Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to talk a little about the issue we have been discussing, and first let me congratulate my colleagues who have been on the floor on this issue, particularly the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Udall; the Senator from Oregon, Senator Merkley; the Senator from Colorado, also named Udall; and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin; and many others who have participated in this debate. They have done a great job today.

The other thing I think I appreciated--and Senator Harkin helped do this--is there was not just debate, there was actual discussion, even when we didn't agree. I thought it was pretty interesting watching on the TV in my office when Senator Roberts came and stood by a desk here on the Democratic side, a desk away from Senator Harkin, and they didn't agree on the issues but they debated the issues. What a great first-step metaphor for the kind of debates we want to have here on the Senate floor. So this has been a very positive and hopefully prescient opening of the debate to change the rules because we all know that in the last Congress the Senate didn't function effectively and the time for change has come. I want to salute the leaders, as well as Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken, Senator Lautenberg, and so many others, who have been so involved in our discussion and for the work they have done.

I also want to say to my colleagues this is not something that has just happened recently. This idea that all of a sudden this has popped up in the Senate is wrong. Last year, the Rules Committee--and I was urged by Senator Udall to do this among the first days of the session 2 years ago, and I think we did a pretty extensive and good job--held six hearings that examined the history of the filibuster, trends in the use of the filibuster, secret holds, stalled nominations, and proposals for change. In those hearings, we heard from Senators from both parties who have valuable ideas about the need to reform the filibuster. Senators Harkin, Lautenberg, Wyden, Grassley, Udall, Udall, McCaskill, Gregg, and Bennet all testified at the hearings. We also brought former Senators of both parties, scholars, and former Senate staff of both parties to come and testify.

In the first half of the 20th century, filibusters and filibuster threats were relatively rare events. That has been documented already, and our hearings documented it extensively. But since that time, the number has continued to dramatically increase. When you face an average of two cloture motions per week--which is what has happened currently-- then we know there is a problem, and it is no mystery that the Senate has been labeled as ``dysfunctional.''

Between 1917 and 1971, there was an average of one cloture motion filed per year. In the 110th and 111th, we had more than 70 cloture motions. These cloture motion counts are a response to the filibuster, and it is distorting the way the Senate does business.

For the legislative branch, hundreds of bills passed by the House in the 111th Congress were not considered, even though they had passed the House by voice vote or with a majority of House Republicans voting yes. The Senate is supposed to be a cooling saucer, not an ice box.

In the executive branch and the judiciary, dozens of judicial appointments were delayed or blocked from floor consideration for months and months in the last Congress. Many of these were approved unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans in committee, yet sat on the Executive Calendar for months because of secret holds. This is dangerous at a time when we need a Federal Government using all its resources to fight terrorism, protect our country, and address our economic needs.

I salute Senators Wyden, McCaskill, and Grassley for focusing our attention on this issue. It is important to end anonymous or secret holds and shine some light on the kinds of long-term delays that can hold up a nomination or a bill for weeks or months or even longer.

Also, during the fiscal year 2010, half of all nondefense spending-- $290 billion--was appropriated without legal authority because Congress hadn't reauthorized the programs. The unprecedented threat of a filibuster--not even the actual use of the filibuster--has prevented debate with such frequency that extended deliberation is a dying commodity. Make no mistake about it, the everyday threat of the filibuster does not ensure debate, it restricts it.

Reforming the rules in a thoughtful way would clear the way for more legislating, not less. Filibusters provide a minority of Senators a way to make their voices heard, but they should not provide a way for a minority of Senators or even a single Senator to grind the Senate to a halt regardless of whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

Reform will engage the American people and reenergize this institution. This will not end the filibuster or cut off debate. On the contrary, it will pull back the curtain and show the American people what we actually believe and what our deliberations are really about.

There have been many ideas for reform presented by my colleagues that are worthy of discussion. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, testified before the Rules Committee about his plan, which he called the ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' proposal. Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, and others have developed their own versions of this important concept, which I call the talking filibuster. This talking filibuster idea would require filibustering Senators to keep speaking on the floor after cloture fails, to show clearly their wish to continue debate and to allow them to talk for as long as they wish.

Currently, the only evidence that a Senator is facing a filibuster is the vote on cloture. The Senate floor has evolved into a place where the majority assumes that each bill will be opposed and that little actual debate will occur on legislation. The rules require a vote of three-fifths of the Senators chosen and sworn to end debate on a matter or measure. The very question that is posed to the Senate in a cloture vote is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate should be brought to a close? Those are the words. If it turns out that enough Senators answer that question: No, we want more debate, then those Senators should actually be required to debate. It is difficult to explain to the American people that the Senators who voted for additional debate are silent when then given that opportunity. If they want to debate, well, then let's debate.

One way we can guarantee fair and meaningful debate after Senators vote on cloture to continue debate--and cloture fails--the Senate remains on that measure and Senators must actually debate the bill. Senators may be recognized one after the other, as long as debate is continuous. If no more Senators seek to debate the issue, then the majority leader can move to close debate.

Obviously, there are technical things that have to be worked out--and we are working hard to do that--to make sure this proposal works and is viable. In the past, attempts at debate have been frustrated by quorum calls or unnecessary motions, all aimed at avoiding actual debate. If we change the rules to encourage extended debate after cloture fails, then the priority during this period will be to either debate the matter or move forward and not play parliamentary games. The American people deserve better of their elected officials than what the Senate has been giving them. Governing is not a game of charades.

The majority will not choose to waste floor time on a matter the minority is committed to stop. But will

the minority choose to filibuster every single piece of legislation if actual debate is required? I don't think so.

That would apply whether Republicans are in the majority or Democrats are in the majority.

In addition to the other worthy options proposed for reform, I think this proposal is strong because it allows the minority the same ability to debate and block legislation--so long as they actually debate. If there is no actual debate, there can be no filibuster, and the Senate can proceed to do its business for the American people.

I believe this modest proposal is one on which both Democrats and Republicans should agree. It could be a point of bipartisan agreement, and I will present it in the bipartisan negotiations happening over the next few weeks.

Of course there are other good-faith proposals that my colleagues have put forward. Many of them are thoughtful. Most all of them would represent meaningful change without altering in a too jarring way the rules of this institution. Nobody wants us to become the House of Representatives. Everyone understands that we should not rule simply by majority vote on every issue. However, we can pull the curtain back and make sure that when people say they want more debate, they debate.

In the next 2 weeks, we should look at these proposals--all of them. During the recess, we need to talk to each other, Democrats and Republicans, about genuine ways to reform this body, to restore the Senate to its traditional role as the world's greatest deliberative body, and to do so in a way that encourages full and open debate--both for the majority which proposes and for the minority which wishes to modify what the majority proposes.

I believe we owe it to the American people to reform the Senate so it functions in a way that best represents their interests.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about my dear friend, dear colleague, someone I so admire--Senator Barbara Mikulski-- on her remarkable accomplishments. Today, she took the oath of office, the Senator from Maryland, and made history as few others can make. Senator Mikulski has long been affectionately known here in the Senate as the dean of the women. Now she is officially the longest serving female Senator in the history of this great Nation.

This distinction adds to the considerable respect and admiration I already have for Senator Mikulski and who she is and what she does. Barb, like me, came from a decidedly middle-class beginning. We often talk about her dad, Willie, who owned a grocery store in east Baltimore, and my grandfather and dad--Jake and Abe--who were exterminators. They were similar because they were people of the community. Barb would tell me that people

would come in during difficult times--they had lost their job--and Willie would say, pay me when you can. It wasn't quite the same with my family, but my grandfather and then father, like him, felt people who had roaches or rats crawling through their little houses and apartments, when they couldn't pay, shouldn't have that service cut off for them.

So we were both infused with that great upwardly mobile, middle- class, help your neighbor, be part of a neighborhood, be part of a community feeling. Barb started her career as a social worker and made a name for herself when she led the fight to stop a highway project from destroying a historic section of her community. That is what launched her into politics. Like our best politicians, she came from the community. She didn't decide to be a politician, she came from the community, took on a fight, and saw how she could make government a friend to the people. So she went from the Baltimore City Council to the House of Representatives, and then, of course, to this august Chamber.

Throughout that time, she has never lost sight of from where she came. She has fought tirelessly and effectively to protect Maryland's seniors, ensuring they have access to an affordable, healthy, and happy environment. She has been a leading advocate of medical research, securing billions in funding for cutting-edge research into things as diverse as breast cancer and Alzheimer's. She has helped countless women and veterans get the health care they need, and the list goes on and on.

Let me say one other thing. As somebody who believes that we have to focus on the middle class, talk to the middle class, and have middle- class feelings and values infused in our bones, no other Senator does that as well as Senator Mikulski because it is who she is and because-- being the essentially humble and modest person she is--she has never lost sight of where she has come from.

So Senator Barb--as her constituents know her--you are beloved here as much as you are beloved in your home State of Maryland. Your sense of humor, your tenacity, your work ethic, your love of community, and your mother's crab cake recipe are unrivaled.

It is an honor to serve alongside such an accomplished woman. Senator Mikulski, congratulations again. You are a great Senator and a great friend.

Mr. President, over the last few days, the Senate has finally begun to vote on judicial nominations that have been waiting on the Executive Calendar for months. There are currently three judicial emergency vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Judiciary Committee has reported qualified nominees to fill each one.

With the consideration of Ray Lohier's nomination, the Senate will finally fill one of those for the people of Vermont, Connecticut, and New York. For the past 13 years, Mr. Lohier has served as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and is currently special counsel to the U.S. attorney. He previously served as the chief and deputy chief of both the Securities and Commodities Task Force, which investigates and prosecutes offenses on Wall Street, and the narcotics unit.

