Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I rise to thank a longtime member of my staff who is retiring from the Senate. Mary Day began working in my Cedar Rapids office in 1987 as a constituent services specialist, and in 1996 rose to become the regional director based in the same office.

You would be hard pressed to find somebody in the region who doesn't know Mary. It is no wonder. She is a tireless worker for the 14-county area in eastern Iowa, and her infectious sense of humor, genuine demeanor, and kindness was sought by those she came across in her daily travels around the region.

There isn't anybody who knows the pulse of the community like Mary. She has been through the good, the bad, and the ugly. She has seen historic floods and business downturns. Through it all, Mary has remained a good-hearted, conscientious and effective staff member.

We spent many hours over the years traveling from county to county in her region. Mary wasn't always the most spirited or active person in the early hours of the day, but she was forever reliable and dependable no matter what hour of the day.

Not only has Mary been dedicated to the people of Iowa, but she also served as a mentor, confidant, and friend to others on my staff. Her colleagues say that Mary was their ``go-to'' person. She knew the bureaucracy inside and out and had sound advice on how to handle just about any situation.

The people of Iowa have been fortunate to have somebody like Mary Day working on their behalf for the last 23 years. I have been privileged to have her represent me in such a well-respected and honest manner.

Thank you, Mary, for everything you have done for me and the people of Iowa.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and a trusted adviser, Wythe Willey, who lost a 2-year battle with cancer on Saturday. Wythe Willey was a person who left a mark. If you ever met him, you would be hard pressed to forget him. He was an Iowa farm boy through and through. Whether he was living in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids, he valued his friendships and he valued everybody he met along his life's journey.

Wythe had a passion for agriculture, and particularly for the cattle business, but also for politics. He had one of the most astute political minds I have ever come across. To sit and talk politics with Wythe was an invigorating endeavor. His political sense and understanding of the issues at the State and Federal level never failed to bring additional insight to anybody who would listen.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss my vote today against ending debate on the Dream Act, a bill that would provide legal status to millions of people in this country who are illegally present. Before I discuss the substance of the bill, I want to express my frustration on the process of how this bill was brought to the floor for a vote. This bill has been around for nearly 10 years. In 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and debated the bill, and voted to send it to the full Senate for consideration. It didn't pass at that time, and since then, not one hearing has taken place on the legislation.

The bill we considered today was the sixth version of the Dream Act that we have seen in the last 2 months. Five of the six versions were introduced and immediately put on the calendar, bypassing the committee process. The Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, didn't have the opportunity to debate it or make it better. Instead, the full Senate was asked to consider the bill as written, without the ability to amend it. You see, the majority leader used his ability to block all amendments through a process known as ``filling the tree.'' This procedure means that no amendments could be in order. No improvements could have been made. The democratic process was effectively blocked.

Now, allow me to express some concerns that I have had about this version of the bill. The Dream Act would legalize an unlimited number of people who are here illegally, including the relatives of the alien that applies. It would put millions of individuals not just young people on a path to citizenship. The bill also leaves the door open to more fraud and abuse of our immigration system. It leaves a lot of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, including authority to waive bars of inadmissibility. This latest version of this legislation provides very few assurances that criminal aliens would be barred from applying. The Dream Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office has a $5 billion price tag, and could require hard- working Americans to foot the bill for this amnesty program. The bill fails to require individuals to graduate from college or to complete their military service, even though proponents claim that this is the sole mission of the bill. Finally, one of the most alarming provisions of the bill allows aliens who apply, no matter how frivolous their claim, to be granted safe harbor from enforcement officials by prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing an alien who has a pending application.

I agree that we should take a hard look at protecting the youth who are forced to come here illegally, unaware of the consequences. However, we also need to be conscious of those people standing in line, all around the world, who follow the law and wait their turn to come here legally. This bill just wouldn't be fair to those people.

Congress and this administration must come to terms with the immigration problems we have. We need true reform of our immigration laws, starting with border security and enforcement of the laws already on the books. We need to consider changes to our legal immigration system, including expanding or improving visa programs, to make sure people are incentivized to come in legally rather than illegally. These reforms will make the system better for future generations because a short term amnesty program as proposed by the Dream Act--doesn't solve the underlying problem.

I voted against ending debate today because I believe this bill required serious deliberation. I thought we deserved to have amendments considered. It is unfortunate that the majority attempted to push this bill through at the final hour, circumventing the democratic process that allows for amendments and serious debate on an issue that would dramatically undermine our rule of law.

Mr. President, on November 3, 1918, an American hero-- Robert William Andrew Feller--was born in Dallas County, IA, near the town of Van Meter. Sadly, this same hero died on December 15, 2010.

Van Meter is nestled between the steady and rolling Raccoon River on the north side of town, and the lush and sweeping prairie hills on the south side of town.

In most ways, it is your typical rural Iowa town. There is a post office, a few churches, a bank, a car wash and gas station, and a bar and grill.

There are just under a thousand residents living in Van Meter. And so the Van Meter Bulldogs--from kindergarten through the twelfth grade-- still all go to school together in the same building.

But unlike every other small town in Iowa, or America for that matter, there rests in Van Meter on Mill Street a museum paying tribute to the town's hero and favorite son--Bob Feller.

Bob Feller was born and grew up on a farm just outside of Van Meter. Early on his father, who was a farmer, and his mother, who was a nurse and teacher, realized that their young Robert had a talent.

That talent was playing baseball. Specifically, hurling curve balls and sliders and fastballs at whoever dared to step up to the plate against young Bob Feller.

Bob Feller was so focused on baseball and so in love with the sport that his father built a regulation baseball diamond on their Dallas County farm naming it ``Oak View Park.'' Bob and his family recruited other players and formed a team appropriately called ``The Oakviews.''

Bob Feller said his farm work and chores were what helped to develop his throwing speed and arm strength. His throwing speed and arm strength are what earned him the nicknames of ``Rapid Robert'' and ``Bullet Bob'' and ``The Heater from Van Meter.''

Leveraged with a high left-leg kick and whip-like arm, Bob Feller delivered some of the fastest stuff ever to come down from a pitcher's mound. Batters trembled facing him at home plate. Umpires needed to pay close attention. The crowds were always in awe. And Feller's pitches were blurs.

It wasn't too long before word spread about this baseball wonder. Soon--and

still in his teens and not even having graduated high school yet-- Feller was pitching to some of his boyhood heroes in front of crowds of tens of thousands of people all across America. He dazzled all who saw him play.

