Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my new colleague from Illinois and associate myself with his remarks.

Since the Chairman referenced my amendment, I appreciate his support of the idea of committing ourselves to developing a missile defense system that could protect against Russian missiles. But unfortunately during the debate in committee, when we offered this as a binding amendment on the treaty, it would not be accepted unless we moved it to a mere declaration, which has no force of law. But it is good we have brought it up and recognize it is a major point of contention in the adoption of this treaty.

I would like to begin by speaking in support of the amendment of my colleagues, Senator John McCain and Senator John Barrasso, to strike the language in the treaty preamble that links offensive and defensive systems and limits our ability as Americans to protect our citizens. We know the Russians would like to limit our missile defense capabilities. Before President Obama signed the treaty, they expressed a desire to make the United States more vulnerable to future attacks. While discussions about the treaty were underway, Prime Minister Putin commented on American missile defenses. Last December, he said: ``By building such an umbrella over themselves, [the United States] could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want.''

Prime Minister Putin got what he wanted. The Russians successfully linked missile defense to an offensive strategic nuclear weapons treaty.

After President Obama signed the treaty, the Russian Government issued a statement that said the treaty ``can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.'' How much more clear could they be? The understanding of the Russians is that this treaty ties our hands and prohibits us from defending our citizens against Russian missile attacks.

By giving the Russians this lever, the treaty damages the U.S. ability to defend against missile attacks. This has the effect of making America and her allies vulnerable, not only to Russia but to rogue nations. Russia should not be permitted to dictate whether we can develop our missile defense capabilities. No negotiations should require us to sacrifice our sovereignty. The United States has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens and a moral obligation to protect its allies.

Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey said it well in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in November. In it, he asked: ``Why has the administration agreed to a treaty that limits our nonnuclear long-range weapons and runs the risk of constraining our missile defenses?''

The administration's unilateral statement on limited missile defense does not resolve this ambiguity.

This treaty has a flawed premise which I would like to talk about for just a few minutes. The treaty is crafted out of the idea that the United States and Russia play the same role in the world. That is simply not true. The U.S. security umbrella covers over 30 countries. America is a protector of many. Russia, however, is a threat to many but a protector to none.

America's commitments are much greater and parity is unacceptable, especially given Russia's large tactical arsenal, which is not covered at all in this treaty. Moreover, the New START treaty is intended to be a step toward the President's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. President Reagan, who has been quoted at length during this debate, believed the only way to get to a world without nuclear weapons was by making them ``impotent and obsolete'' through a strong missile defense system. He walked out of negotiations with the Russians rather than sacrifice our missile defense options.

Now I would like to go through the ways the New START will reduce the U.S. forces, while Russia is not forced to make any reductions. All the reductions will be on our side.

The Obama administration champions the fact that the treaty would limit both countries to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each. However, given the loophole in the counting rules, the number that can be deployed is several hundred higher. That means no reductions are required on behalf of the Russians.

The treaty's delivery vehicle limit is also troubling. The administration cannot even show the Senate how they intend to change the force structure to reach the new deployed delivery vehicle limits. Russia, however, is already well below the new limits.

To be clear, Russia does not have to destroy any nuclear warheads as part of this treaty. The treaty does not deal with nuclear stockpiles or tactical nuclear weapons. Russia can maintain its huge stockpile of roughly 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons, thousands more than the United States has, because the treaty does not restrict those types of weapons, which can also be affixed to rockets, submarines, and attack aircraft.

The administration lost a key opportunity to address the 10-to-1 disparity between Russia and the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons. Proponents argue we will address tactical nuclear weapons during the next treaty, but that was said during the debate on the last arms control treaty with Russia. The administration has also subjected advanced conventional U.S. military capabilities to limitation in this new START treaty. Why were these included?

I also have questions about the verification measures in Russia's compliance. Why is it that the New START treaty has a substantially weaker verification regime than START I? Given Russia's history of cheating on arms control treaties, the weaker verification and inspection provisions in this treaty will only exacerbate the problem.

I also have concerns about the negotiating records for this treaty. We have asked repeatedly for these records and the administration has refused to give Senators access to them. We have asked numerous times and there is a precedent from past ratification of arms control treaties to make it available. We need to see the negotiating records to find out exactly what concessions were made during the negotiating process--particularly given the disagreement between what the Russians are saying about missile defense and what we are saying. We need to see what was agreed to during the negotiations. By not providing negotiating records, the administration has only increased concerns.

Supporters of this treaty would like everyone to believe this is a matter of urgent national security, but this is not true. I would like to quote former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who said:

They want to do [this treaty] before the lame duckers are

out of there. That is not the way to move on this issue.

I agree with the former Secretary. This is not the proper way to move on this issue.

As the Washington Post noted in its editorial of November 19:

No calamity will befall the United States if the Senate

does not act this year. The Cold War threat of a nuclear

exchange between Washington and Moscow is, for now,

nonexistent.

If it was so urgent, why did the administration allow the original START treaty, which included verification provisions, to lapse on December 5, 2009? Surely, they were aware it would be months before this treaty would be completed?

After the START I treaty expired, the two countries issued a joint statement pledging ``to continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty following its expiration.'' But that never happened.

Senator Lugar even had legislation that would have allowed the inspections to continue after December 5, but his legislation was ignored. If these verification measures are so urgent, it seems there would have been more of an effort to pass his bill. The administration's promise to bridge the agreement with Russia to preserve verification has failed.

Special Assistant to the President Gary Samore stated last month he was ``not particularly worried, near-term by the lack of inspections.''

As I said earlier today, I take my responsibility of advice and consent very seriously. We would be harming this institution if we do not seriously evaluate the many serious flaws in this treaty. I worry about many of the long-term negative effects this treaty will have on our security, but I would also like to talk some and explain about why I oppose the treaty in the short term.

First, we should not be ratifying this treaty during the lameduck session.

It is unprecedented to do so. The Heritage Foundation crosschecked the dates of each lameduck session of Congress with the Senate date of treaty ratification for treaties going all of the way back to 1947 and found no major treaty has ever been ratified by a Senate during a lameduck session of Congress. Doing so would violate the principle of consent maintained by the government since the 20th amendment was passed in 1933.