He has the strong support of Senator Gillibrand and myself. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination on May 13.

I urge confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. President, today we vote on two very important issues in the great, long, and often difficult march that America has made toward equality.

That is one of the greatnesses of this country, that we inexorably move to equality. Sometimes it is painful. Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back. But as the great scholar de Tocqueville wrote, when he visited America in the 1830s: The thing that separates America from all the other countries of the world is equality always prevails.

We are dealing with equality on two scores today, in two areas. One is in the military. One of the great things about our military, No. 1, is they defend us and risk their lives for our freedom. But the second is, it has always been an integrating, positive force in America. Any policy that says you cannot serve even though you want to be an American, you are an American, is wrong; bad for our military service and bad for the country.

Second, we speak of the DREAM Act. Inevitably, from the time the first settlers came to New York, the English began to displace the Dutch, and the Dutch were upset. But what does America do? We reach out to newcomers and say: Become Americans and contribute to the American dream and work hard.

There are always people who have reasons to say no. They always fail. They may not fail this morning, but they will fail because the drive for equality is a great American drive. It is part of the American dream, and on both these issues we will prevail.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Massachusetts and so many, including our President, for making this the high priority that it is. We know how vital this is for somebody like myself who is so concerned about Iran going nuclear and the cooperation of the Russians being so essential. The bottom line is, this treaty is essential. It is not just better, it is essential.

But I must rise because of a comment my colleague from Arizona made. First let me preface what I say by my enormous respect for him. We have worked together on many issues. Nobody has done more to serve his country in this Chamber than the Senator from Arizona. I know that. He is a veteran. He is a serviceman. He served his country well. It is something I and every other Member of this Chamber greatly respect.

But unfortunately, I heard him say words before in his desire to get this treaty fully debated, he said: ``After all of the fooling around on New York City,'' referring to the Zadroga bill.

This is not fooling around. These men and the thousands of others who rushed to the towers on 9/11 and in the days thereafter were not fooling around. They, just like my colleague from Arizona, were risking their lives. It was like a time of war. The bottom line is that we were attacked. And without asking any questions, the police and firefighters, the construction workers and EMT workers who rushed to the towers risked their lives in a time of war as well. To call helping them fooling around is saddening and frustrating.

We have had a grand tradition in this country, a grand tradition. When veterans fight for us and risk their lives and get injured, we deal with their medical problems. We help them with their medical problems. Those 9/11 heroes who rushed to the towers are no different. When the Senator from New York, Senator Gillibrand, and myself and so many others are pushing hard for the Zadroga bill, we are not fooling around. We are fulfilling our duty as patriotic Americans to all of those from New York and elsewhere who rushed to the towers. We understand there are many needs on this floor and the hour is late. That is true. We tried to vote on the bill earlier. We did not get the number of votes. We are now working with our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to find a new pay-for because they didn't like the one that came over from the House.

One final point, this is not a New York issue. This is an American issue. This is not just about New York City or New York State, where admittedly the largest number of 9/11 responders came from, but from every State of the Union, including, I remind my good friend and patriot and veteran from Arizona, between 100 and 200 from the State of Arizona who rushed to New York bravely, selflessly, to help us. We are not asking for a handout. All we are asking is that their medical problems, the cancers and other illnesses that came about because of the glass and the debris that lodged in their lungs when they rushed to service, be treated, just as we treat our veterans.

So I hope after we finish debate on this START treaty--and I understand it should have a full debate--that we will then take up the Zadroga bill. I hope and pray, not only for those on 9/11 who rushed to the towers but for what America is all about, that we, Democrats and Republicans alike, rise to the occasion and pass the Zadroga bill and allow those who served us and are now suffering from cancers and those who will get cancer because of their bravery, their heroism in the finest American tradition, get the medical help they need and deserve. Nine hundred have already died. Thousands are ill and thousands more will learn of their illnesses. We cannot and must not forsake them.

It is not--I underline--fooling around on New York City.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to speak on a bill that the Chair has spearheaded the charge for--and done it with such hard work and determination and commitment and vigor--and that is the bill to provide health care for our 9/11 heroes, those men and women who at a time of war rushed to danger to save lives and protect our freedom.

We have met with these brave men and women repeatedly. Some of them are suffering already with cancers they acquired for their acts of bravery. Others know it is an almost certainty that they will come down with similar diseases and illnesses that are extremely costly to fight.

Madam President, we have had a grand tradition in America: Those who risk their lives to protect us and volunteer to do it under no compunction, we remember them when they get hurt in that brave endeavors. We do it for our veterans and we should be doing it for our 9/11 heroes--the first responders, the police, the firefighters, the EMT workers, the construction workers, and the ordinary citizens who rushed into danger at a time when no one knew how many people might be living and entrapped in those collapsed towers.

I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this should not be a moment of politics. One can come up with reason after reason why not to vote for this bill, and we have heard many and the reasons keep changing. But one fact doesn't change: There are those who need help and who deserve our help--from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and from every other State of the Union. To them, a parliamentary decision that we can't vote on this because there is another bill we want to vote on first, because we would change this or that, is going to ring very hollow.

This should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue where America unites. When it comes to helping our veterans, we are united. That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. That

is not a northeast or southwest issue. It is an issue of being an American. This vote is about being an American because from the days at Bunker Hill, when the patriots put down their plows and took up muskets to defend and create our freedom, we have always tried to take care of them, and we have done it better and better for our veterans. The heroes of 9/11 are no different.

So I beg, I plead, I implore two brave colleagues from the other side to join us. Put aside the political considerations. Remember what these people did for us. You have seen them when they have visited your offices, the suffering, all for an act of voluntary heroism. They are not asking for welfare. They are not asking for a huge handout. They are simply asking that they be able to meet the high health care costs that occur when you develop cancers and other illnesses because particles of glass and cement and other materials get lodged in your lungs or your gastrointestinal tract.

So this is our last call. It is a plea. We will keep at this, but today is the day to step to the plate. I urge my colleagues to please support those brave men and women who were there for us--for America. Do not come up with an excuse as to why you cannot do it. We have marched and marched and marched, and this is the finish line. Help us get over it, please.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 9/ 11 Health and Compensation Act. Yesterday we observed Pearl Harbor Day, marking the 69th anniversary of that tragic attack on American soil. Nine years ago our Nation was attacked once again. September 11, 2001, was a day of indescribable horror, not only for New York, a city I am proud to call home, but for the entire Nation.

In the minutes, hours, and days after the Twin Towers collapsed, thousands of first responders rushed to lower Manhattan to dig through the rubble. First they searched for survivors. We all remember the horrible--this is vivid in my mind, the signs people holding: Have you seen this person? It is my husband, my wife, my child, my parent. Because no one knew where everyone was amidst the rubble. We thought-- unfortunately we were disappointed, deeply--that there were survivors amidst the rubble and time was of the essence to find them.

Then, in days later, when we realized that there weren't many survivors, there was still a great need to, sadly, search for the bodies of those who perished. You can imagine the anguish of families, who wanted a sign, something--remains of their loved ones--and that search continued. Valiant men and women, not just from New York or New Jersey or Connecticut but from Minnesota and Colorado and all around the country, came--firefighters, first responders, police officers, ordinary citizens--to help us in our horrible hour of need--a moment, a day, a week, a month that I will never forget.

I still look out my window in my home in Brooklyn, every day when I am home, and know that those two Twin Towers are no longer there and I think of the people I knew who were lost, a guy I played basketball with in high school, a businessman who helped me on the way up, a firefighter who dedicated his life to my neighborhood in Brooklyn where I was raised, getting people to donate blood.

We think of all these people. They were resolute, they were brave, they were selfless--those who were lost and then those who came to the rubble. Construction workers. They didn't ask if they were going to get paid. They didn't ask what the danger was to them. They were brave, they were resolute, they were selfless as were firefighters, policemen, EMTs, and others.

Amid the chaos and carnage, they said to themselves: This is what I am trained for, and I will do whatever it takes to help, even if it means risking my life.

So the dust has settled and the ruins of the World Trade Center have been cleared away. The effects of the attack are still being felt, now more than ever, by thousands of those first responders.

Medical experts have determined that on September 11 and the days after, the air around Ground Zero was filled with microscopic cement and glass particles. This dust has caused thousands of first responders to develop chronic respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases.

Just last week, we lost 9/11 first responder Kevin Czartoryski, a NYPD narcotics detective. He is the third hero to pass away in the past month from the medical complications related to the rescue effort.

Back in 2006, doctors from the Mount Sinai Medical Center that my predecessor, or my former colleague, now Secretary of State, then- Senator Clinton, worked so hard to bring into the picture found that a staggering 70 percent of 9/11 rescue workers suffered from health problems, many of which were irreversible.

The fact is, right now there are people who rushed to those towers who do not know they are ill. The symptoms of these illnesses and diseases, when you get these particles in your lungs and in your gastrointestinal system, the cancers and other illnesses that develop, take years and years before they can be detected. So we know that in the coming years there are going to be more heroes who will become ill, and those who are already suffering may see their conditions worsen.

The 9/11 Health and Compensation Act will finally put these first responders at ease with the knowledge that they will receive treatment for health problems related to rescuing victims of the attack and helping clear the debris from Ground Zero. The bill ensures that those at risk of illness have access to medical monitoring and that all of those who get sick from exposure have a right to consistent treatment. The bill also ensures ongoing data collection and analysis for exposed populations, so we can try to cure or treat in advance people who might become ill.