Barely old enough to shave, he found himself playing Major League Baseball for the Cleveland Indians in 1936. He faced the greatest baseball stars of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Mickey Mantle, Nellie Fox.

Frequent opponent and purist hitter Joe DiMaggio said in 1941 about Feller, ``I don't think anyone is ever going to throw a ball faster than he does.''

A sports reporter said of Feller's pitching, ``And his curveball isn't human.''

We have all read about Bob Feller's amazing baseball career spent entirely with the Cleveland Indians where he was the winningest pitcher in club history with 266 wins.

He was an eight-time All Star. He captured a World Series ring in 1948. He pitched three no-hitters, including the only Opening Day no- hitter. He retired with 2,581 career strikeouts. He is enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.

These are impressive statistics from arguably the best pitcher to ever take the mound. But these stats and this ``farm to fame'' story is not what made Bob Feller a patriot or hero.

On December 7, 1941, the United States suffered a horrific attack by the Japanese when they bombed us at Pearl Harbor, HI. Just 2 days later after that horrific attack, Bob Feller did something selfless--he signed up to serve in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II. This caused him to miss playing in the Major Leagues for a solid chunk of his career. He walked away from further baseball glory and records and achievements. Pure selflessness. He served voluntarily as a chief petty officer on the USS Alabama between 1941 and 1945.

Although most will remember him for his curveball, Bob Feller most wanted to be recognized for his service in World War II defending the United States from totalitarian powers and promoting liberty and freedom around the world.

Bob Feller's military service and love of country is what he ultimately wanted people to remember.

Across the plains there are everyday heroes serving us now, promoting security for Americans and freedom and liberty abroad. While they may not have sacrificed a professional sports career, they are still heroes and patriots nonetheless. Bob Feller would certainly agree with that assessment.

In Iowa, we grow more than just crops on the farm. We grow heroes, too--heroes like Bob Feller, everyday heroes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time is on our side?

Mr. President, this bill is about stopping the biggest tax increase in the history of the country that will happen if we do not pass something between now and the end of the year. That happens because the 2001 tax law, the present tax policy, was only good for 10 years, and it sunsets. So you go back to the big tax policy we had, the high tax policy we had in the year 2000.

We are passing this now because of a simple rule of economics: you should not increase taxes during an economic recession. With nearly 10 percent unemployment, we are still, obviously, in a recession.

Some on the other side supported the President's earlier proposal when he wanted to maintain the existing tax policy just for those below a $200,000-a-year income. The Senate did not support that proposal, and it is clear that proposal could not pass. I know that can be a difficult thing. Over the years I have seen proposals I thought were good and just and that I cared passionately about defeated in the Senate. But you just move on, so that is what our President has done. He has moved on in a pragmatic spirit. He has put forward another proposal to prevent the biggest tax increase in the history of the country from happening. He doesn't view it as ideal, and few on my side of the aisle do as well.

For all of us, it is a balancing act. We want to stay true to our ideals. We also want to deliver practical results to our constituents.

I submit this bill does not increase taxes, it does not cut anybody's taxes, and that happens to be the right balance for the vast majority of us. But it also happens to be what is right for the economy now that we are in a recession.

Just 10 days ago, the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8 percent. In July it was at 9.5 percent. The trend is in the wrong direction. We are in a fragile situation. The economy is clearly telling Congress: handle with extreme care. The majority of the economists surveyed by CNN Money says preventing the 2011 tax hikes is the No. 1 thing that Congress can do right now to help the economy. The survey results are on a chart, showing that 60 percent of the economists said preventing tax hikes on every American was the best course of action to take at this particular time; that the economy is in a fragile situation.

We have the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying GDP growth will be far less if we let the biggest tax increase in the history of the country happen without Congress intervening. If the tax relief doesn't maintain at the present level, the economy would grow .3 percent less than if we do it the way the President originally wanted to do it, just for those people under $200,000 a year income.

In other words, the economy will grow at 1.4 percent if we leave the tax policy of the last 10 years in place as opposed to taxing people who make over $200,000 a year at a higher level. Then the economy would only grow at 1.1 percent.

Given the recession, given the high unemployment rate, given business's reluctance to invest and grow, we need to be especially sensitive to GDP growth. If it were just a matter of either the government got the money or the private sector, that would be one thing, as the government does have a deficit problem. But in this case it is a matter of money simply not being there because of the hit to the gross domestic product. We are talking about dead-weight loss.

For those who think taxing people more will bring in more revenue, I would put up a chart that expresses tax policy and the result of it over the last 50 years. We can see the red line that says there is an average of about 18.2 percent of all the wealth. We can see the red line shows for a 50-year average, about 18.2 percent of the gross national product has come to the Congress to spend, regardless of what the high marginal tax rates were--going back to 1993 and the Eisenhower administration, going down to 70 in the Kennedy administration, going down to 50 in the Reagan administration, going down to 26 in the Reagan administration, back up 40--almost 40 percent in H.W. Bush's administration, and then down to 35 percent where they are now. They could go back up to 40 percent if we do not intervene right now.

What this ought to tell everybody is, marginal tax rates do not make a difference, a big difference, in how much money comes into the Federal Treasury. The people of this country decided about how much they are going to give to us in Congress to spend out of the entire national income. It is about 18.2 percent regardless of where the marginal tax rates are.

It tells me that people, if they do not want to work, if they do not want to

earn or if they want to hire people to legally avoid taxes, are going to do it, and we are only going to get so much.

Here is what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says about this:

We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased

marginal rate by utilizing tax-planning and tax-avoidance

strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to

taxation.

That chart proves exactly what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxes has said.

We have known about these looming tax hikes for a decade now. We should have acted many years ago. Now we have only 19 days to go before the tax hikes take effect. We are down to the wire, and we need to act. We need to act because it is what it takes to turn this economy around. The time to dither is over. The National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business, had this to say recently. Because of no action on expiring tax rates there is a ``cloud of uncertainty, larger and darker. In response, consumer sentiment fell and owner optimism remained anchored solidly in recession territory. Thus, spending stayed in `maintenance mode,' deterioration of jobs continues, and capital spending remains at historically low rates. Owners won't make spending commitments when sales prospects remain weak and important decisions such as tax rates and labor costs remain so uncertain.''

That is the end of the quote from small business.

Uncertainty is the issue we have to deal with here. Passing this bill so the biggest tax hike in the history of the country will not happen is one thing that will bring some certainty, and maybe more certainty than anything else, to our economy.