The first two sections of the 20th amendment were created to shorten the lameduck period after an election and before the new officials take office. Treaties ratified during a lameduck session are undemocratic, because many of those who support ratification are no longer accountable to the voters. At a minimum, we should wait until the new Senators are sworn in before we consider voting on this treaty.

Let me note that this is only the second day of full debate of this treaty, during a very hectic session. And it is being dual-tracked or triple-tracked with other matters before the Congress and backed up to the Christmas break. We are still working on a way to make sure the government is funded. This Chamber is also considering holding votes on the DREAM Act and don't ask, don't tell and no telling what else.

When the Senate considered the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the INF, in 1998, the Senate gave it 9 days of floor time, and it was not dual or triple-tracked with other issues. We focused on it and had a debate. The first START treaty was available for the Senate's review for over 400 days. I share the concerns expressed earlier today by my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker. He objected to the dual tracking of matters of national security with partisan issues.

As we are debating this treaty, meetings are being held to strategize ways to get votes on other bills to reward special interests and fulfill campaign promises. The New START treaty will have many implications for our country's security and, surely, something as important as this deserves the Senate's full attention.

As I conclude, I wish to thank again Senators McCain and Barrasso for their amendment, and for their thorough explanations of why it is so important. They were right to point out that the Bush administration worked very hard to break up the linkage between offensive and defensive missile systems.

That is why former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in a recent opinion editorial that: The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's preamble is worrying in this regard as it recognizes the interrelationship of the two.

By passing the McCain-Barrasso amendment, we can fix this, and we can make sure that this treaty does not limit our ability to defend our citizens.

I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in tribute to Senator Jim Bunning, who is retiring after honorably serving the people of Kentucky for 24 years.

Throughout his political career, Jim has been a fierce taxpayer's advocate. A bold defender of life and protector of families. A small business ally. And, a courageous critic of bad government policy.

As the targets of his criticism have learned, Jim's words can sometimes be sharp. That is because cold, hard truths have sharp edges and Jim Bunning speaks in cold, hard truths.

Even when it comes to his own party.

In the summer of 2008, shortly after a Republican Treasury Secretary obtained the authority to pump unlimited money into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Jim was rightfully upset. ``When I picked up the newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France,'' he told the Secretary in a hearing. ``But no,'' Jim said, ``it turned out it was socialism here in the United States.''

Jim often asked simple questions that were easy to answer truthfully and didn't tolerate equivocation. In the case of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts, he asked the Treasury Secretary, ``Where will the money come from?''

The Treasury Secretary said it was better to ``be unspecified and enhance confidence in the market.''

Jim asked again saying that ``doesn't answer the question. Where is the money going to come from if you have to put it up?''

There was more waffling, but Jim finally pushed the Treasury Secretary to admit the money was going to come from the taxpayer. The taxpayers were going to pay.

He later called for the resignation of that Republican Treasury Secretary because he was, as Jim put it, ``acting like the minister of finance in China.''

``No company fails in Communist China, because they're all partly owned by the government,'' Jim noted.

Jim has also been a brave critic of the Federal Reserve. He has told the Fed Chairman, who was appointed by a Republican President and helped orchestrate bailouts for those considered too big to fail that, ``You are the definition of a moral hazard.''

``Your Fed has become the creature from Jekyll Island,'' Jim said. And then he asked for the Fed Chairman's resignation, too.

Jim has performed a great public service by bringing attention to the economic damage being caused by the Fed with cheap money when no one else would. He was there calling for more oversight of the Federal Reserve long before it became a Tea Party cause and he deserves credit for driving the issue into the mainstream.

As Senator, you could say Jim's approach has been direct as the fastballs he threw that made him a major league, Hall of Fame pitcher. When the Democrats tried to pass off phony paygo rules as real reform, Jim exposed it as a trick pitch. It was a gimmick to fool Americans into thinking they would pay for their big-spending plans.

The Democrats said paygo would obligate Congress to offset any new spending with new revenues or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. Soon after, they tried to pass $10 billion in unpaid for unemployment extensions Moreover, the Democrats wanted to pass it by unanimous consent. Meaning, no public debate. No rollcall vote. No accountability.

The Democrats bet no one would oppose benefits for the unemployed in this bad economy. They believed, as they continue to, that they can keep giving out money without paying for it and without any consequences.

Jim did not concede. He objected and stood his ground on the Senate floor. And by doing so, he showed everyone what a sham paygo is. The Wall Street Journal called it ``his finest hour.''

Bunning announced his retirement in July 2009, more than a year ago. He could have taken it easy during his last years in the Senate. He didn't have to tackle the Treasury, the Fed or insist unemployment extensions be paid for.

But, he did. Jim Bunning, the Hall of Fame Pitcher, the distinguished Senator, father of 9 and grandfather of 40 cared too much for this country to sit this one out.

He said in his farewell speech that he prays the Members of Congress will stop spending our future generations into higher taxes and a lower standard of living than we have now. I pray for that, too.

Finally, I express my gratitude to Senator Bunning for supporting the new Republican from his state who will inherit his Senate seat next year. Jim campaigned for someone to take his place who would say no to bailouts, stop the takeovers, end the wasteful spending and bring down the national debt. The nation will benefit greatly by continuing to have a senator at Jim's desk who believes as much in the principles of free markets and freedom as Jim.

Thank you Jim for giving America your best until the very last inning.

Sam Brownback

I rise in tribute to my good friend, Senator Sam Brownback, who will soon be Governor Sam Brownback.

Senator Brownback leaves this Chamber as a man of character and success. He made a promise to the citizens of Kansas to only serve two terms in the U.S. Senate and he is honoring it.

He will continue to serve his constituents well, as he will soon join the ranks of Republican Governors who are committed to saving freedom and free-markets. Sam and his fellow Republican Governors will stand sentry in their state capitols, defending Americans from unaffordable mandates and unprecedented intrusions by the Federal Government.

The current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, left Topeka to come to Washington and impose an unconstitutional health care takeover on all Americans. I am confident Republican Governor-elect Sam Brownback, who is leaving Washington for Topeka, will successfully fight for state rights in court and preserve freedom for Kansans.

Sam won on a platform of opportunity, accountability and responsibility--the very principles his State was founded upon.