Critically, the legislation would ensure steady funding for those vital programs so that those in treatment no longer have to wonder whether Congress will appropriate adequate funds to allow their treatment to continue year to year. We have appropriated funds every year. Everyone in this Chamber has voted for those funds. But when it is yearly funds and you need an ongoing medical regime, it is very hard to plan, to buy that machine, to set up a team that would work for 3 or 4 or 5 years under normal circumstances. The heroes who rushed to the towers deserve to be guaranteed proper treatment, not to have their medical needs subject to the whims of what is going on at that month, that time in Washington.

In addition to addressing health needs, the bill would reopen the victims compensation fund, allowing those who missed the arbitrary deadline of December 22, 2003, to seek compensation. This deadline unfairly barred responders who became ill or learned of the fund after the date. You rushed to the tower. As of 2003, you were aware of the fund, but you did not apply. You did not have anything wrong with you. Six months later, you get cancer of the lungs or cancer of the esophagus or stomach, which we found so many getting. Why unfairly prevent them?

So this bill is an opportunity to send a clear message to the thousands of first responders who risked their lives on that fateful day 9 years ago. We say to them: In our Nation's time of need, you gave us your all. Now, in your time of need, we will give you our all.

Let's not forget, on both sides of the aisle, we have struggled mightily to help our veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2001 and 2002, we saw that veterans health care was not up to snuff. There was a bipartisan effort to bring it up to snuff, to make the health care adequate for the new needs of the veterans who risked their lives for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because this Nation has a tradition: When you volunteer--as our soldiers do today--and risk your life to protect our

freedom, particularly at a time of war, we will be there for you and deal with your medical problems that were caused in that conflict.

I would argue to every one of my colleagues here today, those who rushed to the towers in those fateful hours and days after 9/11 are no different from our veterans whom we exalt. It was a time of war. Our Nation was attacked. They volunteered. No one compelled them to do it. They rushed to danger as our veterans do. So when they are injured, which has happened, they should be treated the same as our veterans. This is nothing we should play politics with, just as we do not play politics with veterans' needs.

I want to make sure everybody hears us. I know there are other legislative concerns, whether it is tax bills or funding bills or whatever. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is not fair and it is not right to say that we will not remember these people who volunteered and risked their lives to protect our freedom in a time of war; we will not help them until X or Y or Z gets done. It is not fair. It is not right.

It is also time for those who are against the bill to stop spreading lies about it. They say it is vulnerable to fraud. It has been very tight. My good colleague, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, has documented thoroughly and completely how the existing compensation has not created any fraud or other types of problems.

We are here. We have debated this bill for years. It has been like running a marathon, and this is the last 100 yards. Thousands of first responders, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, and other heroes who were ordinary citizens from each of the 50 States are waiting for us to act. And for all too many of them, help cannot come soon enough. The finish line is in view. Let us, on both sides of the aisle, cross it together. I implore my colleagues to vote in favor of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Before I sit down, I wish to praise my colleague who has led the fight, Senator Gillibrand from New York. She has made it her passion. She works for it hours every day and has done an amazing job. I also thank our colleagues on this legislation, particularly my colleagues from across the river, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez, who have been our partners. I thank Peter King, Carolyn Maloney, and Jerrold Nadler in the House for their work and many others in New York and other delegations. Again, I hope those efforts will not go in vain, not because of the people who worked on the bill like we did but because of the people who need our help, those who have all kinds of illnesses because they volunteered to help our great Nation and preserve its freedom in a time of war.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Colorado.

DREAM Act

Mr. President, would my colleague yield for a question?

I thank my colleague. Through the Chair, I would simply like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point of view. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain to me why it is OK to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels--above $1 million--and not pay for it, yet we have to pay for an unemployment extension?

Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I would just say the answer doesn't deal with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. Mr. President, $1 of tax break per millionaire and $1 of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. However, every economist--I saw we had a chart up about economists before--will tell us $1 into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as $1 into tax decreases for millionaires. That is pretty universal. Mark Zandi, John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign, said $1 of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents' worth. So $1 of unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.

I know we have a few of my colleagues coming. Does my colleague have anyone else here he wishes to have speak right now?

OK. Then I will speak for a minute or two, unless you would like to speak a little longer.

If you have more time on your side that you want to use, that is fine; otherwise, I will.

OK. Then I will speak for a few minutes.

Mr. President, this debate is very simple. Everybody here believes in all good faith that we ought to permanently extend tax breaks for the middle class. The question on the floor is, Do we want to extend those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at a time of huge deficit? I would argue vociferously no. I would argue most economists agree that shouldn't happen. I would argue the American people, by 26 percent to 74 percent, are against giving tax breaks to millionaires. Why? It is very simple.

It is not that we are against millionaires. God bless them. Most of them made their money the hard way. They worked hard. They made the American dream. Every one of us would like to have done that--or most of us. So this is not aimed at being critical of them. But, rather, it says we have two economic realities. We have an economy that under the Bush tax cuts right now--my colleague mentioned unemployment went up to 9.8 percent. That is under these tax cuts.

When the rates were a little higher under President Clinton, we never had unemployment that high. But we would argue: So the middle class needs to continue that break for two reasons. One, it stimulates the economy and, No. 2, middle-class incomes have declined over the last decade. In the first decade under the Bush tax cuts, middle-class incomes declined for the first decade since World War II. Under the Clinton rates, middle-class incomes increased rather significantly. Second, we would say this: But at the same time--this is the conundrum we have economically--we have a large deficit and the question is, How do you reduce the deficit? Again, I think both of us agree we should reduce the deficit. It seems to me, about the best way to reduce the deficit is not to give $300 billion of tax breaks to the 315,000 Americans whose income is over $1 million.

By the way, I would remind my colleague there are 160 million people--my colleague from Alaska has reminded me--160 million people who file tax returns. Only 315,000--by quick math, that is about .03 percent--have an income over $1 million. But in the last decade under the Bush tax cuts, those people have garnered all the increase in wealth, all the increase in income--or just about--a huge proportion of it.

So if we are looking for deficit reduction, should we hurt the middle class? No. Should we stop building roads? In my opinion, no. Should we take money out of Social Security? In my opinion, no. Where are we going to get it? Don't do unemployment benefits which stimulate the economy and mean so much to middle-class people who have been out of work for so long under this regime of Bush tax cuts? No. The best place to get that money--it is not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they are doing fine and they are not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy. For some reason, 42 Members of this Senate, all on the other side of the aisle, somehow the linchpin of their entire economic policy is tax breaks--further tax breaks--for those who are very wealthy.

Let me remind my colleague that every person whose income is $100 million--there aren't many of them, but they have a lot of the income-- would get a $3.8 million tax break a year. The average middle-class person under our plan would get about a $2,000 tax break a year. Is that equivalent? Certainly, the person making $3.8 million isn't going to rush to J.C. Penney and buy that warm winter coat they have been waiting for. No.

So I would say to my friend, it is a bit contradictory to say pay for unemployment benefits but don't pay for tax cuts to the rich. It is also a bit contradictory to say you care about deficit reduction but not when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthiest people.

I am going to be here for the next 2 years to remind my colleagues, every time they talk about deficit reduction and don't spend money on this and don't spend money on that, that they were willing to increase the deficit $300 billion to give tax breaks to people who have over $1 million.

With that, I yield the floor and turn it over--I see my colleague from Utah is here. I kept him waiting yesterday. I am not going to do that today. So I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, the chairman, for his leadership on this issue.

Today, we stand at a crossroads. We have two vital issues facing this country. One is an economy that is moving too slowly. The second is a large deficit looming around the corner. How do we solve that problem? The best way to solve that problem, in my judgment, is to give tax breaks to the people who will spend it, the middle class, and to make sure the highest income people who have done very well over the last decade, instead of getting a tax break, make sure that money goes to deficit reduction. Most economists who would look from 10,000 feet up, who are not ideological, would say that is the solution. So why, then, do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make the linchpin of their economic policy tax breaks for the wealthiest among us? It can't be because it is needed to stimulate the economy. Economic statistics show that very little of the dollars we give them in tax breaks will go to stimulate the economy. It can't be for the purpose of fairness. The highest income people in America, the people who make over $1 million, the people who make over $250,000, are the ones who have benefited the most in the last decade while middle-class incomes have declined. It can't be because they care about the deficit. Because if they did, that would be a much higher priority.

It is hard to figure out why 42 Members on the other side of the aisle say tax breaks for the wealthiest among us are more important than any single other issue. Over the next 2 years, when they come to the floor and talk about deficit reduction, they will be reminded that they chose $300 billion in tax breaks for the very wealthy, not paid for, increasing the deficit, over any other priority.

Our view is simple, those of us on this side of the aisle. Our view is that tax cuts should go to the middle class. The well-to-do among us--God bless them. They have done well, and we are proud of them. We don't resent it--their huge increase should go to deficit reduction. It is that simple.

My colleagues on the other side say: Well, what about small business? Virtually no small businesses have incomes of less than $1 million. Some big businesses disguise themselves as small businesses for tax purposes, but no small business does. So we are not hurting small business one job. Then they say: What about moving the economy forward? The answer is very simple. Thirty cents out of every $1 we give to tax breaks for people who make above $1 million goes into the economy. Madam President, $1.62 goes into the economic economy. We renew unemployment insurance. In the most anomalous situation of all, they insist that unemployment insurance be paid for but tax breaks to the wealthy not to be. It is a philosophy far out of touch with what America needs and what average Americans believe.