The bottom line, as evidenced by this chart, is stop the tax hikes. It is time to leave the tax policy of the last 10 years in place so at least for the next 2 years people know they can hire and expand this economy and expand theirs.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How many minutes do I have?

I think, Mr. President, I am going to take 2\1/2\ minutes to address what the Senator from Arizona said about some of the provisions in this bill. We keep having ethanol referred to as a subsidy.

Let me tell you about some of the subsidies that are in this bill because you might think that ethanol is the only one. Think in terms of the research and development tax credit. That is subsidy for big business that has been around for 30 years. Think about the Indian employment tax credit, the subsidy for new market tax credits, the subsidy for railroad track maintenance credit, mine rescue team training credit, the subsidy for employer wage credit for employees who are on Active Duty in the uniformed services, the subsidy for 15-year straight line cost recovery for qualified leaseholder improvements, the subsidy for the 7-year recovery period for motor sports entertainment complexes.

I don't quite understand, when there are 72 provisions in this bill that expired on December 31, 2009, and they are just being continued as some of them have been for 30 years, how somebody today is going to say that is bad tax policy and they did not say it over the last 30 years, particularly when it comes to a time when we know we need a balanced alternative energy program--balanced for whatever can be alternative energy because God only made so much fossil fuel. Obviously, we ought to be using petroleum. But should we import more petroleum from the 10 percent of the fuel used in motor vehicles coming from ethanol? Do you believe we ought to have a good national security program that is less based upon the requirements of imported oil?

I think we ought to look at this balanced program as being one of fossil fuel, one of alternative energy, and one of conservation and ethanol and biodiesel and wind and solar and all that is part of a balanced program, and they all have tax incentives.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I would like to congratulate the students from Iowa City West High School who will participate in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, DC. More than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People program run by the Center for Civic Education, with the help of Federal funding, provides an outstanding curriculum that promotes civic competence and responsibility among elementary and secondary students.

I am proud to announce that the students from Iowa City West High School, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won the State competition and thus were given the distinction of representing Iowa in the national finals.

While in Washington, the students will participate in a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. In the end, students take away a solid understanding of the origin of American constitutional democracy as well as the contemporary relevance of our founding documents and ideals. In short, it produces better citizens.

I would like to personally recognize the Iowa City West students who are on the team that will represent Iowa in the national finals, Guo Chen, Jinny Guo, Yelena Shabelnik, John Alatalo, Cole Anderson, Bennett Mueller, Rebecca Wen, Elizabeth Wang, Evan Davis, Eleanor Marshall, Margaret Shultz, Katherine Yang, Trevor Clinkenbeard, Mark Mellecker, Brad Ockenfels, Ray Ockenfels, Nik Hlebotwitsh, Sara McAndrew, Jessica Sheldon, Asya Bergal, Joe Henderson, Hilah Kohen, Jacob Larson, Elizabeth Vandenberg, and teacher Gary Neuzil.

I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, S. 372, will strengthen and modernize protections for Federal whistleblowers. May I ask the Senator from Hawaii to clarify the intent of the provision providing relief for the consequences of retaliatory investigations? Am I correct that this provision does not in any way reduce or eliminate current protections against retaliatory investigations?

Mr. President, I yield my time to myself, 15 minutes out of what we control.

First of all, I remember before the President was sworn in he announced that--even though he ran on a platform of increasing taxes on higher income people--you do not raise taxes during a recession. So during the year 2009, there were no proposals to increase taxes from the administration, and, obviously, the Congress went along with that.

Then, in August 2009, the President was in Elkhart, IN, and there was an exchange there along the same line, and the President said this:

You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised

taxes in a recession.

Well, with 9.8 percent unemployment yesterday, it is quite obvious we are still in a recession. This debate is not about cutting taxes. This debate is whether we ought to increase taxes on anybody during a recession. We believe we should not raise taxes on anybody during a recession.

Also, I heard the other side in their early speeches talk about efforts on this side to prevent unemployment insurance from being extended. Well, that is the same song we heard from the majority party during June and July. I would remind people on the other side of the aisle, the results of the election were that the people of this country said they were concerned about jobs, about the economy, and about the legacy of debt.

During that period of time last summer when we were being accused, as we were just accused this time, of not wanting to do anything about unemployment compensation, on June 14, June 17, June 24, and June 30, we tried to not only extend unemployment compensation but we tried to do it in a way that was paid for so we did not increase the deficit. But we were denied that opportunity.

Finally, soon after the July Fourth break, we were given an opportunity to at least vote on an opportunity to extend unemployment compensation and pay for it. But we did not get the votes because for the other side, a deficit does not bother them except when it comes to increasing taxes on somebody else. Then they say the deficit is of concern to them.

But the fact is, as I said yesterday right here as I spoke to my colleagues, if we look at the history of tax increases in this Congress--in Congress generally--over a long period of time, it is one thing to raise taxes if it will go to the bottom line, but we have seen time after time raise a dollar's worth of taxes and it is a license to spend about $1.15, $1.17. So raising taxes does not reduce deficits. The reason is, it is not because people in this country are undertaxed, it is because Congress overspends. For the tax increases of the past and the expenditures that followed, $1 of taxes gives a license to spend $1.15. It is just like the dog chasing its tail; he never catches it.

So here we are, just 1 month after the people of this country very definitely spoke about their concern about jobs, the deficit, and the economy, and we are right back where the President said we should not be both before he was sworn in and then in August of 2009; that we should not increase taxes during a recession.

So I would like to quickly discuss the proposal to increase taxes on some Americans starting in less than a month from now.

The first one would be unemployment. Just yesterday--as I just stated but to be more specific--the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the unemployment rate ticked back up to 9.8 percent

from 9.6 percent. In July, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. For the 3 months of August, September, and October, it was pretty steady, 9.6 percent; now for November, 9.8 percent. The unemployment rates for minorities are significantly worse than what it is for the average. The trend is in the wrong direction. In other words, the economy is in a very fragile situation. The economy is clearly telling Congress: Handle with extreme care.

The second point is what the economists say. I have a chart that says what various economists say we ought to do. This was a survey by CNN Money. A majority of the economists say preventing the 2011 tax hikes is the No. 1 thing Congress can do right now to help the economy. That would be the 60 percent of the economists who say don't raise taxes for any taxpayers; the 60 percent of the economists who say preventing tax hikes on all Americans is the best course of action.

But only 10 percent of the economists say preventing tax hikes on only the middle class is the best way to help the economy. Sixty percent say don't increase taxes on anybody versus 10 percent who say it is OK to increase them on some. Of course, the survey is by CNN, hardly known as being a Republican network.