His ``Road Map for Kansas'' is built on ideas to grow the economy, create private-sector jobs, improve education, reform the state government and support Kansas families. This is exactly the kind of leadership our nation so desperately needs. His five-point plan is a clear and bright as the tips of the stars on the Kansas flag.

In addition to the roadmap for Kansas, Sam has promised to institute a spending freeze for his State his very first month in office.

It has been an honor to serve alongside Sam, one of our nation's premier pro-life leaders. He knows no one should be denied the right to life--especially the unborn. As he said in a speech at the 2004 March for Life, ``If we demean and degrade one human life, we demean and degrade all human life.''

As a U.S. Senator, Sam relentlessly fought to protect the unborn. He was the principle sponsor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, the Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, and others. He has also worked to advance the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

Sam has increased awareness about the joy of adoption. He can personally attest to it. He and his wife Mary and three children Abby, Andy and Elizabeth have welcomed two children in need of a loving home into their lives. The Brownback's youngest son Mark is from Guatemala. Their youngest daughter Jenna is from China, where families are subjected to grave and callous one-child policy.

Thank you Sam for fighting for a better life for all of God's children.

As we bid him farewell, I would like to reflect on one short passage from his book, ``From Power to Purpose.'' In it, Sam wrote ``The heart of the matter is the human heart, which is where human goodness begins.''

That shows the kind of heart Sam has for public service. His tenure in the U.S. Senate is marked by his compassion and care for his fellow man.

He will be dearly missed here in Washington. But, as Jesus said, ``There are many rooms in my Father's house.'' And Sam is just moving to another room where he will continue to serve God.

george voinovich

Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. President, in a moment, I will move to suspend the rules for the purpose of offering my motion to permanently extend the current individual income tax rates, finally repeal the death tax once and for all, and permanently patch the alternative minimum tax.

I know a lot of work has gone into this tax compromise. I appreciate the fact that both sides have worked so hard to strike a deal. While I appreciate the efforts that have been made, I am concerned that the bill currently under consideration does not permanently extend tax rates and, thus, will have a marginal, if any, benefit to our economy.

Temporary rates make for a temporary, uncertain economy. My substitute amendment ensures a long-term stable economic environment for Americans to create jobs, buy a home, invest their assets, save for retirement, and preserve their family farm or business.

We need to stop and consider what we are doing to our country and to our economy. We are the premier free market economy in the world. Yet almost all of our Federal tax rates are temporary. I have been in business most of my life, and I understand a lot about how free markets work, how businesses plan--usually in a 5- or 10-year window, looking at their bottom line. How many people can they afford? Can they build a new plant? Now they are looking at whether or not to do it in the United States or all over the world.

But now in our country, we have a temporary, uncertain Tax Code that makes it very difficult for businesses to plan. And it is not just with the Tax Code. For the last several years, we have waited until December to tell doctors what we are going to pay them to see Medicare patients the next year. How do they plan their staff and their offices? We know some have already laid people off, not knowing what they are going to get paid next year.

Free markets, free enterprise works within a framework of a rule of law, where people know what their taxes will be, what the laws will be, what the regulatory environment will be. But in America today, if we take this compromise, almost all of the tax rates are either 1 year or 2 years, and then people can expect them to go up or change.

We cannot operate the world's largest economy in this type of environment. Washington does not have a tax revenue problem, it has a spending problem. We must let all working Americans keep their hard- earned money, not just for a year or two, but allow people actually to look out and see, can they make those car payments for 4 or 5 years? Can they make those house payments for 15, 20, or 30 years? They need to know what their tax rates are going to be.

We must repeal the immoral death tax once and for all. It is zero this year, but the proposed compromise will have it at 35 percent for any estate over $5 million next year. That may sound like a much better deal than we would have had. But even with that, the estimates are that this could cost 850,000 jobs to let this tax re-emerge.

We must commit ourselves to recovering from our years of overspending, overtaxing, and overreaching. The American people deserve better. They told us so in the November elections.

Motion to Suspend

According to rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 4804 to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 individual income tax rates, permanently repeal the estate tax, and permanently patch the alternative minimum tax. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Madam President, I submit the following notice in writing--``In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to

Reserving the right to object, this is a nation of laws not of men. It destroys that whole foundation of our legal system when we make retroactive law. This bill has not been vetted properly by a committee. Again, it undermines our whole system of the rule of law. So I am compelled to object.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Thune for, again, a very small request of the Senate to continue to fund the government at a 5- percent reduction. It is hardly a radical idea--except in Washington. I hope my colleagues will support that.

I would like to talk about another amendment for a minute, but first I think we need to address what I think has been the most irresponsible Congress I have seen in my time here.

Over the last 4 years, the majority has almost doubled the national debt of all previous Presidents in 4 years. We are on that track to do it. This year, things are so bad that we didn't even bother to do a budget. We are not going to show the American people what we plan to spend, what things are costing.

We are trying to get out of town today without passing funding bills to keep the government operating. We have to do a little makeshift continuing resolution. But we are getting out of town without addressing the fact that we are getting ready to stick the American people with one of the largest tax increases in history. By not doing anything, we are voting with our feet to raise taxes on everyone from

the lowest income to the largest corporation, to tax dividends at a higher level, to tax death at a higher level. We are just leaving town.

In the meantime, as people are getting ready to leave town, there are 20 or 30 bills that folks here would like to pass in secret, by unanimous consent, without a vote, without any debate. Some of them have some pretty big price tags. And they are squealing like someone is doing them wrong if we ask for a day or two to read these bills, to see what they cost, to see what they would do to our country.

There is a sense of entitlement here that we have to pass their bill; it is some kind of emergency. But their bills have been hanging around here for months. One of them I just saw was from December of 2009. They are not emergencies, but we have to pass them but we are not going to do the business of the American people. We are not going to carry out our constitutional responsibility to set a budget, to appropriate money for the operation of our government, but we want to get our bills passed and we want to go home.

What we are doing is we are going to pass a continuing resolution tonight to fund the government until December. But the only reason to fund it until December is so we have to come back after the election in a lameduck Congress and pass another spending bill to keep our government going until the new Congress comes in. I think the only reason to do that is so Senators who are not coming back can come here and pass an omnibus spending bill with thousands of earmarks that people have come to expect, so they can take home the bacon to their States one last time.