The election was not a referendum on tax cuts for the millionaires. Very few people campaigned on it. A CBS poll shows 26 percent of Americans think the Bush tax breaks ought to go to everybody, and 74 percent think they should not go to the millionaires.

One final point. We had 10 very good years in the 1990s. Middle-class incomes increased, the deficit was reduced. The wealthy did well under the previous administration's tax policies. The Bush tax policies have been a failure. We should not repeat them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately upon my finishing, the Senator from Utah be recognized.

Mr. President, I rise as well to speak about the single most important issue facing the American people today, and that is the state of the economy.

Let's consider three facts and lay them side by side. First, over the last decade, even though the economy was growing modestly, middle-class incomes declined for the first time since World War II. The average middle-class family, which had always seen things get better and better, did not from 2001 to 2010.

By the way, this did not just occur during the recession which began in 2008. It was constant throughout this decade. The great American dream, what is it? I submit it is very simple. Not everyone wants to try to become rich, and everyone knows they are not going to become rich, but they certainly know one thing: In America, the odds are very high you will be doing better 10 years from now than you are doing today. And the odds are even higher your kids will do even better than you. When incomes decline over a decade, that American dream burns a little less brightly for people and the whole tenor of America changes and we see the kind of anger we have seen, which is not typical of this great land of ours with its amazing people. That is unusual.

So, first of all, middle-class incomes have gone down.

Secondly, in the last decade, one group did very, very well--the highest in income among us, the millionaires and billionaires. God bless them. Their taxes went down, down, down over the last decade because of the Bush era tax cuts, but their incomes went up, up, up. They did great.

Thirdly, over the last decade, while all of this was happening, our deficit got out of control. When we began this decade in 2001 there was a $250 billion surplus. We hadn't had that in decades. It was wonderful and it helped fuel the economy because small businesspeople and large businesspeople would borrow knowing that interest rates would stay low. Interest rates are often a greater cost to them than taxes. But when President Bush departed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at the end of 2008, he left behind a deficit of $1 trillion. Some of that was due to the war in Iraq, where our brave soldiers defended us, and Afghanistan as well, and a little more of it was due to new programs the President authored, including a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. But most of it was due to the fact that he cut taxes on the wealthy.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we have to keep the Bush tax cuts, particularly those for the wealthy. Well, was the last decade a great success? Not for the middle class. No. Their incomes went down. Not for job growth because that was smaller than before. So when we had the Clinton era level of taxes in the 1990s, all of America and job creation and the middle class, in terms of income, did better than with these tax cuts which began in 2001. So this cry that we need these tax cuts for prosperity doesn't fit with history. It may fit with a particular ideology, but it doesn't fit with history.

Who on Earth would want to extend a failed economic program that didn't help the middle class--the backbone of America, the place I come from and always fight for? Who would want to extend this failed economic program? I will tell you who. Every single 1 of my 42 colleagues on the other side of the aisle is marching in lockstep saying please extend this failed economic program. Why? It seems to me what they hold out for is tax cuts for the millionaires. In fact, they are so committed to extending the failed economic program of the Bush years, they are willing to hold hostage the middle-class tax cuts, which we all agree we should have, until they can give a giant tax break to millionaires and billionaires.

That defies economic logic. The well-off--the people for whom my colleagues in the minority are fighting--aren't going to spend their tax break and get the economy moving. They are not going to rush to JCPenney and buy that warm winter coat they have been waiting to buy. They are not going to go out to the Barnside Diner and buy a nice prime rib dinner. They can afford all that already. They can afford it 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

I want to say something about these millionaires and billionaires. God bless them. We are not mad at them for having done well. We admire them. We all wish we were like them, as successful as they were. God bless them. All we are saying is they do not need another $400,000 or $4 million at this time when there are so many other more important needs.

I want to reiterate that. I have nothing against the wealthy. I don't like it when we knock them. I think they are great. I respect them. I admire their achievements. There are lots of them in New York who started with nothing and worked their way up. I think it is great. Some of them inherited their wealth, that is true, and they seem to have even more a sense of entitlement than the ones who made it themselves, oftentimes, but many more live the American Dream through their own great ingenuity. They pulled themselves up the economic ladder by their bootstraps. But I have to tell you something. When I talk to them, at least those who are wealthy in my home State of New York--even many Republicans--they say: You know what. For the good of the country, I don't need this kind of tax break. If we put it to deficit reduction, most of them say: I would be for it. Not all of them say that. Certainly not the hard right people who seem to have the party on the other side in the palm of their hands, who say: I made my $10 million and don't you dare touch a nickel of it. But most--most--say: Chuck, I can afford to pay a bit more. I have nothing against returning to the Clinton rates, as long as, they say--and this is a reasonable caveat-- the money goes to a good purpose: making our schools better, improving our infrastructure and, above all, they say, decreasing the deficit.

That is what the amendment I will offer tomorrow would do. The other

side of the aisle wants you to believe the average American overwhelmingly supports tax breaks for millionaires. I have heard it. They say: The election--haven't you Democrats heard about the election? Well, I was running this year. I happened to get 65, 66 percent of the vote. I got a lot of votes from Republicans, a lot of votes from Independents, and I talked to a lot of angry people. I saw a lot of tea party people. None of them said to me: Make sure you keep tax breaks for the millionaires. They may have said shrink the government; they may have said repeal health care. That is true. But none, none said: Keep the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Here is a poll that reflects that, and it is not by some Democratic Party organization or some Republican Party organization but by CBS, a nonpartisan poll. The poll yesterday said only 26 percent of Americans support millionaire tax breaks--26 percent. Now you may say: Well, that is just the Democrats. Oh, no. Only 25 percent of Independents say keep the tax breaks for millionaires--those swing voters who are the ones who created a lot of new Republican seats and caused us to lose a lot of Democratic seats. Even on the Republican side, 46 percent--only 46 percent--supported millionaire tax breaks.

So this idea that the election was a mandate to cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires--you know, I didn't only run in New York, but I worked closely with many of my colleagues in many parts of the country--the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest--and none of them reported any hue and cry to keep tax breaks for millionaires--none. That is not what the election said.

Now maybe the money of some of those millionaires helped create ads on other issues that helped win the election for these folks but not the issue itself. So we need to get our economy humming on all cylinders again, and it is true we need to stimulate demand.

Mark Zandi, an economist who is as well-respected on the right, as well as the left--I believe he was Senator McCain's chief economic adviser when he ran his campaign--said every dollar spent on tax breaks for the millionaires generates 32 cents of economic activity. Those of us who believe in economic efficiency, which I do, know that doesn't work. Let me give a contrast. Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.61 in economic activity.

So if you care about getting the economy going, you are going to be for increasing unemployment benefits quicker than tax breaks for millionaires. According to Mark Zandi, most every economist--even those on the right--doesn't believe that is false. UI benefits are 400 percent more stimulative than tax breaks for the wealthy according to Mr. Zandi.

Yet on Wednesday, when my esteemed and effective colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, came to the floor and asked unanimous consent for just a 1-year reauthorization for unemployment benefits, the other side objected. As the Senator from Minnesota said when he was speaking on the Senate floor a few minutes ago, the anomaly is that the Republican Party is saying we don't have to pay for tax breaks for the millionaires but we have to pay for an increase in unemployment benefits. What kind of logic is that?

The middle class is worried. They are worried about how they are going to stretch that paycheck. They are worried about how they are going to make that mortgage payment. They are worried about how they are going to keep that job. In this recession, middle-class people are more unemployed than ever before. Most recessions in the past had two differences: One, they mainly affected the poorest people and the working-class people who made the lowest salaries. This one has gone way up into the middle class and the upper middle class. I have met hundreds of these people as I have traveled through my State, and they are out of work for a lot longer. It is no longer 3 weeks or even 3 months but 6 months, 9 months, a year. We just heard the unemployment rate went up, under these Bush tax cuts, to 9.8 percent.

We are trying to offer solutions that bring the unemployment rate down. We are trying to offer solutions that focus on the middle class, while our Republican colleagues are busy defending the wonderful people who made a lot of money but don't need the help.

After Senator Brown offered his bill to reauthorize unemployment insurance, Senator Udall of New Mexico asked for consent to take up and pass a bill to extend the highly successful Building Start Program. That gave tax incentives so construction workers could build buildings that were energy efficient--150,000 good-paying jobs. They objected.

Next came Senator Stabenow from Michigan, a real leader in the fight for job creation. She came to the floor with a bill to give tax breaks to manufacturers. We need manufacturing, not only in her State of Michigan but in my State of New York--particularly upstate. Conservative estimates said the bill would create 40,000 private sector jobs. Again, the Republicans objected.

Then I offered a bill myself--and I am glad my colleague from Utah is here because this was a bipartisan bill. It was a tax cut for business called the HIRE Act. It said if you hire somebody who is unemployed 60 days, you don't have to pay the payroll tax for this year. It is expiring. I wanted to extend it. Objection.

The bill had passed with bipartisan support. But the point is to get tax breaks for the millionaires they would even object to a bipartisan bill that gave a tax break to businesses that would employ people. What kind of logic is that?

One final point as I conclude, and that is about the deficit. The deficit, as I mentioned, is huge. But let me just say the Bush tax cuts and particularly those for the millionaires and billionaires add a huge amount to the deficit, and we do not hear a peep about it from the other side. They care about the deficit, but $300 billion that it would cost to give these tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, that is OK. Please.