Four, some on the other side may say that preventing tax hikes on higher income folks is not important. The theory goes that high-income people would just save the money. There are a couple problems with that point. The first is, we all know the lack of savings and investment is harmful to the economy. But the other more direct response is, they probably would increase their spending on consumption.

Mark Zandi, a respected economist with Moody's, had this to say: Normally, I would firmly agree that raising taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year would not make a meaningful difference in the way they spend money. But I worry that these aren't normal times and that even this income group may be sensitive.

Now, obviously, these are not normal times when we still have almost 10 percent of the people unemployed and a fragile economy. What this Congress does has consequences, and we ought to be very cautious how we approach it.

Fifth, we have CBO saying the gross domestic product would be as much as 1.4 percent higher in 2011 if all the tax relief of 2001 and 2003 is made permanent. If the tax relief is only for lower income Americans-- as is proposed by the amendment before this body and by people on the other side of the aisle--then, according to CBO, the GDP would only be 1.1 percent higher in 2011.

Now maybe some people think the difference between 1.4 percent an 1.1 percent of more growth is insignificant. But let me tell you, when it comes to 10 percent unemployment that sort of economic growth is going to put a significant number of people back to work if we allow the higher 1.4 percent to happen.

In other words, the difference between preventing tax increases on all Americans and on only preventing the tax increases on some Americans--that three-tenths of 1 percent in 2011 is a very significant difference of economic growth.

I would like to go to a sixth point. Given the recession, given the unemployment rate, given business reluctance to invest and grow, is this the time to reduce the gross domestic product at all? If it were just a matter of either the government got the money or the private sector, that would be one thing, as the government does have a deficit problem. But in this case, it is a matter of money simply not being there because of the hit to the gross domestic product. So we are talking about dead-weight loss.

Then, seventh, fiscal history proves higher rates do not yield higher revenue. As shown on this chart, this is a 50-year history of revenue coming into the Federal Government as a percentage of gross national product. The red line is pretty steady. It does not matter whether we have 93 percent rates back in the Eisenhower and early Kennedy years, and then they were reduced down and down and down and down and down, to eventually, in 1987, when they got down to 26 percent, and, in 1990, they went back up to 39.6 percent. Now they are down to 35 percent. Are they going to go back up to 39 percent, 40 percent? This chart proves the taxpayers of this country are smarter than we are in Congress because we think we can raise high marginal tax rates and bring in more revenue, and it doesn't have anything to do with what the American people are willing to send to Washington.

I wish to quote not this Senator but the Joint Committee on Taxation in regard to high marginal tax rates not making much difference to what money comes into the Federal Government because the taxpayers are smarter than we are. They are smart enough to know that if you have 93 percent marginal tax rates, why work? So you didn't get any more revenue. There is still about 18.2 percent of the gross national product coming in for us to spend. But we don't give the taxpayers of this country any credit for having any smarts because we think we are smarter than they are, and this chart proves the taxpayers are smarter than we are because we have high marginal tax rates, and it doesn't bring in any more revenue. When are we going to learn?

So the Joint Committee on Taxation says about this:

We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased

marginal rates by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance

strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to

taxation.

The ninth point out of 11--and I am about done--I often quote the National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business here. Because the President says 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small business so we ought to listen to what their voice in Washington has to say for small business and what we do and the effect, good or bad, on the economy.

Members of Congress fled with no action on important issues

like expiring tax rates, leaving the cloud of uncertainty

larger and darker. In response, consumer sentiment fell and

owner optimism remained anchored solidly in recession

territory. Thus, spending stayed in ``maintenance mode'',

deterioration of jobs continued, and capital spending remains

at historically low rates. Owners won't make spending

commitments when sales prospects remain weak, and important

decisions--

I wish to highlight this--

such as tax rates and labor costs remain so uncertain.

This debate adds to that uncertainty, if you are going to have tax increases.

So here we are on a Saturday. I have a chart up that I think says what today's debate is all about. We don't need a dog and pony show going on, on a Saturday, when we ought to be giving certainty to the economy, because the word ``uncertainty'' is exactly what CEOs of major corporations told the President back in June, when he called them in and said: You have $2 trillion in cash sitting in corporate treasury. Why aren't you spending it and creating jobs?

They said: Because of so much uncertainty.

So the bottom line is this. Stop the tax hikes.

Mr. President, may I make a unanimous consent request, please, that Senator Hatch have 15 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Kyl, 10 minutes; and Senator Graham, 10 minutes.

Yes, because you New Yorkers think you can make us Midwesterners look bad, but I am glad to yield.

Yes; I thought I made that point very clear. Because the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know if they give another $1 to us to spend, it is a license to spend $1.15. So it just increases the national debt. When it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it is not being spent. If you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you

don't increase the deficit, and you also have the money spent right away.

I don't think they are here.

Are you saying you don't want to use any time on your side to speak?

I don't want to eat into my colleagues' time.

Madam President, I would like to know how much time I have.

Madam President, there are a lot of issues that have been brought up in the last hour that need to be responded to. I probably will not get to all of them, but I would like to start with a recent one that was just stated.

It is not a case that tax cuts are more important than any other issue for those of us on this side of the aisle, not at all; growth of the economy, because growing this economy is the only way we are going to get people employed, bringing in more revenue, and getting the deficit down.

We are not going to get the deficit down by increasing taxes, and I will explain that in just a minute. It is going to take economic growth. You have to get the economic engine started again. We have to get the unemployment down. It is the economy we are talking about.

I heard several of my colleagues this morning say if we do not go along with big tax increases, we are giving a bonus to a lot of people in this country who maybe do not need any more money. Well, if you accept the idea that if Congress acts or does not act, we are giving people a bonus, you are starting with a proposition that for all the income people make in this country, Congress is going to decide where that income ought to go and that somehow we are going to give people a bonus if we do not take some sort of action in the Congress. Well, that is ludicrous. That is the ultimate of the lack of economic freedom in this country. Because every penny anybody makes, whether it is through the work of their hands or their brain, is money that belongs to the people of this country; otherwise, they have no economic freedom.

The Constitution gives the power to tax for the legitimate purposes of government. But it does not give us the opportunity to tax to give bonuses to people because the money is theirs in the first place. It is only a question of how much we are going to take away from people for the legitimate constitutional purposes of government.