There is no reason for us to have a continuing resolution that ends in December. We are going to have to come back and use the threat of a government shutdown to force through a bigger spending bill. We should not do that in the chaos after the election.

My amendment would take the exact same continuing resolution that everyone is going to agree on tonight and have it expire on February 4, after we have sworn in a new Congress, after the dust has settled. Then we can make a good decision with people who maybe represent the voices of the American people a little better because they have just come in off of the campaign trail. Instead of passing something in the chaos of November and December, let's do something that is more responsible and more focused.

My amendment is the exact same as the amendment tonight. The only thing it does is it strikes December 3, 2010, and inserts February 4, 2011, so it does not end, there is no emergency, there is no crisis, and there is no threat of a government shutdown. We come back in November and hopefully stop the tax increases and then go home and start over with the new Congress, with folks who are representing the voices of the American people.

My hope is that my colleagues will support this amendment. There is no reason not to support it unless you want to come back here in November and increase spending, pass an omnibus and pass all of these porkbarrel earmarks to take home one last time.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. I understand we will have a vote on it later this evening, and I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 4677 to Amendment No. 4674

Mr. President, I understand I need to offer the amendment.

Thank you. I didn't think it would be too painful to read that whole thing at this time. This is one I can guarantee I read.

Do I need to ask for a recorded vote at this time?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my amendment only makes one change to the underlying continuing resolution. It changes the date from January 3 to February 4. There is no reason we should fund the government only to the lameduck. We need to wait until we have a new Congress and the dust settles after the election. We don't need to be passing another continuing resolution or an omnibus spending bill with the pressure of a government shutdown before Christmas. So the amendment is just a couple of lines that change the date. Everything else in the continuing resolution is the same. Let's push the operation of the government all the way through January to a new Congress.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Americans seem to be losing more and more control over their lives due to government intrusion. The government has decided what kinds of cars we can drive, what kinds of light bulbs we can purchase and what kind of health insurance we must carry. But now the government is going even further by reaching into the family unit.

I rise today to speak about an issue of great importance to families across America--the rights that parents have over their families and the ever encroaching role of the international community in American life--specifically through a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While the Convention on the Rights of the Child has many noble goals, I have significant concerns about the effects a treaty like this would have on parental rights in America. This week we looked at the Rights of the Child treaty again when it was referenced in the preamble of a different treaty--one on the international role in child support concerns, the Hague Treaty on International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

So today, I am offering an amendment to the resolution of ratification for the Child Support Recovery Treaty that reinstates that the United States has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My amendment states that ``The United States is not a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and understands that a mention of the Convention in the preamble of this Treaty does not create any obligations and does not affect or enhance the status of the Convention as a matter of United States or international law.''

Last year, I introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerning the rights of parents and their families, which would protect the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in the face of government intrusion.

Earlier this year, 30 Senators, including myself, introduced a resolution to oppose the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My resolution focuses on the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and threatens U.S. principles of sovereignty and self-governance. It would place the U.S. under international legal standards in multiple areas of domestic policy that would have far-reaching effects on the way we educate and raise our children.

The Federal Government, or any source of international law, should not be mandating guidelines or setting standards for raising children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child would create international standards for parents that could be enforced through U.S. courts at the expense of the Constitution; courts could inappropriately use references to the Convention as legal precedent.

Parents are best equipped to decide how their children are raised and educated, not the government, and certainly not a board of bureaucrats headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

The fight for protecting parental rights goes on. The DeMint amendment to the Child Support Recovery Treaty is intended to ensure that despite the reference in the preamble, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has no place in the U.S. legal system.

As our Nation encounters new challenges, I believe the answers must include more freedom for Americans, not more government control--and certainly not more international control. Congress must work to protect and strengthen the freedom of American families who are the backbone of our strength as a nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how long do I have to speak?

Thank you, Madam President. I think I can do it in that time.

It seems we have time to do almost anything, but what we need to do is address the economy and jobs in this country. Just about every economist, from all across the political spectrum, says one of the most important things we can do right now is not to raise taxes. Yet taxes are scheduled to go up in 5 months on almost every American, including the businesses that create the jobs.

Of the two amendments I will offer here today, one amendment will stop the increase in income tax rates, and the second will stop the tax increases on small businesses that file as individuals.

Clearly, it makes no sense in the middle of a recession to raise taxes on individuals. An individual in South Carolina making $40,000 a year will pay $400 more next year in taxes if we do not act. A married couple with a combined income of $80,000 will see their taxes go up nearly $2,200. A married couple earning $160,000 combined could pay $5,500 in additional taxes.

The same thing will happen to small businesses that create the jobs. We will be taking money out of their accounts and putting it in our accounts. At a time when they need to keep the money to grow our economy and to hire workers, we do not need the money to continue to waste it on what we have been doing.

Consider the stimulus bill. A couple of my colleagues this week came out with a report showing where a lot of this stimulus money went: $62 million for a Pennsylvania tunnel that Governor Rendell said was a tragic mistake; $193,000 for voter perception of the stimulus bill. I could go on and on. This is not money we need to spend right now.

What we need to do is assure businesses and individuals that the tax rate this year will be the same next year so they can make good decisions that will move our economy forward.

Motions To Suspend

Madam President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following motion to commit, with instructions, H.R. 1586: I move to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the 2010 individual income tax rates, and to include provisions which decrease spending as appropriate to offset such permanent extension.

And, Madam President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following motion to commit, with instructions, H.R. 1586: I move to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of current individual income tax rates on small businesses and provisions which decreases spending as appropriate to offset such permanent extension.

With that, Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, I think it is a sad day in the Senate when keeping current tax rates the same and stopping the largest tax increase in history is called a stunt.

Over the last few weeks, the Democrats have voted to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains, affecting many senior citizens, and raised the death tax to over half of what people leave to their families. Now, today, they want to raise the marginal income tax rates. If we left the tax rates the same, it would do more to help small businesses and jobs in America than any of the bailout or targeted programs my colleagues are talking about.

My Democratic colleagues have had 4 years to address the coming tax increase and have done nothing. It is very important, but it is sad that they will not address it. They will do every kind of government program that comes to mind, but they won't leave the money in the hands of the American people so we can grow our economy.