Over the next year, I am going to be up here reminding my colleagues when they say we cannot pay for help to our schools so they can hire a science teacher who might create the genius that would create a new industry that would create new jobs, when they say we cannot have money to repair a road or a sewer project that would create good-paying jobs because it would increase the deficit, I am going to remind each and every one of them that they said, when they gave tax breaks to millionaires, the deficit didn't count. Just remember that.

And, of course, they say these tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are tax breaks for small business. My good colleague-- someone who looks very much like the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, who was seated over there a few minutes ago--talked about that.

My dad was a small businessman. He had a little exterminating business. It wasn't very successful. I know how he suffered through it. He knows these tax breaks are not for a business like his--or the dry cleaner or the restaurant or any of these other businesses. They are not for any at all because we are not talking about corporate tax cuts. They are for very wealthy people, some of whom you have mentioned.

I know my colleague from Utah has been patiently waiting, so I am not going to talk about all the small business stuff, but I just want to remind people about this plan. Under the President Bush tax breaks for millionaires, here is what would happen. Under the plan my colleagues across the aisle are supporting, people who make $1 million would get a $43,000 break per year; people who make $10 million would get a $400,000 break per year; people who make $100 million would get a $3,800,000 break per year. The average middle-class family making $60,000 would get $2,500. We want to get that middle-class family its break. We will give the same amount to these folks, they will get a break, no more and no less, than the middle-class family. But we don't believe these breaks, where we have so many other needs and a huge deficit to boot, are called for.

We will be debating that all day today, all tomorrow morning until 10:30--but also for the rest of the next 2 years.

Again, I repeat, don't talk to us about deficit reduction, folks, if you are willing to put this whopping hole for deficits for tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires. Don't come

to us and say this program for this school or this road or this small business incentive should not be passed because of the deficit but it is OK to give the breaks to these folks.

More people last night tuned in to watch the reruns of ``Matlock'' on TV Land than would benefit from the Republican proposal. I haven't seen ``Matlock'' in a long time. I am sure those people who watched it had a good time, but it wasn't many of them. But it was more of them than the millionaires and billionaires who would get this break. They are a powerful group. God bless them. They should not have the kind of power they have, to have good people on the other side of the aisle tie themselves in a knot to prevent all kinds of important things from happening until they get their break.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the upcoming amendments and debate we will have on the tax issue. Let me say a few things. First, we are in a very tough economic situation. We have a large number of unemployed people, and even people who have been employed over the last decade, for the middle class, their incomes have not gone up. Their buying power has not gone up. This is the first decade that middle-class incomes have not increased.

Second, the economy, if we look at statistics from 2000 to 2010, even with the recession, has done pretty well. But almost all the income and all the wealth has agglomerated to the top 1 percent and top 10 percent. That means the people at the highest end did very well, while everybody else did not. I have nothing against them. In fact, I think they are great. They are part of the American dream. To say they have gotten most of the wealth, some of my colleagues bring up the false issue of class warfare. It is not class warfare. It is a fact we have to deal with, just like saying middle-class incomes have not gone up enough. That is not class warfare either. Those are just facts.

Then there is the third issue; that when we began the decade in 2001 there was a surplus of $300 billion left by Bill Clinton. Now, of course, we have a huge deficit. We did when Barack Obama took office, and because of the stimulus it is greater. But the No. 1 reason was the tax cuts, mainly agglomerated to the wealthy, passed by President George Bush and a Senate and House led by Republicans.

Issue 4, when the tax rates were higher--Bill Clinton had raised them--we all know job growth in the 1990s far exceeded job growth in this decade.

So put all that together, and it makes a pretty strong point that the middle class needs relief, No. 1; that the country must overcome the deficit problems we face, No. 2; and No. 3, that the highest income people are doing great.

So what would be the proper solution to that when we have a tax bill coming before us? It is pretty logical. It is pretty obvious. We should actually make sure the middle class keeps their taxes low. They are the ones whose incomes have suffered. They are the ones who spend it when they get a check because they don't have much money. They are the ones who need the relief both for themselves and in their personal and family situations and for the economy. But to give huge amounts of tax breaks to the very wealthy doesn't make any sense. Why? Because, first, they are doing great. God bless them; second, because they don't spend it. They are not going to go out to the supermarket or the department store Christmas shopping because they know they are getting a little bit of a tax break; they have plenty of money. And third, because even most of them would probably admit they did fine when the rate was a little higher on them. It is not going to affect their business and spending decisions very much, if at all.

The logical solution is to give the middle class the tax break and say to the upper income: Your money should go to deficit reduction. That is what we will vote on in the next few days on the floor. Some would prefer that the level be 250, that the tax cuts should go to all those below 250. I know my colleague from Iowa feels that way. He will speak after me. I have been willing to have the rates go up to 1 million. I think having a rate for the very highest income people, which we always used to have, restoring that makes a great deal of sense because that is where the wealth is agglomerating. It is no longer people in the top 10 percent who do the best. It is people in the top 1 percent who do the best, far and away. On that vote, we will see where people stand.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to make it seem as if a tax cut for someone making $50,000 is the same as a tax cut for someone making $5 million. They say: Tax cuts for everybody. Don't raise taxes on anybody. But it is not the truth. What we are here to do is actually pull away the veil. It seems the No. 1 motivation of too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is to give a tax break to the wealthiest among us, which may make political sense. I don't know. It may for them. It sure doesn't make economic sense. It doesn't make fairness sense. It doesn't make sense from the point of view of getting the economy going.

I want the American public, over the next few days, as we debate taxes, to listen. Ask yourself: Do you think someone making $10 million should get a huge tax break? Do you think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates should get a tax break that is more than the income of thousands and thousands and thousands of middle-class people? If you believe no, tell your Senator.

Do you believe the deficit is a serious problem and giving $300 billion to $400 billion to people who make over $1 million instead of putting that money into the deficit makes sense? If you do not, call your Senator and tell him no. Do you think it is at all fair to say that to extend unemployment benefits for hard-working people who are looking every day for jobs, that that has to be paid for but tax breaks to the wealthiest among us do not have to be? If you think that does not make any sense, tell your Senator, tell him or her no.

I know we have a very powerful media group on the hard right, and they are going to try to get on the radio and get on the television and convince the average middle-class person that Democrats want to take away their tax cut and Republicans want to give it to them. But nothing could be further from the truth. We have been the ones focused on the middle class, and they have been the ones focused on the wealthy.

We are not willing to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage until there is a tax cut for the wealthiest among us. It is time for some clarity. If all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote for a tax break for those whose annual income is above $1 million, unpaid for, I do not want to hear about deficit reduction when it comes to programs for transportation or education or health or the military from them ever again.

They may believe lowering taxes on everybody is a good thing. That is an ideology I do not agree with at this point in time. But they cannot claim deficit reduction is a goal when they will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars without it being paid for to give tax breaks to the very few wealthy families here in America.

As for the argument that those tax breaks are important to create jobs, no economist believes that. We are talking about the personal income tax rate, not the corporate rate. We are talking about people who, when they had a higher rate, did very well. We are talking about job growth in the last decade among the slowest we have had in a very long time under those low tax rates, whether they were times of economic growth or economic decline. There is virtually no good argument to give huge tax breaks to the very wealthy at a time when our deficit is as large as it is. There is a very good argument to give those same tax breaks, on a percentage basis, of course, to the middle class.

So to the American people, please watch the floor tonight, tomorrow, over the next several days. Figure out who is on your side. Figure out who is being fiscally responsible. Figure out who wants to help the average middle-class person and at the same time get a hold on our deficit.

Again, I repeat, I respect and salute those who have made a lot of money on their own and are very wealthy. God bless them. They are part of the American dream. But the American dream does not say that at a time of need, at a time when deficits are severe, that because you have made all that money you should get a more huge tax break than everybody else.

So this debate is going to be an interesting one. I think it is going to set the tone for what we do over the next 2 years. Believe me, we will be talking about the millionaires' tax break--who voted for it and who voted against it--not just today and not just tomorrow but over the next 2 years. It is a very important issue and one we cannot let rest for the good of the middle class, for the good of deficit reduction, for the good of the country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before my colleague sits down, would he yield for a question?

I thank you, Mr. President.

The beginning of this letter, signed by 42 of our Republican colleagues, says:

The Nation's unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is

unacceptable to Americans.

I just want to clarify what my colleague is saying. We will all be talking about this. It is more important to the people on the other side of the aisle to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than move forward on unemployment insurance. We are going to ask unanimous consent on that proposal and on other proposals which we will hear from.

But is my colleague basically saying, despite the fact that our colleagues admit unemployment is high--many are out of work--their solution to unemployment and people looking for jobs is to give tax breaks to people who are making millions and billions of dollars and people who did very well over the last decade--the only group? Is that basically it?

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

We are here on the Senate floor, and we will be staying on the Senate floor for a little while to make one point. I would say this to the American people: We have an economy that needs improvement, and our colleagues have said they will not let anything happen, whether it be tax credits for employers who hire the unemployed, which I am talking about, help for the energy industry, tax credits to help manufacturers hire people, or unemployment insurance. All of those will be put on hold until we give tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires who--God bless them--are wonderful. They are part of the American dream. But they are the one group that has done well. It seems to me, as we will talk about for the next little while, it is absolutely absurd to say that should be the linchpin of our economic policy.

We will ask unanimous consent to bring forth proposals that we think will do far more to get people back to work and help the middle class stretch the paycheck than giving tax breaks to the billionaires.

I yield the floor because I know my colleague wishes to speak.