Then, where do you get the idea that we are going to give a tax break if we do not do something in Congress? The issue is not tax breaks to anybody. The issue is the tax policy of the last 10 years passed in 2001 that will sunset December 31 of this year. Should we continue that tax policy or should we increase taxes on some or all people? That is the issue. We are not talking about a tax break for anybody. In other words, there is not going to be any tax policy different than what we have right now. That is what we feel is the best for the economy. We should not increase taxes on anybody.

You get the impression from the other side that if we start taxing certain people in this country more that somehow the deficit is going to go down. Well, I heard the President recently on some news program discussing this issue, and I do not have an exact quote, but, in effect, he said that as for as he is concerned, rather than not raising taxes on people and bringing that money in to reduce the deficit, he said: I have better ways to spend the money.

I spoke earlier this morning about the fact that people do have a better way of spending the money, not only the increase in taxes that might come in but even beyond that.

I have quoted some individuals so many times, but I brought the exact quotes with me now because I was paraphrasing them before. But Peter Ferrara wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: ``Beware the Balanced Budget Deal.'' He said:

Washington's traditional approach to balancing the budget

is to negotiate an agreement on a package of benefit cuts and

tax increases.

Then he went on to say:

What happens [if you do this] is the tax increases get

permanently adopted into law. But the spending cuts are

almost never fully adopted and, even if they are, they are

soon swept away in the next spendthrift budget. Then--because

taxes weaken incentives to produce--the tax increases don't

raise the revenue that Congress initially projected and

budgeted to spend. So the deficit reappears.

Then he talked about Reagan making such a deal with Democrats in the Congress to have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Then he has this sentence:

Reagan went to his grave waiting for those spending cuts.

Then, recently, there was an article by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder that talks about raising taxes to reduce the deficit. There are a few sentences I am going to read:

Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.

He uses the figures they have studied:

. . . we found that over the entire post World War II era

through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated

with $1.17 of new spending.

They refer to some other studies; that it is somewhere between $1.05 and $1.81.

But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what

variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted

in less spending.

Madam President, do I have time left?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it seems as though every few weeks or so there are a lot of misleading and misinformed accusations launched at our Nation's renewable fuel producers. It is impossible to come to the Senate floor to respond to all of them. But sometimes the claims are so outrageous that they require an informed response. So I am here to give that response with emphasis on the word ``informed.''

Earlier this week, a number of my colleagues in the Senate, including a few of my fellow Republicans, sent a letter to the majority and minority leaders expressing their opposition to extending the tax incentives for homegrown ethanol. Homegrown means we are less dependent upon people such as Dictator Chavez and our oil sheiks.

My colleagues argued that the tax incentive for the production of clean, homegrown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. They expressed their support for allowing the 45-cent-per-gallon credit for ethanol use to expire. It is important to remember that the incentive exists to help the producers of ethanol compete with the big oil industry. Remember, the big oil industry has been well supported by the Federal Treasury for more than a whole century.

Many of the Republican Senators who signed onto that letter have also been leading the effort to ensure that no American sees their taxes go up on January 1, 2011, which will happen automatically if we do not do something this very month.

The largest tax increase in the history of the country can happen without even a vote of Congress because of the sunsetting law. Of course, in that regard, I support the position of my Republican colleagues. But a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase that will surely be passed on to the American consumer.

I would like to remind my colleagues of a debate that we had earlier this year on an amendment offered by Senator Sanders. The amendment he offered would have, among other things, repealed the $35 billion in tax subsidies enjoyed by oil and gas. Opponents of the Sanders amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependance on foreign oil.

Opponents of the Sanders amendment argued that it would cost U.S. jobs and increase prices at the pump for consumers. I agreed with the arguments of the opponents. All of my Republican colleagues and more than one-third of the Democrats did as well. Thus, the Sanders amendment was defeated. That majority against the Sanders amendment knew that if we tax something we get less of it. Repealing incentives on ethanol would have the very same result.

Well, guess what. I know removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing incentives for ethanol. We will get less domestically produced ethanol and be more dependent upon those oil sheiks. But it will also cost U.S. jobs. It will increase our dependence on foreign oil. It will increase prices at the pump for American consumers. So whether it is jobs or increased dependence or increasing the price of gas, no American would like that to be the result. We are already dependent on foreign sources for more than 60 percent of our oil needs. We spend $730 million a day on imported oil.

That money is leaving America to the Middle East or nutty dictators like Chavez. Why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce that energy right here at home?

So I would like to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing the oil and gas subsidies but are supporting repealing incentives for renewable fuels, how do you reconcile such inconsistencies? The fact is, it is intellectually inconsistent to say increasing taxes on ethanol is justified, but it is irresponsible to do so on oil and gas production.

If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and result in good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas important but not for domestically produced renewable fuels? It is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature and thus no longer needs the support they get, while the century-old big oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayer support.

Regardless, I do not believe we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly during a recession. Allowing the ethanol tax incentive to expire will raise taxes on producers, blenders, and ultimately consumers of renewable fuel. A lapse in the ethanol tax incentive is a gas tax increase of over 5 cents a gallon at the pump. I do not see the logic in arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many Americans unemployed or underemployed and struggling just to get by.

On Tuesday of this week all of my Republican colleagues and I signed a letter to Majority Leader Reid stating that preventing a tax increase, meaning mostly income-tax increases, and providing economic certainty should be our top priority in the remaining days of this Congress. I know we all agree we cannot and should not allow job- killing tax hikes during a recession.

Unfortunately, those Members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge because a lapse in the credit will raise taxes costing over 100,000 U.S. jobs at a time of near 10 percent unemployment. The taxpayer watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform, considers the lapse of an existing tax credit for ethanol to be a tax hike.

Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people. Now is not the time to send pink slips to more than 100,000 ethanol- related jobs. A year ago at this time I came to the Senate floor to implore the Democratic leadership to take action on extending expiring tax incentives for the biodiesel industry. They failed in their responsibility to extend that incentive and provide support for an important renewable industry.

So while 23,000 American jobs were supported on December 31 last year, nearly all of those jobs have disappeared. An industry with a capacity to produce more than 2 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year is on track to produce less than 20 percent of that capacity this year.

Ethanol currently accounts for 10 percent of our transportation fuel.

Madam President, since yesterday, we have witnessed in this Chamber the resumption of a set of tired and worn out taking points that the Democratic side drags out whenever they are forced to finally get around to discussing tax policy.

Well, once again beating the same dead horse, the other side has attempted to go back in time again and talk about fiscal history. Earlier this week, there has been a lot of revision or perhaps editing of recent budget history. I expect more of it in the future days.