I encourage my colleagues but also the American people to look in on what is happening today.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I think all of us know----

Madam President, may I have 1 minute to explain the amendment?

Madam President, we all know the economic engine in this country is small businesses. Most of our jobs come from small businesses. It makes no sense in the middle of a recession for us to take more money from small businesses and bring it here.

This amendment simply keeps current tax rates the same for those who file individually as part of their small businesses. It is a simple idea. I think we all agree on it. It is important that we do it before the break and let small businesses know they can plan for next year. They can hire people. They can help grow our economy. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Kagan to the Supreme Court, and I would like to put this opposition in context with what is going on all around the country.

All of us know, and we have seen on the news--and many of us have seen in person--that people are upset with what is happening in Washington. They are angry. They are fearful. They are frustrated at all the spending, the borrowing, the debt, the government takeovers. I keep hearing from people: What can we do? How can we stop it? Why is it happening?

That is a question we need to keep asking here: Why is it happening? Why has this country, this Congress, and many Congresses before spent this country to the edge of bankruptcy--and continue to spend week after week? Even though the President and the majority are talking every week about the unsustainable debt, almost every week we are adding to that debt, adding new programs. It makes no sense.

Our Founders believed it very important that every Member of Congress--the House and the Senate--the President, the Supreme Court, and the military officers all take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That may seem perfunctory, just something we do as a part of history. But that was not its intent because the Constitution is a document that limits what the Federal Government can do. If anyone reads it seriously, it is pretty clear its primary purpose is to limit what the Federal Government can do. It specifies a few things, such as protecting our Nation, making sure there is justice, making sure we have the rule of law and the enforcement of those laws across all of our States.

But it says a lot about what we cannot do. The whole Bill of Rights says much about what the government cannot do to take our freedoms. The 10th amendment itself says whatever is not specified in the Constitution is left to the States and the people.

Even though all of us take that oath of office, it seems to me, after being here a number of years, that just about everyone here sets aside that Bible when they put their hands down and completely forgets they have just taken an oath to protect and defend a constitution that limits what we can do.

Last year, when we passed this health care bill, Obamacare, a reporter asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi where in the Constitution did she find the authority to require people to buy a government-approved health insurance policy. All she could say is, ``Are you serious?'' In fact, if you talk about a limited constitutional government, as I often do in the Senate, you are considered a radical, even though all of us take that oath of office.

What we have turned into here--and the President has used this phrase a lot--is a ``yes, we can'' Congress. It does not matter what it is, what problem comes up all across the country, we can do it, we can fix it. Government has a solution to almost anything because we do not pay any attention to the Constitution.

The Constitution is a constitution of no, of what we cannot do. That is to protect us and to avoid where we are today, which is approaching a $14 trillion debt which is about to destroy our whole country.

Think about this: In the world's great bastion of freedom that we call America, our Federal Government owns the largest auto companies. It owns the largest insurance company. It owns the largest mortgage companies. It controls our education system. It just took over our health care system. It controls the whole energy sector and our transportation sector. The rules and regulations and taxes that we put on businesses pretty much means mostly it controls all the business activity in our country.

When Congressman Pete Stark was asked last week--in an interview we have seen all over the Internet--is there anything that the Federal Government cannot do, he said no because he had forgotten the constitutional oath of office.

What is the Court's rule, as we think about Ms. Kagan, the Supreme Court, the confirmation process? What is the role of the Court? The intent is pretty clear that it is to watch over Congress, the executive branch, to make sure we do not get outside the bounds of the Constitution. If we do, the Court is supposed to say: No, you can't; that is unconstitutional. But the Court, over the years, has pretty much thrown that responsibility out the window.

Back during FDR's days, in their interpretation of the commerce clause, it had essentially given Congress and the White House unlimited ability to do almost anything that comes up, any whim that we have. That is how we ended up with over $13 trillion in debt. I know this overactive government is really important. This idea of a limited government is very important.

When Ms. Kagan was in my office and I asked: Does the Constitution limit us from doing anything, she really could not come up with a good answer. It is pretty similar to her hearings, when Senator Tom Coburn asked her: If the Congress passed a law, and the President signed it, that every American had to eat their fruits and vegetables every day, would that be constitutional? And she said: It would be a dumb law. But she would not say that is unconstitutional.

Friends, if this government can tell us what we have to eat, it can tell us anything. We cannot claim to have any freedoms if this government can tell us what we have to eat. It is essentially the same thing as telling us we have to buy a government-approved health insurance policy. We cannot say no. But the Constitution is intended to make sure we do.

Ms. Kagan talked a lot about precedents, which are just previous court rulings, not much about the Constitution being our standard. The problem with that is a precedent is a lot like what we used to call the gossip game. Some people call it the telephone game, where you have a bunch of people sitting around a table, and the person at the head of the table whispers a phrase to the person next to them. They whisper it to the person next to them, and it goes all around the room. The whole funny part of the game is, by the time it gets back to the person who started it, you cannot even recognize the phrase. It has nothing to do with what was originally said.

That is exactly how precedent works. Once you throw the standard out, then

the whole idea of a constitutional standard is out the window, if we have judges today who are making decisions by picking and choosing the precedent that agrees with their opinion rather than basing their decisions on true constitutional standards.

I oppose Ms. Kagan's nomination because she, in my opinion, does not believe in constitutional limited government. She does not believe in the original intent of the Constitution but more of President Obama's belief of a more living Constitution. As President Obama said before he was elected, he sees the Constitution as a document of negative liberties because it tells the government what it cannot do. But it does not tell us what we have to do.

It was never supposed to tell us what we have to do. But the progressives in power in Washington and many of our judges believe they need, through court rulings, to change that Constitution. What has resulted in that is the government controlling more and more of our lives, spending and borrowing money we do not have, and bringing our country to the brink of economic disaster.

We cannot afford more ``yes, we can'' judges in our country. We can cannot afford more ``yes, we can'' Senators or Congressmen. And we certainly cannot afford another ``yes, we can'' President. The decisions that have been made about our economy over the last couple of years have brought our economy to its knees. This is no longer something we can blame on President Bush. In fact, the Democrats have been in control of policymaking, economic policy spending for 4 years now. This is not Bush's recession. This is the result of Democratic economic policies.