Mr. President, I know my colleague from New Mexico wants to say a few words about some of the job-creating proposals he has that have been held up by Republicans blocking for their millionaire tax cuts, but here is a headline I wanted to alert my colleagues and the American people to. This is Newsweek. It came out today. I want to read this headline to the American people. And this is not a Democratic publication. ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' Let me repeat that. ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' I couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly what the other side is doing. They are so eager to reward the wealthiest among us with a huge tax cut--even though we have a deficit, even though we have unemployment, even though we have so many

other things to do--that they are holding up the entire Senate.

Enough already. Enough already. And I would like them to come to the floor and defend holding everything up for a tax cut for the millionaires. We are willing, and many of us--I know the Senator from Missouri and myself--are saying: Give the tax cut to the middle class but not to the wealthiest among us, not because we don't like them, not because we don't admire them but, rather, because they are doing well, we have a deficit, and we have other problems.

``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' That says it all.

I will yield for a question.

I thank my colleague from Missouri for the question, which I will answer through the Chair.

The most stimulative thing we can do is to extend unemployment benefits. Those folks will spend every dollar in our stores, in our restaurants, and it will create jobs. If we give a tax break to multimillionaires, oh, yeah, they will rush right to the supermarket to buy that prime rib because they didn't have the money. Please.

I yield for another question.

My colleague asks an excellent question. It has not worked. Unemployment is higher today with these tax cuts in effect than it was before they went into effect. We have had the slowest job growth in this decade even before the recession with these so-called breaks for the wealthy in effect.

Let's go back a decade. The tax rate was, for the wealthiest, at 40 percent. We are not talking about a huge increase here; we are talking about the difference between 35 and 39.6. But during that time, jobs were created at a much more rapid rate, No. 1; No. 2, middle-class incomes expanded at a quicker rate than they did in this decade; and No. 3, we had a surplus, not a deficit.

The bottom line is very simple: The tax cuts for the wealthy did not work. The tax cuts for the wealthy did not work. They may have their ideological reasons to give them, but I would rather see that money go not only for unemployment insurance--and I will talk later about this-- but also for the HIRE Act, which gives breaks to businesses, where they do not have to pay the payroll tax if they hire someone who is unemployed; for energy tax credits, which my colleague from New Mexico will talk about; and for all kinds of different activities that have been proven to work.

I know my colleague from New Mexico is waiting, but I will once more read the headline from Newsweek, an article by Ben Adler, ``Republicans Hold Senate Ransom for Rich Tax Cut.'' How do you like that, America?

I yield the floor because I know my colleague from New Mexico has been waiting.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. President, may I ask my colleague from Wyoming a question in reference to what he just spoke about? I thank him for yielding for a question.

Mr. President, my colleague said he wanted to make sure his colleagues on that side of the aisle didn't want to do anything else until they made sure there was a tax cut for every American. Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say we gave a tax break to every American whose income was below $1 million but not to people above $1 million. Would he and his colleagues continue to block things, such as the unemployment insurance, the HIRE Act, and energy tax credits? In other words, when the Senator says a tax break for every American, does he mean it has to be for millionaires?

Would my colleague yield for another question, a followup?

My question is very simple. The Senator said he wanted to prevent a tax hike on every American. Hypothetically, if we prevented a tax hike on every American except the small number whose income was over $1 million last year, would my colleague and his colleagues continue to block efforts to do any other piece of legislation?

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Wyoming, but he has not answered the question and it is obvious why, because the Republican Party and all 42 members care as much or more about giving a $100,000 tax break to someone whose income is $1 million as they care to give a small tax break to somebody whose income is $50,000. That is what we are here talking about.

The reason this letter and the response of my good friend from Wyoming to my question doesn't answer the question is because they are hiding. They are hiding behind the curtain of protecting the millionaires. We are

pulling that curtain open and we are showing the American people and will continue to show that the No. 1 goal of the Republican Party is not jobs, it is not helping the middle class, it is not getting our green energy industry going, it is not helping small businesses hiring people as in the HIRE Act, it is to give the millionaires a huge tax break and hold hostage that the middle class will not get their tax break. We are going to continue to go at it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the floor. I will be brief.

I would first like to ask my colleagues a question of any of my Republican colleagues. They say we have to do this by Monday. It is one of the most important economic issues we have. If today we were to offer you--certainly I would; I cannot speak for every one of my colleagues--we will keep the tax rates the same for everyone whose income is below $1 million and have them go up to what they were in the Clinton years for people $1 million or higher, how is that for a compromise? Would you accept it? Well, I would ask any of my colleagues to come on the floor and tell us why they would or would not accept it.

We all know there was greater prosperity in the Clinton years than there was during the Bush years. We all know there was less of a deficit--in fact, a surplus at the end of the Clinton years--and a huge deficit in the Bush years. We also all know just about every economist tells us that tax cuts, taxes for millionaires, do not create jobs. This is not capital gains. This is not an investment tax credit. This is personal income of millionaires and billionaires. It is one of the least effective ways to create jobs.

So, again, I would ask my colleagues, are you willing to accept that compromise? I am.

I would like the Record to show no Republican colleague has accepted that compromise.

I have another proposal I would like to offer before I yield back quickly to my colleague from Missouri.

Orrin Hatch and I passed a bipartisan bill, a tax cut for small businesses and large businesses, called the HIRE Act. It said if you hired somebody during the course of 2010, and they were unemployed for 60 days, they did not pay payroll tax. It has been regarded as a success. Five million jobs have been created since it passed. We cannot attribute all of them to the HIRE Act, but certainly it had to do with a good number of them. I would like to see us move that bill right now. It is a tax cut. It is for business. It creates jobs.

So I ask unanimous consent--and I would like to do that now, not to wait until we give a tax break to millionaires. These could be retired people who do nothing, who have a load of money, not small businesses working hard that would get a tax break.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3623 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 related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield for my colleague from Missouri who graciously yielded to me.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Missouri for her outstanding words.

Again, let us take three facts. First, over the last decade, middle- class incomes have declined for the first time since World War II. Second, over the last decade, if you made over $1 million, you did just great. Third, in 2001, when George Bush took over, until today, we have gone from a surplus of $300 billion to a huge deficit. Yet what are my colleagues suggesting we do? That we hold up the entire government until we get tax breaks for the wealthy, the people who have done well, the people who have plenty of money, the people who, when they get a tax break, don't rush out to the grocery store or to the clothing store because they haven't had enough money to buy things.

That is what they want to do. It is hard to believe. It is hard to believe politics aren't at stake; that there aren't a group of very wealthy people who believe they made all their money all by themselves and they do not want to pay any taxes and that is what is pulling that party so far to the right.

My good friend from Tennessee talked about elections. I want him to come to the floor and tell me that in this election the electorate cried out: Give more tax breaks to the millionaires. Everyone knows they didn't. They said: Help the middle class. If our party had a fault--and I believe we did--we didn't pay enough attention to the middle class. But they are not going to convince us that because they won a few seats in the Senate and picked up the House that the election was a mandate to give more tax breaks to the people who need it the least--the millionaires and billionaires. Oh, no.

In fact, we are listening to the electorate far more than they are. We are saying: Give the middle class tax breaks and deal with the deficit not by preventing unemployment insurance from being extended, not by preventing the HIRE Act from being enacted, and not by preventing tax breaks for manufacturing or green energy. Oh, no. We want to do those things, and we want to deal with the deficit by not giving an extra huge tax cut to the millionaires and billionaires.

Here is another thing I don't want to hear from my colleagues, if they persist with this policy. I don't want to hear them say: The deficit is the reason we can't spend money on middle-

class needs such as education or transportation or unemployment insurance, because there are lots of middle-class people unemployed.

I don't want to ever hear that again. If they are willing to increase the deficit by $300 billion or $400 billion to give tax breaks to the wealthy--unpaid for--I don't want to hear about deficit reduction from the other side because they are not honest about it. ``Deficit reduction'' is code for giving more money to the wealthy and less money to the middle class.

I am somebody who believes in the American dream, and I think people who have made a lot of money in America are great. I think they are terrific, and they do create jobs. A whole lot of wealthy people--many of them--have inherited money, it is true, but many more made it by themselves. God bless them. But it is only a small percentage of the wealthy who are so eager to get a tax break when they know the country has so much trouble. Lots of wealthy people I speak to--Republicans in my State--say: You know what. I know the rates could go back up to what they were in the Clinton years for me, and I can afford it. If the money goes to a good purpose--improving our schools, building our roads or decreasing our deficit--I am all for it. So we are not talking about class warfare. We are talking about an economic problem America faces. Middle-class incomes are declining and they need a tax break. Upper incomes are greatly increasing and they can help reduce the deficit and improve America.

I have heard the economists whom my good friend from Alabama was talking about, and I believe that if you talk to them, they will also tell you that you get far more bang for the buck in other types of policies to get the economy going than in giving an additional huge tax break to the millionaires and the billionaires.

We are not going to stop. The Republicans have hidden for 15 or 20 years behind the idea of ``don't increase taxes on anybody.'' Those are code words. It means, don't increase taxes on millionaires. That is what they care about. Because right now I have offered them a deal. Give everybody else the tax break except the millionaires. Are they going to take it? Of course not, because the millionaires come first in the economic books of my friends--most of my friends--on the other side of the aisle.

I remember when my Republican friends discovered the words ``death tax.'' It had its effect in a way I didn't like, but it had its effect. Well, now we have the millionaire tax break. Millionaire tax. You know what. It is going to have the same effect, and we are going to finally be able to show America what the other party has been all about: tax breaks for the wealthy, above all--above the deficit, above helping the middle class, above creating jobs. The days of hiding behind the screen are over because the tax debate we are having now pulls back that screen and shows exactly where my Republican friends are.