The revisionist history basically boils down to two conclusions. First, that all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived from a partisan tax increase bill in 1993, and, two, that all the bad fiscal history of this decade to date is attributable to bipartisan tax relief plans.

Not surprisingly, nearly all of the revisionists who spoke generally oppose tax relief and support spending increases. The same crew generally supports spending increases and opposes spending cuts.

For this debate, it is important to be aware of some key facts. The stimulus bill passed by the Senate, with interest included, increased the deficit by over $1 trillion. The stimulus bill was a heavy stew of spending increases and refundable tax credits seasoned with small pieces of tax relief.

The bill passed by the Senate had new temporary spending that, if made permanent, will burden future budget deficits by over $2.5 trillion. Now, that is not this Senate Republican speaking; it is the official congressional scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the deficit effects of the stimulus bill passed within a short time after the Democrats assumed full control of the Federal Government roughly exceeded the deficit impact of 8 years of bipartisan tax relief. You can see that very clearly right here.

The tax relief over here, and the stimulus bill here--all of this occurred in an environment where the automatic economic stabilizers, thankfully, kicked in to help the most unfortunate in America with unemployment insurance, increased amounts of food stamps, and other benefits.

That antirecessionary spending, together with lower tax receipts and the bailout activities, set a fiscal table of a deficit of $1.4 trillion. That was the highest deficit as a percentage of the economy in post-World War II history. You can see that right here.

From the perspective of those on the Republican side, this debate seems to be a strategy to divert, through a twisted blame game, from the facts before us. How is the history a history of revision? I would like to take each conclusion one by one.

The first conclusion is that all of the good fiscal history was derived from the 1993 tax increases. To test that assertion, all you have to do is take a look at data from the Clinton administration. The much ballyhooed 1993 partisan tax increase accounts for 13 percent of the deficit reduction in the 1990s, 13 percent. That 13-percent figure was calculated by the Clinton administration Office of Management and Budget.

The biggest source of deficit reduction, 35 percent, came from a reduction in defense spending. Of course, that fiscal benefit originated from President Reagan's stare-down of the Communist regime in Russia. The same folks on that side who opposed President Reagan's defense build-up somehow seem to take credit for the fiscal benefit of the peace dividend.

The next biggest source of the deficit reduction, 32 percent, came from other revenue. Basically this was the fiscal benefit from the pro- growth policies such as the bipartisan capital gains tax cuts of 1997 and the free trade agreements that President Clinton, with Republican votes, got passed.

The savings from the policies I pointed out translated to interest savings. Interest savings account for 15 percent of the deficit reduction. Now, for all of the chest thumping about the 1990s, the chest thumpers who pushed for big social spending, did not bring much to the deficit reduction tables in the 1990s. Their contribution was this, 5 percent.

What is more, the fiscal revision historians in this body tend to forget who the players were. They are correct that there was a Democratic President in

the White House, but they conveniently forget that Republicans controlled the Congress for the period where the deficit came down and eventually turned into a surplus.

They tend to forget they fought the principle of a balanced budget that was the centerpiece of Republican fiscal policy.

Remember, the government shutdowns of late 1995? Remember what that was all about? It was about a plan to balance the budget.

We are consistently reminded of the political price paid by the other side for the record tax increases they put into law in 1993. Republicans played a political price for forcing the balanced budget issue in 1996. But as we found out in 1997, President Clinton agreed. Recall as well all through the 1990s what the year-end battles were about.

On one side, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration pushed for more spending. On the other side, congressional Republicans were pushing for tax relief. In the end, both sides compromised. That is the real fiscal history of the 1990s.

Now, let's turn to the other conclusion of the revision by fiscal historians. That conclusion is that in this decade all fiscal problems are attributable to the widespread tax relief enacted in the years 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006.

In 2001, President Bush came into office. He inherited an economy that was careening downhill. Investments started to go flat in 2000. The tech-fueled stock market bubble was bursting. After that came the economic shocks of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Add in the corporate scandals to that economic environment, and it is true that in the fiscal year 2001, as it came to a close, the projected surpluses turned to a deficit.

But it is wrong to attribute the entire deficit occurring during this period to the bipartisan tax relief. Because, according to the CBO, the bipartisan tax relief is responsible for only 25 percent of the deficit change, while 44 percent is attributable to higher spending and 31 percent to economic and technical changes.

In just the right time, the 2001 tax relief plan kicked in. As the tax relief hits its full force in 2003, the deficits grew smaller. This pattern continued for 4 more years through 2007. If my comments were meant to be partisan shots, I could say this favorable fiscal path from 2003 to 2007 was the only period, aside from 6 months in 2001, where Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress.

But unlike the fiscal history revisionists, I am not trying to make a partisan point; I am just trying to point out a few fiscal facts. There is also data that compares the tax receipts for 4 years after the much ballyhooed 1993 tax increase and the 4-year period after the 2003 tax cuts.

I have a chart here that will track those trends. In 1993, the Clinton tax increases, the blue line, brought in more revenue as compared to the 2003 tax cuts. That trend reversed as both policies moved along in years. Over the first few years, the extra revenue went up over time relative to the flat line of the 1993 tax increases.

So let's get the fiscal history right. The pro-growth tax and trade policies of the 1990s, along with the peace dividend, had a lot more to do with the deficit reduction in the 1990s than the 1993 tax increases.

In this decade, deficits went down after the tax relief plans were put in full effect. No economist I am aware of would link the technical bursting of the housing bubble with the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003. Likewise, I know of no economic research that concludes that the bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 caused the financial meltdown of September and October 2008.

I have another chart that shows what the President inherited from the Democratic Congress and a Republican President. As I said, from the period 2003 through 2007, after the bipartisan tax relief program was in full effect, the general pattern was this: revenues went up, deficits went down.

One major point that needs to be said right here is to state where the government gets the money it spends. Basically I am asking, from where do taxes come? I would have thought this would have been perfectly obvious to most people, but I may have been wrong. Taxes come from taxpayers. I say this because we have heard tax relief for certain individuals referred to as the word ``bonus.'' A search of the Congressional Record for the Senate on December 1, 2010, shows that the word ``bonus'' was said nearly 50 times, the implication being that by extending tax relief for all Americans we are giving some people a bonus that other people are paying for.