This nomination will continue our move in the wrong direction because it will put another person on the Court who does not see their role as limiting what we can do in Congress, and this Congress desperately needs a Supreme Court that tells Congress no when we step outside the bounds of the Constitution.

Mr. President, I believe America is looking at Congress closer than they ever have before. They expect us to make the hard decisions, to stop the spending, to stop the waste, to stop the borrowing, to stop the debt, to stop the government takeovers, and to stop our courts from taking our freedoms away. That is why I am opposing Ms. Kagan to be a Supreme Court Justice, and I encourage my colleagues to consider their vote and to vote no.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit H.R. 1586 with instructions:

Mr. DeMint moves to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on

Finance with instructions to report the same back to the

Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the

2010 individual income tax rates, and to include provisions

which decrease spending as appropriate to offset such

permanent extension.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit with instructions H.R. 1586:

Mr. DeMint moves to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on

Finance with instructions to report the same back to the

Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of

current individual income tax rates on small businesses and

provisions which decrease spending as appropriate to offset

such permanent extension.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit (with instructions) to H.R. 5297:

Mr. DeMINT moves to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on

Finance with instructions to report the same back to the

Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the

2010 individual income tax rates, and to include provisions

which decrease spending as appropriate to offset such a

permanent extension.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit (with instructions) to H.R. 5297:

Mr. DeMINT moves to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on

Finance with instructions to report the same back to the

Senate with changes to extend all current individual income

tax rates on small businesses and to include provisions which

decrease spending as appropriate to offset such a permanent

extension.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts. The blame game has gone on long enough. There is certainly enough blame to go around. But I need to remind the majority that they have been in control of Congress for 4 years. Presidents do not write economic policy, spend money, or add to the debt. Congress does. The Democratic Party has been in control of both Houses since 2006.

When the Democrats took control, unemployment was below 5 percent, the economy was growing, and the debt was half of what it is today. Certainly looking at the projected debt of this administration, we are looking at tripling the national debt over the next decade.

It is time for us to focus on solving problems rather than trying to wax eloquent about a President who effectively did not write economic policy for over 4 years.

It is important today that we are extending unemployment benefits. But it is curious to a lot of us when the majority has often said unemployment compensation is one of the most important forms of stimulus, that when Republicans ask that we pay for the extension of unemployment benefits with unspent stimulus money, there appears to be outrage. Instead, there is a strong consensus on the Democratic side that we not pay for this; we just add it to the national debt.

I, frankly, do not think we can help people for a few months by bankrupting our country. We know our debt is unsustainable. To bring up bill after bill that we are not even willing to talk about how we pay for is disturbing to millions of Americans right now.

I certainly support my colleague from Massachusetts, as well as my colleague from Oklahoma, who are presenting amendments today, reasonable, commonsense ways that we can pay for the unemployment benefits extension so that helping people today does not diminish the quality of life of millions of Americans tomorrow.

Another issue that is going to affect millions of Americans is in just over 5 months tax rates for almost every American who pays taxes is going to go up. It is something that is not talked about, and Republicans are not talking about a tax cut. We are talking about keeping current tax rates the same.

A few weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would at least keep capital gains and dividend taxes the same rather than allow them to go up--dividend taxes to nearly 40 percent and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent. Many senior citizens count on dividends, as well as cashing in their retirement savings. Capital gains and dividend taxes have a huge impact on our senior citizens as well as millions of other Americans. Unfortunately, the majority voted this amendment down and voted effectively to raise these taxes on Americans.

Income taxes will go up. But today I want to focus on what I think is probably the most immoral tax that we impose on people from the Federal level, and that is the death tax.

This year, the death tax is gone, the first year since the early 1900s. Americans who work and save, start businesses, start farms, their heirs do not have to sell their property in order to pay the death tax.

The Heritage Foundation says if we allow the death tax to go back up to 55 percent, it will cost Americans over 1.5 million jobs because this is not just for the people who pay the death tax, it is for the people who work in the businesses and the farms that are often liquidated or at least sold in part to pay this heavy tax.

What right does the government have to take someone's property because they die? They have paid taxes on the property and on the income throughout their entire lives, and many times they paid a very high tax rate if they worked hard and made a good living.

What right do we have when they die to take that property? Why should the government get a bigger inheritance from someone dying than their family?

That is what is going to happen if we allow the majority to continue with their plans to allow the death tax to go up. This will cost lots of jobs, break up many family businesses and family farms, and cost, as I said, 1.5 million jobs. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

I am going to offer an amendment today to keep current tax rates the same for the death tax which was eliminated this year.

Another amendment I am going to offer relates to the Arizona immigration law. I took the time to read the immigration law that Arizona passed and found that much of what has been reported in the media is completely false. I was actually stunned as I read through it how often it refers to just the enforcement of existing Federal law. There is nothing in it about racial profiling, except that we cannot do it, and we cannot stop someone if we suspect them of being illegal. We can only

ask for documentation if we stop them or arrest them for some other crime. This is, in effect, the Federal law.

It is interesting that the Obama administration is suing Arizona for enforcing Federal law while ignoring many sanctuary cities that openly flaunt their resistance to Federal law. It makes no sense in a free country, in a democracy where we are built on the rule of law, for the Federal Government to try to intimidate the people of Arizona who are only trying to protect themselves.

As many Americans know, Arizona waited for years for the Federal Government to do its job, to secure the borders, and to protect the people from the drug trafficking, the human trafficking, and the people who come across and who have murdered the citizens there.

Many States are suffering the same fate of a Federal Government that has failed to secure our borders and to protect our people.

The amendment I am offering today is going to disallow any funding to be used by the Federal Government to carry out this lawsuit against Arizona. This is something we know, if the American people could vote today, they would vote in favor of. The question is, Will the majority vote to support the people of Arizona or to support this political move that we are now seeing from the White House to attempt to intimidate the people of Arizona?

I can say proudly that the people of Arizona are not going to be intimidated by this government. If we can provide some help today, that is certainly what I intend to do.

Mr. President, I wish to offer a couple of motions.