So again I repeat my offer. I see my good friend from Tennessee is on the floor. I would offer him, if he wants to improve this by Monday-- here are more colleagues--I will offer this deal. We will take the tax break for everyone below $1 million. Will you accept it--that is a great compromise--or are you going to say: Oh, no, we are holding out for the millionaires. Take it or leave it.

I can't speak for my whole party, but I can speak for myself and my colleague from Missouri and many others on our side. We can solve this problem tonight. Tax breaks for everybody else but not for the millionaires. Take it or leave it. You said you wanted to negotiate, here is an offer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, through the Chair, may I ask my good friend from Tennessee a question?

Mr. President, I understand we are not in the negotiating room right now, but he and I are both in the leadership of our respective parties. We are good friends. I have tremendous respect and admiration for my friend from Tennessee. I do. I think he is a fine man, and we have passed some good legislation together. So I understand the negotiators are doing their negotiating, but we might be able to help.

Again, I repeat my offer: Will my colleague--just he and I can agree. That might break the ice. We will give tax breaks to everyone--Bush tax cuts--below $1 million. We will continue their capital gains rates at the same rate, we will continue their dividend rates at the same rate but not the people above $1 million because, as I mentioned, their incomes are doing fine. Most economists will tell you it is a highly inefficient way to get jobs or money flowing into the economy. Unemployment insurance, which my colleagues insist be paid for, is much better.

Let just he and I agree that that is a good idea, a good starting point. Will he?

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in honor of our friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut. I have watched him from the day I came here. We knew each other a little bit when I was in the House. He left the House to go to the Senate, but we had many of the same friends when I came to the House. I always marveled at his abilities.

For those of us who have served here--I have only been here 12 years--we know the joys and difficulties of legislating in the Senate. We know it is not easy, and we know how satisfying it is. There are very few who reach the acme of how to do it and who devote their lives to it. I guess they are given a title--I don't know if it is official; it is probably not--they are the ``men and women of the Senate.'' We have had two leave us in the last year: Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Ted Kennedy. They were truly men of the Senate. It is not a title bestowed easily or lightly or frequently.

Chris Dodd is a man of the Senate. He is in the category of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd in terms of his ability to get things done, his ability as a legislative craftsman, as somebody who is able to combine idealism and practicality, as somebody who is able to sit down with someone, as has been mentioned before, with a totally different viewpoint and get them to compromise and be on his side and be part of the effort he is leading. He is a man of the Senate. He will always be a man of the Senate. I will miss him personally for his guidance and friendship, and I think every one of us will.

Chris, good luck and Godspeed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Webb, in discussing serious concerns with Chinese economic and foreign policies and their impact on the United States, U.S. companies, U.S. workers, and U.S. citizens.

Earlier, we were supposed to speak together, but the vicissitudes of the floor broke us up. Earlier today, my esteemed and erudite colleague, Senator Webb, gave an excellent address, which I hope my colleagues will read, about how China is simply taking advantage in the foreign policy area. They are pursuing policies that just move forward without any concern for the world community, for peace, for comity. It seems China is first, second, and third.

Unfortunately, they are doing the same thing in the economics sphere. I have been working with colleagues such as Senators Stabenow, Brown, and Graham to try and reverse this situation.

I rise to speak about what many of us consider the biggest sticking point in U.S.-Chinese relations: Chinese overt and continuous manipulation of its currency to gain a trade advantage over its trading partners.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 2.4 million American jobs were lost or displaced in manufacturing and other trade-related industries between 2001 and 2008 as a result of increased trade with China and the Chinese Government's manipulation of currency. New York has suffered some of the biggest losses with over 140,000 jobs lost or workers displaced over the past 10 years.

Accession to the WTO was supposed to bring China's policies in line with global trade rules meant to ensure free but fair trade. Instead, China has flouted those rules to spur its own economy and export- oriented growth at the expense of its trading partners, including the United States. Clearly, our relationship in the economics sphere, as well as the foreign policy sphere and diplomatic sphere, with China needs fundamental change.

I say that loudly and clearly to the Chinese because they seem to think we are patsies. Past policies might give some corroboration to that view. Let me explain.

Six years ago, Senator Graham and I came up with the idea of doing something about manipulation of currency. At first everyone said: Oh, no, this is not a problem. There were editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times that said it is OK for China to peg its currency. We were attacked from the far right and the far left and many others.

Now, at least we have made some progress. Everyone admits it is a problem. Now that we have consensus--quite broad consensus--that this is a problem, this is wrong, this is unfair, the fundamental question hangs out there: Who is going to fix this problem and how?

The administration continues--this administration, and I say that as someone who is a supporter, who continues to pin its hopes on yet more talking. This despite the fact that years of meetings and discussions with this administration and the previous administration have repeatedly failed to produce any lasting, meaningful results.

It has been 3 months since China announced it would allow its currency to appreciate for the first time since the middle of 2008. The RMB has risen less than 2 percent against the dollar, most of that appreciation taking place in the last 2 weeks.

President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen last week to urge quicker

evaluation of his country's currency. He got nothing, nothing--a big goose egg--for his efforts. It is not his fault; it is the fault of the Chinese. But when are we going to change things?

According to news reports, Premier Wen gave a standard response about gradual reform. The upcoming G20 summit in Seoul looks similarly devoid of possible progress on this issue. News reports suggest that none of the other countries are willing to push China on this issue.

Each time I have pushed the administration to take a tougher stance against China's manipulation of currency; each time they have vowed to do so. It is plain and simple: It is not working. China is merely pretending to take significant steps on its currency. This sucker's game is never going to stop unless we finally call their bluff.

China's mercantilist policies continue to undermine the health of many U.S. industries that inject billions of dollars into the U.S. economy and employ hundreds of thousands, millions of American workers. We have to do something about it--something real.

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee voted out a bill that clarifies countervailing duties can be imposed to offset the effect of undervalued currency. I applaud Chairman Levin for taking a concrete step toward addressing the persistent imbalance created by China's undervalued currency. Effective enforcement of our trade laws is one tool the administration can and should use to counter China's mercantilist currency policies.

But the administration could use more than one ace up its sleeve. And that is what my bill, introduced with Senators Stabenow, Graham, Brown, Brownback, Webb, Snowe, and others--bipartisan, across the political spectrum--would provide.

The bill gives the administration additional tools to use if countries fail to adopt appropriate policies to eliminate currency misalignment and includes tools, including the use of the countervailing duty law, to address the impact of currency misalignment on U.S. industries.

I call on the administration to support our legislation to address China's mercantilistic exchange rate policies. We must stand up for American manufacturers, American workers, and American jobs. We have to prevent the flow of billions of dollars out of our country--wealth we will never recover--every quarter as long as the Chinese continue this policy.

Critics of our bill say it would start a trade war with China, but that is not right because American companies are already fighting a war for survival in China--battling market access limitations, intellectual property theft, indigenous innovation policies, and unfair competition from heavily subsidized domestic State-owned enterprises. When are we going to learn?

Critics of our bill say it will not solve the trade deficit with China. We have never claimed it will totally solve the deficit, that is for sure. The bill is about fair trade. The bill is about a ceramics manufacturer in upstate New York that has developed a great new product that can clean the air as it goes through our new generator turbines. But China is stealing the product and is now going to sell it back to the United States at a 30-percent advantage. You can't even measure the loss we face because of China's unfair policies on currency.

Yes, critics of our bill have said it will not solve the trade deficit, but as I said, this has never been the claim. It will reduce the trade deficit, without doubt. It will keep wealth in the United States, it will keep American jobs, and it will restore some equilibrium to the American economy and the world economy.

Other critics have said China could retaliate by selling some of the trillions of dollars of Treasurys they currently hold, but we know this will not happen. China is not going to cut off its nose to spite its face. Its major wealth asset they are going to devalue? Hello, as my kids might have said when they were younger.

We must take a decisive step against China's currency manipulation and other economically injurious behavior. We have no choice but to defend and protect U.S. jobs and the U.S. economy unless and until China starts behaving like the international, law-abiding, global, emerging power it seems to be recognized as. Once and for all I say to those in the ivory towers who love to look down upon us but who don't look at the facts, the issue is not U.S. protectionism; the issue is China's flouting the rules of free trade in almost every sphere and never budging unless they are pushed to.

This is one reason why when the Senate reconvenes later this year, my colleagues and I intend to move forward with the legislation to provide specific consequences for countries that fail to adopt appropriate policies to eliminate currency misalignment and give the administration the additional tools it needs to address the impact of currency misalignment on U.S. industries.

I say to those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, as well as in Beijing, this issue cannot wait for another year. It cannot wait for another new Congress. I am confident this bill will pass the Senate with overwhelming support.

Let me conclude by noting that over the past 6 years, my colleagues and I have been sending a message to the Chinese Government about their exchange rate policies and other WTO-inconsistent behavior, but apparently they refuse to listen. Ultimately, if you refuse to play by the same rules as everyone else, we will hold you accountable. Chinese currency manipulation would be unacceptable even in good economic times, but at almost 10 percent unemployment, we can't stand for it. There is no bigger step we can take than to confront China's currency manipulation.

Praise God, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. We have broad bipartisan cosponsorship of our legislation. No one is seeking to gain political advantage. We are simply seeking to restore economic fairness. Every single one of us has manufacturers that are struggling to compete at home and abroad with Chinese exports with a built-in 20- to 40-percent price advantage. This is not about bashing China; it is about defending the United States before it is too late--before the loss of jobs and wealth that flows out of this country is almost irreparable. I call on my colleagues to join in the defense.