Let me try to simplify this for my colleagues who are having trouble understanding. There is no proposal to cut taxes for anyone before this body. The question is, Instead, are we going to allow taxes to go up or are we going to prevent a tax increase? If we prevent taxes for everyone from going up, we are letting taxpayers keep more of their own money that they have earned and worked hard for. No one is proposing a bonus or a gift to anyone. The question is, Do we want taxpayers to have more or less of their own money?

My colleagues on the other side have been especially incensed by what they consistently refer to as ``tax cuts for the rich'' and seem to believe tax relief for everyone is responsible for our disastrous budget situation. However, I think nearly everyone serving in the Chamber and certainly the President and House and Senate leadership support extending around 80 percent of that tax relief. If those on the other side are serious in their pleas that taxes must be increased in the name of fiscal responsibility, how can they claim 80 percent of the tax relief is absolutely necessary and that 20 percent of the tax relief is absolutely wrong? This chart, drawn up from Congressional Budget Office data, should give more insight into the two groups the other side is talking about. The orange line measures the effective tax rate paid by the top 5 percent of taxpayers. By the way, this is where the small business owners' tax hit occurs. This group represents those tax-paying families with incomes over $250,000. Under the Democratic leadership's preferred tax policy, this line will go back up to where it was in the year 2000. Republicans would prefer to prevent this tax increase, and we have shown it falls primarily on the backs of small business.

The main point this chart shows, though, is that tax relief undertaken during the last administration benefited all taxpayers, and characterizing it as tax cuts for the rich is simply not accurate. Of course, I wish to put our country on a path to fiscal responsibility, but I do not believe higher taxes will lead us to that path. Rather, we need to carefully examine how we spend the money we already collect.

This debate is about one fundamental question. Who does the money you, the taxpayer, have worked hard to get belong to? Does it belong to the citizens who earn it or does it belong to the government? Is whatever the taxpayer is left with an allowance, with the balance to be spent by a government that knows best? I think most people would answer my last two questions with a strong resounding no. As we continue to discuss pressing tax matters in Congress, we need to keep these fundamental and simple truths in mind. We need to stop taxes from increasing for all Americans. It is fundamental, after all the years I have served in the Senate, that increasing taxes $1 does not go to the bottom line and bring the deficit down.

Through three or four different occasions during the years I have served in the Senate, we have had propositions, some of them even bipartisan, that we increase taxes by $1 and somehow we will decrease expenditures by $3 and, in the process, we are all going to win and the deficit is going to go down. But what we forget is how the mechanics of legislative bodies work. You increase taxes for a long period of time, but each year expenditures are reviewed, and somehow that 3-for-1 rule does not seem to hold on the expenditure side. They don't go down. They creep up, creep up, and creep up. So in the final analysis, it is kind of averaged out that for every $1 we bring in in increased taxes, it is a license to spend $1.15.

Some studies would say it is even much higher than that and not just one proposition like that but several propositions like that. That is how it has ended up. I don't like to increase taxes, but if there was ever a time I could increase taxes and knew that went to the bottom line and brought the deficit down $1, it might be a proposition I

could buy into. But the practice of legislative bodies, particularly the Congress of the United States, increasing taxes $1 is a license to spend more. It is a ratchet effect. I am very suspicious of those propositions. I think my colleagues see that raising taxes has not done anything to bring the budget deficit down.

I ask our colleagues, in these last few weeks of this Congress, to keep those historical facts in mind so we don't get hoodwinked into doing things that don't end up reducing the deficit. Even at a time when it sounds like it will reduce the deficit and makes sense, the common sense we ought to remind each other of is it doesn't work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, Senator Chuck Grassley, intend to object to proceeding to H.R. 5717, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Enhancement Act, for the following reasons. The Smithsonian has had well documented problems keeping up with the maintenance needs of current structures and facilities. Additionally, I have investigated Smithsonian officials in the past few years regarding inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. I would like to examine whether the Smithsonian is able to meet its current operational requirements before legislation allowing for the construction of a new facility moves through the Senate without debate or even committee consideration.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking my Senate colleagues and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African-American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 included a provision titled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims. It gave these farmers a chance to have their claims heard.

For those that don't know, in 1997 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, Pigford v. Glickman, alleging that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American farmers. Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African-American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming.

Because of the persistent practice of discrimination, Congress, in October 1998, passed a law tolling the statute of limitations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for an additional 2 years for African- American farmers who had been discriminated against between 1981 and 1996 and had filed complaints with USDA prior to July 1, 1997, so that they could file a civil action against USDA.

On April 14, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement and assigned four entities to facilitate implementation of the claims resolution process set out in the Consent Decree. To participate in this process, eligible farmers initially were required to submit completed claims packages to the Consent Decree Facilitator by October 12, 1999. This deadline was subsequently extended by the Court to September 15, 2000, upon a showing of ``extraordinary circumstances beyond [the claimant's] control.''

Approximately 61,000 petitions were filed after the original October 12, 1999, deadline, but on or before the September 15, 2000, ``late- filing'' deadline. Of these, only around 2,500 were permitted to proceed to a determination on the merits. Over 25,000 additional petitions were filed after the September 15, 2000 late-filing deadline and before the May 22, 2008, enactment of the 2008 farm bill.

On November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives received sworn testimony highlighting the inadequate notice provided to those who had viable claims of discrimination against the USDA of the claims resolution process set out in the Consent Decree. Because of this inadequate notice, many potential claimants were denied participation in the Pigford claims resolution process as ``late-filers.''

Secretary Vilsack has reached a settlement agreement with the claimants who filed claims after the deadline set by the court who were denied a determination of the merits of their Pigford claims. The government has an obligation to fund this settlement which is subject to court approval and Congress must act to provide relief for these claimants quickly.

Today we have the opportunity to make right these past wrongs by the Department and give each individual claimant the right to tell their side of the story.

This second Pigford round is not the same as the claims adjudicated in Pigford 1. We've made changes to the settlement agreement that will enhance the Department's ability to fight fraud. We require the adjudicators to be a truly neutral party. We allow that neutral adjudicator to ask the claimant for additional documentation if he or she suspects any fraud. We require the claimants' attorneys to certify that there is evidentiary support for the claims. And we require the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department's internal controls and audit the process in adjudicating the claims.

I also thank John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, NBFA, for his help in getting us where we are today. Without his dedication to this issue, I don't think we would be passing this legislation today. My hope is that the Department will work with groups like NBFA to conduct outreach to the black community and claimants. No one wants to see fraud in the administration of these claims and stakeholder groups such as John's can be a valuable resource to getting that message out.

All these steps will help deter fraud and better protect taxpayer dollars.