Motion to Suspend

In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit with regard to the estate tax, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, according to rule V of the standing rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit with regard to the Arizona immigration law, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this year is the first time in many decades that death in America is not a taxable event. For the first time in many, many years, folks who worked hard and built businesses, built farms, do not lose what they have worked for when they die.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we do nothing as a Senate and allow the death tax to go from zero to 55 percent, America will lose 1.5 million jobs because when we take the money and the property of the people who are working and running businesses and farms, it not only affects the families of those who die but those who work for those businesses and work on those farms.

It is immoral for us to take what people work for throughout their lives. Their property, their income has all been taxed at least once before. Let's do the right thing and vote for this amendment today. Let's keep the death tax at zero. This is not a tax cut; it is just leaving the tax rate the same.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment disallows any use of taxpayer money to fund the lawsuit against Arizona for its immigration policy.

I hope all my colleagues have taken the time to read this bill because what has been reported on it, in most cases, is false.

This bill is very clear. Its intent is to support and enforce the Federal law to protect the citizens of Arizona. Our Federal Government should be doing its job to secure our borders rather than trying to bully and intimidate the people of Arizona. We should not be suing and hassling the people of Arizona for doing what we should be doing here, and that is protecting the citizenry.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment to disallow any funding for this lawsuit.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit with instructions to the House message with respect to H.R. 4213:

Mr. DeMint moves to commit the House Message with respect

to H.R. 4213 to the Committee on the Judiciary with

instructions to report the same back forthwith with an

amendment as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit with instructions to the House message with respect to H.R. 4213:

Mr. DeMint moves to commit the House Message with respect

to H.R. 4213 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a

permanent repeal of the estate and generation-skipping

transfer taxes, and to include provisions which decrease

spending as appropriate to offset such permanent repeal.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of South Carolina men's baseball team for making history by winning the NCAA College World Series last night.

Whit Merrifield's clutch hit in the 11th inning brought home the winning run and gave USC its first ever national championship for any men's team at the university.

In spite of losing their first game in Omaha, the team persevered through multiple elimination games. They were motivated by the courageous spirit of one young fan, Bayler Teal, who at age 7 may have been the biggest Gamecock fan in America. He suffered from a rare form of cancer and died last Thursday during the Gamecock's come-from-behind victory over Oklahoma. He wore his Gamecock ball cap the day he died.

Fortunately, Bayler's parents and 5-year-old brother were able to be in Omaha last night to see the Gamecocks win the final game of the College World Series.

So today I join all South Carolinians and Gamcocks fans everywhere to congratulate the players, Coach Ray Tanner, and his staff for an outstanding victory.

Now all America knows that USC means the University of South Carolina. Go Gamecocks.

First-time Home Buyer Tax Credit

Mr. President, I want to speak in objection to the majority's latest attempt to secretly push through another extension of the first-time home buyer tax credit--the third time the Senate has modified or extended this credit since July of 2008, when it was originally included in the majority's Housing and Economic Recovery Act.

Home buyer tax credits have several flaws, and I opposed them in the past because I believe they are a temporary infusion of capital into the marketplace and simply increase the government's grip on our Nation's economic growth.

As often happens when the government becomes involved in attempting to grow a portion of the Nation's economy, we only create a bubble that will eventually burst. As the National Association of Realtors said in late April, shortly before the expiring of the tax credit on April 30:

It is time for the housing market to stand on its own feet.

It is time for the government to stop picking winners and losers in the housing market based on arbitrary dates and arbitrary qualifications. For the people who haven't closed on their homes by today, it is not that they won't get their house; it is only that they won't get a taxpayer subsidy for having bought a house now rather than later. This taxpayer subsidy has been funded by their neighbor, who may not have had the opportunity to buy on the government time line.

We have watched this majority push through big spending bills and targeted government credits. What we have learned is that government spending does not grow economic prosperity; rather, government spending grows deficits. It creates economic bubbles. Without a doubt, it increases taxes.

For 18 months, this majority has created a false sense of hope for consumers and markets while increasing taxes on small businesses and the most productive and hard-working Americans. Rather than creating tax equality and predictability for all Americans, this Congress has tried to force taxpayers to subsidize the purchasing of cars, homes, and even appliances.

We know what works. When American businesses have the predictability of low tax rates, they in turn invest in job creation and create real economic growth.

The enormous amount of spending this Congress has taken on is unsustainable and will eventually lead to the highest tax increases in our Nation's history.

This bill is no different. I ask my colleagues, how many times do we need to extend this home buyer tax credit? What do we tell the people who bought their homes just before it started, and the ones who bought their homes right after it expired? Do we say their mortgage rates will be higher for the whole time they own their home, and their

taxes will be paying for their neighbor's home, who happened to buy in the government's window of opportunity?

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has called the home buyer credit ``Washington's worst tax policy idea.'' They have estimated that the $12.6 billion already spent on this program through February created ``close to zero'' jobs and that at least 85 percent of these buyers would have likely purchased a home anyway.

Also, the Treasury Department's inspector general found the home buyer credit has been riddled with fraud and chronicled over 14,000 instances of false claims. This is typical of government programs. The report ``found as many as 67 taxpayers using the same home to claim the credit''--the same home. It also found that over 1,000 prisoners received credit for homes they claimed to buy while in jail.

How is it fair to subsidize Americans who purchased their first home only because they purchased it on the government's timetable?

With this latest extension of the credit, the majority is not only cutting defense spending to fund the credits, but now it is admitting that taxing Americans at the highest rates in history isn't enough. Now they are going to tax foreign visitors to pay for buying our homes in America.

My hope is that my colleagues will use the recess next week to finally listen to the millions of Americans who are tired of this Congress choosing winners and losers. They are tired of the excessive spending, and they are fearful of tax increases yet to come. They are telling us very clearly: Stop spending, stop borrowing, stop adding to the debt, and stop the government takeovers.

Most of all, they agree on one thing: This Congress needs to get out of the way and let America get back to work.

Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 3371

Mr. President, I will now speak on the status of the Federal Aviation Administration legislation and, hopefully, move the process along a great deal. At the end of this, I will offer a unanimous consent request.

As many Senators will remember, early last year a small commuter plane crashed just outside Buffalo, NY. The accident killed all 49 people onboard and one person on the ground.

In the months following the crash, the Senate Commerce Committee and its aviation subcommittee held a number of hearings to get a better understanding of what exactly went wrong during Flight 3407 and what Congress could do to help fix it.