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

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague who has spoken before me. The reason we are here tonight is because Senators Brown and Sanders said: Why talk about outsourcing of jobs, let's do something about it. That is what we are trying to do tonight. We are trying to actually do something about it. This is not just verbiage.

We see before us the faces of the people who have lost their jobs. We see the families, we hear the children, and so there is an urgency to do something. Every place I go in New York--it can be in upstate, an old manufacturing place; it can be on Long Island, supposedly the new economy--I hear about jobs leaving New York and leaving America and going overseas.

Then, there is some talk as if this is inexorable. It is not inexorable. That is what we are here to say tonight. We can do something to stop this, and stop it we must. Manufacturing used to be the backbone of our economy. It supported millions of families, was the staple of middle-class communities. It is no secret what happened.

Company after company after company began sending jobs to China and Vietnam and Malaysia, to Mexico and Brazil and parts of South America. These countries have lax enforcement of work rules, environmental rules, and pay rules. So it is cheap to produce goods. We have heard the statistics, how the United States lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the last 10 years--in New York, 90,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 3 years alone. One-third of our manufacturing base has disappeared nationally. In fact, I recently read that the United States has lost 42,000 factories since 2001, and 75 percent of those factories employed more than 500 workers. The bigger factories leave. Forty-two thousand factories closed, most of them employing more than 500 people.

I think of the people I have met who have lost their jobs. I go around my State and sit down with people who cannot find work. They come from all walks of life. I wish to tell you about Clay, a high school graduate who rose to the top of his industry in tool and die. He had a great life, married, six children, so his wife did not work.

Clay lost his job a year and a half ago because his company downsized, because they were sending jobs overseas. Here is what Clay does every day, every week. He wakes up Sunday night in upstate New York, drives down to Virginia. He looks for work in his field--he is a highly skilled tool and die worker--in Virginia. Tuesday, he goes to Washington, Baltimore; Wednesday, to Philadelphia, Allentown and others; Thursday, in the New York City area; and then goes back home Friday to find a job.

When he comes in the door Friday night, there is his wife and the kids, aged 2 to 14. You can bet a majority of them look at him and say: Well? These are not just statistics. There is a Clay in every community, many Clays in every community. That is just manufacturing.

Service sector jobs are going. I think of Dorothy, whom I met. Dorothy lost her job in the service industry, also because the company was moving jobs overseas. Dorothy told me she lost her job in June of 2008. I talked to her in January of 2010. She is about 50, did not have a family. Her life was her work. She loved her job. Here is what Dorothy told me. When you sit down and talk to people who have lost their jobs, little things stick with you. Here is what Dorothy told me. She said: Christmas morning I usually wake--she is a religious person. She goes to church and then goes to open the gifts with her nieces and nephews who are in her community.

She said: Do you know what I did this Christmas morning? I got up at 6 a.m. and I went online because I had this brilliant idea the night before, that maybe there would be jobs posted Christmas morning and no one else, everyone else would be too busy to go online and I would find it and get the job.

These are the people we are talking about. Whether it is in manufacturing or service, one of the most cited studies--and it is cited among conservatives--predicted that by 2015, 3.3 million U.S. service jobs will have moved offshore. So if you think you are safe because you are in a manufacturing job, forget it. No one is safe. No one. Whatever your income level is, whatever part of the country you are in, whatever industry you are in, no one is safe. By one estimate, about one-fourth of all U.S. jobs possess characteristics that make them susceptible to outsourcing within the next 10 to 20 years.

Sherrod Brown, my colleague, talked about Ohio and New York. Fisher Price Toys, well known. Three locations in western New York--started there. In 1990, they stopped manufacturing in East Aurora and Holland. In 1997, they closed the plant in Medina. Two thousand jobs were lost when the three manufacturing plants closed. In 2001, they moved all their manufacturing to Mexico. Fisher Price still has a call center in East Aurora as well as its headquarters. Now they are considering moving the call center to India--both manufacturing and service.

Syracuse China. Famous. Founded in 1871. These are companies that go with the communities. They started and grew with them. It is in Geddes, a suburb of Syracuse. Onondaga Pottery Company is what the name was when it started.

If you went to a restaurant or a hotel, you were eating off Syracuse China, one of the region's oldest manufacturers. In 2008, after considerable downsizing, they closed their plant in Salina, 275 jobs. You can still get Syracuse China. It says ``Syracuse China'' on the plate or on the cup or on the saucer, but it is made in China, not in Syracuse.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, high-end company, Putnam County. Five hundred jobs, high-end jobs in Putnam County, a growing suburb, moved to India.

NXP Semiconductors. Again, you think: Oh, semiconductors, that is a

big, new growing industry. I am going to be safe--600 jobs. East Fishkill, Dutchess County. Europe and Singapore.

Pfizer, largest pharmaceutical company in the world, used to have significant manufacturing operations in Rockland County. But as part of their worldwide restructuring, after Pfizer purchased Wyeth, 1,500 jobs gone to Ireland, Belgium, Canada, Puerto Rico.

We could all tell a few stories in every one of our States. I guess some of us, I hope everyone on both sides of the aisle knows the Dorothys and the Clays and the others who give this reality.

But there is another element to this debate. When companies move production overseas, it takes a human toll. Here is the most telling statistic of the last 10 years. From 2001 to 2007, a period of prosperity, median income went down. Even though we were prosperous, even though average income went up, wealth went up, GDP went up, but for the average middle-class person, income buying power went down. There are no statistics, but it would be hard not to assume that a good amount of it was because of outsourcing.

Last week, there were headlines quoting economists saying that, technically speaking, the recession was over. Let me tell my colleagues, to the average middle-class person whose paycheck is lower because they have less income, the recession ain't over. To most Americans, it sure doesn't feel like a recovery yet. The bottom line is that there won't be a true recovery until we create jobs in America, in the U.S.A. If we want to get our economic prosperity back, we need to bring the jobs back. We need to have ``make it in America'' become a reality on the floor of this Senate legislatively.

With this bill, we make our boldest attempt to reverse the trend of outsourcing. We do it in three ways.

First, the legislation eliminates tax breaks for firms that move facilities offshore.

Amazingly, right now if a company were to shut down a factory in Syracuse and move those jobs overseas, the company could deduct from their taxes the expense of closing that factory and the expense of shipping the materials. This legislation would end that.

Second, the legislation ends the Federal tax subsidy that rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas. Under current law, U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned overseas until that income is brought back to the United States. This provides an incentive to keep that income overseas and employ people there.

Our bill says that if you close down your operations here in the United States and reopen overseas, you no longer get to defer paying your taxes.

This should be a no-brainer.

It is perverse that American taxpayers provide benefits to firms that offshore jobs. By rewarding the companies that bring jobs back to America, this legislation puts the incentive back where it should be.

Some say that this provision puts U.S. companies who open foreign subsidiaries at a competitive disadvantage to U.S. companies that don't. But I say that is just plain false. Under current law, if you have two companies in Oswego that are both going to expand capacity and create 100 jobs, our Tax Code puts the company that chooses to keep the plant in Oswego at a competitive disadvantage over the company that chooses to move jobs to China. Our bill would level the playing field, so that companies that keep jobs here aren't penalized.

These two measures will go a long way towards fixing the problem of outsourcing. But our bill doesn't just rely on sticks, it also contains a big carrot.

That carrot comes in the form of a major tax cut. We propose giving companies a tax cut--an actual cut, not a credit--for every position they bring back to America from overseas.

As long as the company can prove the employee is doing work that was once done overseas instead, the company won't have to pay the 6.2 percent social security payroll tax for that employee over a two year period.

For a $60,000 factory worker, that is a $7,440 tax cut. For a $100,000 manager, it is a $12,400 tax cut. That is real money. And it is not a tax credit that a business has to wait a year to receive. It is tax revenue that isn't collected in the first place, much like the HIRE Act that we passed back in March. So it is a tax cut that puts cash right in the pocket of a business, small or large, with no strings attached.

For once, rather than reward outsourcing, let's give employers an incentive to bring jobs home. I don't think that anyone who supports the motion to proceed on this bill believes that this modest piece of legislation is a silver bullet that will end offshoring. We need to do much more. We need to enforce our trade laws; we need to push China on its currency practices; we need to reform our tax code to make it simpler and more streamlined and representative of the modern economy; we need to get our fiscal house in order; we need to invest in science and education and infrastructure. We still have a lot to do to put America firmly on the road to prosperity.

But every step counts.

Earlier this year, as I just mentioned, this chamber passed the HIRE Act, a measure I worked on with Senator Hatch. It provided a payroll tax break for companies that hired an unemployed American. Already, through September, 5.6 million eligible employees have been hired under the act.

Just today, President Obama signed the small business bill that Republicans repeatedly tried to block in this Chamber. As a result, 1,400 small businesses signed the dotted line today on a loan that no bank would provide. That is $730 million worth of credit that flowed just today.

Under that same bill, eight new tax cuts for small businesses became effective today.

These are real results. So we should not stop trying things.

Right now, no issue bothers Americans more than the nonstop flow of jobs overseas. With this bill, we have a chance to do something about it. We can help the American dream launch a comeback.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. Every single one of us has factories that have closed. Families don't have it easy anywhere in the country.

Politics is supposed to stop at the water's edge. The flow of jobs should, too.

So before we leave for the year, let's come together to take up and pass this measure to reverse this trend.

I yield the floor.