Other provisions are included in this package including the Cobell settlement and four Native American tribal water agreements. In a fiscally responsible manner, we have fully offset the entire package.

The farm bill we passed 2 years ago does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It's time to rectify that. We know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

Madam President, Senator Hatch has long been a leader on a lot of these tax provisions, particularly in research and development. I thank him for his leadership.

I think Senator Hatch has clearly outlined the gravity of the economic consequences of a continuing failure to finish time-sensitive legislative tax business.

There is a chart I will put up that shows where we are on these categories of expiring tax provisions. Said another way, here are the categories of tax hikes that congressional inaction will put in place. I have used this chart before, so I think Members will be familiar. In fact, several months ago, I used it. The congressional Democratic leadership paid no attention to the seriousness of these issues then. Unfortunately, the to-do list is exactly the same today as it was several months ago.

If we go down through the chart, Members can see that we have had partisan votes on extender packages negotiated between the bicameral Democratic leadership but no effort to reach out to the Republican side to find bipartisan common ground.

On this year's alternative minimum tax patch, as Senator Hatch noted, inaction on the AMT will force a ``gotcha'' tax hike on millions of middle-income families when they start to file their tax returns 6 weeks from now.

On death tax reform, the House passed a permanent reform almost 1 year ago, but it has languished in the Senate during that period. On our side, we would like to improve that bill to protect more small businesses and farm families from the death tax.

On the 2001-2003 tax relief packages, there is no bill from the other side that would serve as a starting point on preventing this massive tax hike. On our side, if the Democratic leadership permitted us, we would like to start with Senator McConnell's bill. Senator Hatch and I are cosponsors of that legislation.

First of all, my colleagues probably know that my friend from Utah is going to advance as the incoming ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and I congratulate him on that. I know he is going to do a very good job.

One needs only to look to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to assess the harm that could be done to the economy if we don't get this tax legislation passed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, not addressing these very time-sensitive tax issues will reduce economic growth by as much as 1.7 percent on average for the years 2011 and 2012. If Members didn't hear that, it is not some political leader saying that economic growth will be harmed by 1.7 percent; it is the nonpartisan experts in the Congressional Budget Office saying that if we don't pass these tax bills, economic growth is going to get hit 1.7 percent. Some private forecasters put that hit even higher--at 2 percent. When we consider that the last report has the economy growing at an annualized rate of 2 percent, then it is quite obvious.

We can see that this single failure to prevent these great big tax increases could wipe out what little economic growth is currently occurring. I don't know how policymakers can sleep at night, let alone be so casual when we haven't dealt with these time-sensitive tax issues at a time when coming back here we heard nothing from our constituents other than concern about the economy, about jobs, and about the legacy of debt we are leaving.

Absolutely. We have a track record on that. Just a few years ago, it didn't get done on time, and people had to wait for their tax refunds. That is the biggest thing. But it also created a terrible bureaucratic problem for IRS to get the forms out.

My friend from Utah is correct. Fortunately, the chairs and ranking members of the tax writing committees wrote to the Commissioner of IRS last week indicating our intention to pass an AMT patch. The letter specified what the AMT patch would look like. But as helpful as the letter was, we still need to change the law. As a matter of fact, the filing season could become very complicated if we don't act. During our years in the majority, we never let the AMT patch legislation slip past May of any tax year that it applied to. That only happened once.

The death tax is another overdue tax legislative item that has been referred to. Maybe the Senator from Utah could bring up the issue of the estate tax.

Well, I say to Senator Hatch, the only thing I would add to the good work you put out there is maybe to say a little bit more about the estate tax; that is, if we do not do anything--as you see from this chart, you can see the House passed death tax reform but not the Senate. Obviously, we do not have a final bill. If we do not get a final bill by the end of this year, instead of having no estate tax like this year or a $3.5 million exemption like last year, we are going to have only a million-dollar exemption and a 55-percent tax rate. That is going to be catastrophic on small business. It is going to be catastrophic in the rural areas. So I hope that emphasizes the importance of getting something done on the estate tax ahead of time.

The only other thing I would add, because the Senator did such a good job of saying what the economic consequences are, if we let the biggest tax increase in the history of the country happen by sunset December 31, and

then that means you go back to the tax rates and tax policy of the year 2000, it is going to be very destructive on job creation for small businesses and very destructive as far as bringing the certainty that businesses, particularly small businesses, need if they are going to hire people.

I had a news conference last month in my State, and I brought in some small businesspeople. One of the small businesspeople testifying for me said to the media of Iowa that they would like to hire five or six people, but as long as there is all this uncertainty about what the tax policy is, they are not going to move forward.

So what we have to do--and I say to Senator Hatch, I think you have said it several times--and particularly for small business, we have to bring certainty to the Tax Code. You cannot have this uncertainty of what is going to happen after December 31, particularly when you are certain you are going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country without even a vote of Congress.

So I compliment Senator Hatch. I will not have anything more to say on this subject until we get one of these pieces of legislation before the Senate. But I thank the Senator very much for his leadership.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional Iowan. After more than 31 years of honorable military service, in November of this year, COL Michael J. Jensen is set to retire. His dedication and tireless devotion to the service of our great country is without question. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to COL Mike Jensen.

Colonel Jensen was born in Estherville, IA. He attended and graduated from Estherville Community High School in 1975, received an associate of science degree in computer science from Iowa Lakes Community College, a bachelor of arts degree in business management from Buena Vista University, and a master's degree in public administration from Drake University. Colonel Jensen also attended General Staff College, where he was the distinguished honor graduate.

Mike Jensen enlisted in C Battery 1st Battalion 194th Field Artillery on June 14th, 1979. He was commissioned a second lieutenant, Field Artillery, in June 1982 and graduated from the Iowa Military Academy Officer Candidate School at Camp Dodge in Johnston, IA. Duty assignments over his career include a number of positions in the 1- 194th Field Artillery, 34th Infantry Division; Recruiting and Retention; the Secretary of General Staff; and Director of Military Support. In 2006, Colonel Jensen assumed his current position as the Commander of the Counterdrug Task Force, Iowa National Guard.

Over his admirable military career, Mike Jensen received a number of awards and decorations, including seven awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal. Colonel Jensen is also an accomplished outdoorsman and avid fisherman.

Congratulations again to COL Michael Jensen. The Iowa National Guard will no doubt miss his daily contributions; however he continues as a model of honorable and distinguished service to his country. I thank him for his unwavering commitment to Iowa and to the United States of America.