I thank Senator Dorgan in particular for his leadership on this issue. From those lessons we have learned and during the drafting of the FAA reauthorization, our colleagues in the House worked with us, and we were able to craft a number of important reforms that formed the safety section of both the House and the Senate reauthorization bills.

Let me take a moment to outline some of them: an FAA pilots records database. Had we had a database like the one we have in this bill, it would be very likely that the pilot of Flight 3407 would not have been allowed to fly that day.

Increased hourly requirements for copilots: If we had these requirements, the copilot on Flight 3407 would have had more experience, and we may have averted a disaster.

There are a number of improvements in the House bill, including enhanced mentoring for pilots, increased utilization of safety management programs, better crew management initiatives, as well as clearer responses to NTSB safety recommendations. All of these reforms will go a long way to improving aviation safety.

Sadly, we have yet to get this legislation across the finish line that would implement these reforms. Parochial politics, political payoffs, and backroom deals are keeping these important safety measures from passing.

Some Members are trying to cut special deals for special flights to their States. Numerous Members are looking to impose new taxes on travelers already burdened by too much taxation. Some Congressmen are trying to cut a special deal for their buddies in the labor unions. All of these things are beside the point and are exactly what aviation policy should not be about.

Since last October, the Senate has had a bill sitting before us that will immediately implement the reforms that the families of Flight 3407 have been calling for. They have waited too long. The fights over FedEx, taxes, and special flights aren't going to go away anytime soon. If we let them, these controversial issues will continue to hold up the safety provisions on which we all agree.

Let's say that enough is enough; it is time to pass the safety improvements and let the rest of the FAA stand on its own.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3371 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I very much support the extension, but I have asked that this safety provision be moved along with it so that we can get this done instead of continuing to allow it to be held hostage to political interests on the bill.

I would be supportive of a unanimous consent request that would extend the FAA authorization 30 days if it included my request for the safety provisions of the bill.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, we have been promised for months that this bill, the FAA reauthorization, which the Senator from North Dakota and I approve, would go through. The families of flight 3407 have been here constantly. As the Senator knows, one of those families is from my hometown. They have waited long enough. There is no reason that we need to hold these safety provisions hostage to passing a whole bill that is bogged down in political fights.

I ask unanimous consent to amend my unanimous consent request to include the 30-day reauthorization of FAA. There are none of these provisions the Senator objects to. If there are additional safety provisions that can be in the final bill, we can do that. But nothing in my request compromises what the Senator from North Dakota wants to accomplish. I ask unanimous consent to amend my UC to call up and pass

I object.

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

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I assure the Senator I am in complete support not only of the 30-day extension but the bill he and I passed out of the Senate. Believe me, I was here for that and very much support it. If the Senator's colleagues will accept it the way we passed it through the Senate, it would be done today. But because of this holdup, what I consider safety provisions being held up unnecessarily for political reasons, I object.

Madam President, on behalf of other Members of the Republican conference, I object.

Madam President, on behalf of other members of the Republican Conference, I object.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the motion that relates to the coming increases in capital gains tax and dividend tax. Very few Americans are aware and I think even some people in the Senate are not aware that in about 6 months, there is going to be a tax explosion in this country--taxes on everyone from the 10- percent bracket all the way up to major corporations. Taxes are going up at a time when we know raising taxes will kill jobs in America.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we allow taxes to expire this year, the current rate of taxes to expire, and taxes go up in our economy, in the first year we could lose 270,000 jobs. This is really unacceptable when unemployment is already nearly 10 percent, the economy is waning, and we just got a bad housing report. As all of these companies plan for their future, they are certainly not going to risk capital to expand their companies and add people if they know their taxes are going to go up.

What I proposed as part of this debate on a tax bill is to focus on just one area that we know has a lot to do with investment, with growth of companies; that is, the capital gains tax and the dividends tax. My motion would refer the underlying bill back to committee to add the provisions that cap gains tax and dividend taxes will both stay at 15 percent. If we do not act, in 6 months the capital gains taxes will go from 15 to 20 percent and the dividend taxes, which affect a lot of senior citizens on fixed incomes, will go from 15 all the way up to nearly 40 percent. That makes absolutely no sense in a recession and with the joblessness we have across this country. Surely, as a Senate, as a Congress, we could recognize that raising taxes on investment-- those who are going to risk their capital--does not make sense when we are trying to do everything we can to stimulate the economy.

We tried it the other way. We tried the government spending approach. We all know this government spending plan we call the stimulus, where we spent nearly $1 trillion, has failed. The President promised that if we rushed that through and got stimulus immediately into the economy, over a year ago, that we could keep unemployment below 8 percent and put Americans back to work. But since then, we have lost millions of real jobs. We have added some government jobs because this is basically a government spending plan, but we certainly have not put the real economy most Americans depend on back to work.

We are continuing to lose ground. Yet we stick to this failed stimulus plan. Even when we try to pay for extending unemployment benefits with unspent stimulus money, my colleagues on the other side are holding so tightly to this that they will not even use that money to pay for it. Instead, they want to raise taxes and add to our debt-- again, at a time when we really cannot afford this as a nation, when all of the so-called economic experts are warning us that this debt we have today is unsustainable. But almost every week in this body, the Democrats are proposing programs that add to the debt, that increase taxes--everything that is counter to improving our economy and adding to jobs and helping to build a brighter future in this country. Even some of those who were strong supporters of the stimulus bill have come out publicly and said: We guessed wrong. I am afraid we should not continue to guess.

One thing we know from history is--if we look back over several decades--

when we lower capital gains and dividends we improve the economy and we increase job creation in the economy. It makes no sense for us to move ahead, sending the signal to all of the investors in this country that we are going to punish their investment at a time when we need them to step up to the plate.

I hope my colleagues will consider this. What we are asking is that the bill be sent back to the Finance Committee so they can work on ways to keep capital gains and dividend taxes the same rather than let them explode, along with all of the other taxes that are going to go up in the next 6 months.

I hope we will have a chance to vote on this bill. I understand the majority is trying to table this motion. I strongly urge my colleagues to take up this matter, to send it back to the Finance Committee where they can figure out how to make sure we do not kill more jobs in the economy like we have done with the other failed stimulus plan.

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