medicare, additional cuts to pay for their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I don't know. Is that what they are suggesting? It certainly is something that could happen if we add another $700 billion.

Then there is the one we have been talking about that is not an economic issue but a moral issue for us as a country: Are we going to help folks who have gotten caught up in this country and who find themselves in a situation that is unprecedented through no fault of their own? They didn't cause the recklessness on Wall Street. They were not the ones who made the decision not to enforce trade laws in a fair way or tax policy that allows jobs to go overseas.

The people in my State were not the ones who made any of the decisions that caused the situation they are in. Yet Wall Street did pretty well. A lot of folks did pretty well. A lot of folks now are back doing very well.

The folks left holding the bag are working families, folks who have been in the middle class and are now mortified because they have to go ask for help at a food bank for the first time in their lives. That is not an unusual situation in my State; people who have always worked, who want to work but find themselves in a situation, because of the economy, they did not create; where they now have to ask that our country be willing to support them at this time for their families until we can turn this economy around. Who are we if we are not willing to do that as a country?

Frankly, I am embarrassed we are having a debate on the floor of the Senate about whether to extend help for somebody who has lost their job, the bread winner who no longer can bring home the bread versus a $100,000 bonus tax cut for a millionaire next year, and whatever it is for billionaires. I find that embarrassing, and I find it more than that, actually. If ever we are going to talk about our values and priorities and get them right in terms of what affects the majority of Americans, it ought to be when we are looking at these choices.

People in my State want to work. They want us to focus on jobs. They want us to partner with business. They want us to do those things; when it is necessary, stand back, get out of the way; stand up and partner, do all of the things that will allow us in a global economy to compete, to be able to make things in America and, of course, I prefer they be made in Michigan. But they want jobs. They want the economy to turn around.

Nobody is out there asking for a handout. They do want us to understand what they are going through and to be willing to have the same sense of

urgency about the average family in this country as we did for the Wall Street banks. That is ultimately what we are talking about on this floor, is what the priorities are going to be.

Our colleagues have sent a letter, with everybody signing it, saying they are not willing to do anything else. They are not willing to extend unemployment benefits. Two million people started losing their benefits yesterday--temporary help, by the way--$250 to $300 a week, which just barely kind of maybe keeps the heat on, because it is getting cold in Michigan, and a roof over their heads while they are desperately sending resumes out all over the country.

I get on planes now with people who are flying all over the country because they want to work. They are flying all over the place and coming home on the weekends, trying to find work. Our colleagues say: Well, you know what. Forget them. They need to wait because the most important thing is extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country.

I happen to--as we all do--know a lot of people in that category who say to me: I am willing to do my share. I am not asking you for this. I am willing to do my share. I have done well. I understand we have a national deficit. I understand we have a country that has a lot of challenges right now, and I am willing to step up and do my part. So this is not trying to beat up on people or demagogue against people who have worked hard, in many cases, and done well for themselves. But it is about having a set of priorities about what is important. In the few days we have left between now and the end of the year, what is the most important thing we could be doing?

I know other colleagues wish to speak. Let me just say, in my judgment, we can create certainty. It certainly doesn't have to be extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It certainly can be extending tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, creating certainty with the R&D tax credit for those who want to innovate and invest. There are other kinds of certainty we can create for businesses in our Tax Code. We need to do that before the end of the year.

We need to remember that there are a whole lot of families right now who are trying to create some certainty in their lives about whether they can put up a Christmas tree because they are still going to have their house. That is not rhetoric; that is happening to people. We as Democrats are not willing to risk all this. The Republicans may be willing to risk everything to give a bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, but we are fighting for everybody else.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.