Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to address the same subject and I certainly share the views of the Senator from Florida that we have got to solve this so-called sequester problem because, as the Secretary of Defense has said, it would be disastrous for the Defense Department to take another $\1/2\ trillion hit to its budget after already committing to do so.

We have required under our Budget Act that the Defense Department reduce spending by about $487 billion over the next 10 years. To add another \1/2\ trillion to that would, in fact, as Secretary Panetta said, be disastrous. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague.

Let me speak to the President's proposal specifically that was made at the beginning of the so-called negotiations here. His offer would increase taxes by more than $1.6 trillion on individuals, on investment income, small businesses, under the estate tax, farms and estates, and American energy producers.

As President Reagan said many years ago, if you tax something, you get less of it. When you have to pay more taxes to engage in certain activities, you tend not to engage in those activities.

What is happening now in the market is a perfect example. A lot of people are of the view that capital gains taxes are going to go up, so they are selling their shares of stock or property now in order to pay the tax on the gain at the lower rate this year rather than the higher rate next year.

Tax rates should not be a factor in business decisions that are made. At least, raising taxes, as we will see in a moment, is a very big wet blanket on economic activity and economic growth. When we are in a situation where economic growth is clearly less than 2 percent, it is not the time to raise taxes. As the President himself said almost exactly 2 years ago, when we decided to extend the tax policy that is currently in effect and had been for many years before that, to allow tax rates to go up would be--and this is his quotation--``a blow to the economy.''

So if it was true then, it is even more true today because the GDP growth is less today than it was 2 years ago when he made that correct comment. But the result of his proposal here to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion would, in fact, reduce the economic growth, would result in fewer jobs, would result in less investment and, therefore, slower growth in many major sectors of the economy.

To show you how unserious his offer was, when the Republican leader yesterday asked unanimous consent to have a vote on it, he said, well, the President made his offer. I have put it into legislative language. Let us have a vote on it. The Democratic leader said, no, we don't want to do that and he objected, and it is clear why, because not only would it not receive Republican votes, it wouldn't receive Democratic votes.

In particular, let us understand why. A lot of our colleagues here on both sides of the aisle appreciate the impact on small business from raising tax rates. That is why there is a lot of difference of opinion on the Democratic side, as well as the view on the Republican side that this is not the right way to raise revenues if you were going to do it. You don't raise it on the backs of small business. The plan the President has proposed would hit small businesses directly.

Why is that the case? Because unlike corporations, which pay their taxes as corporations--they pay the 35-percent corporate rate-- individual rates are the basis under which most small businesses pay their taxes. These are so-called flowthrough entities. Most of the small businesses, owned by an individual and maybe a couple members of his family--for example, your local plumbing business or air conditioning business, whatever it might be--pay their taxes as individuals.

When you raise the top individual rate or the second marginal rate or you raise capital gains rates or the estate tax rates, you are directly hitting those small business people. They employ millions of Americans. In fact, about a quarter of all workers today are employed in small business.

Over half, about 53 percent exactly, of this so-called flowthrough income is the money these small businesses earn. So when you raise the top two brackets, rates, or you raise the capital gains rate, for example, you are directly impacting these small businesses' ability to capitalize their businesses to hire more workers, to buy another pickup truck or whatever it might be. That is why we have said if you want to raise more tax revenues, there is a better way to do it than by raising the rates that would directly apply to these small business people.

Let me put this in perspective for you. According to the Office of Management and Budget figures, government spending has exceeded 24 percent of the GDP since 2009. That is well above the historical average, so we are spending way more than we ever have. But, according to CBO, tax revenues, the money the government brings in, are projected by 2016 to exceed 18 percent of GDP to get to 18.6 percent of GDP by 2022. That is above the historical average of revenues. So we are spending way more than our historical average. Also, in a relatively short period of time our revenues, because of the economy, as well as our tax rates, will produce more than the average revenue to the Federal Government.

It is clear we are bankrupt, not because we are not going to have enough revenues but because we are spending too much. The question is, is it fair to send small businesses the bill here for this excessive spending?

Even if we did believe President Obama would dedicate new revenue from tax increases to help pay down the deficit--and I don't believe that--new revenue extracted from the top two brackets would only fund the government for about a week, a little less than a week. So that is clearly not the answer.

When the President says, well, we need to ask the wealthy to pay a little more, let us parse that for a second. You are not asking them to do it; if you pass the law, the IRS will come after you if you don't. This is not a pleasant request. This is the IRS saying you have to pay more money to the U.S. Government, and the President always likes to say, a little more.

Well, it is not so little if your tax rate now goes up to almost 40 percent. If you are a small businessman and you have to pay 40 percent to Uncle Sam, you are probably not going to be able to grow your business. You might not be able to stay in business. You certainly are not going to be able to hire more people. That is not little to them. It is little to funding the U.S. Government.

What the President says these small businesses and others are going to have to pay, as I said, only funds the government for a little less than a week. It doesn't solve our deficit problem. It doesn't begin to solve our deficit problem.

Have you heard the President talk about reducing spending? No. He doesn't want to talk about that. It is as if he says the whole answer to our problem here is to ask the wealthy to pay a little bit more.

Well, in terms of the Federal budget, it is a little bit more. It is not going to help very much. Where are you going to get the rest of the savings? That is what we ought to be talking about here.

Then, as I was talking about before, it is how you do it that matters a lot. He should stop pursuing tax rate increases, as I said, and revisit the comments he made a year ago. Here is what the President said. ``What we said was give us''--to ``give us''--that is a nice way of saying we are going to make you pay more in taxes. ``Us,'' I gather here, is the U.S. Government.

What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional

revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes,

tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating

loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax

reform process that could have lowered rates generally while

broadening the base.

He is right about that. If you want to get $1.2 billion or 800 billion, which is the offer the Speaker of the House has made, in new tax revenues, you can do that without touching tax rates. What you could do is to put a cap on the amount of money the wealthy people in this country receive in the way of deductions for various things that they do, the taxes they pay to State and local government. They have got a big mortgage on a second home or something such as that. You could limit the amount of money that can be taken in special exemptions and credits and deductions and receive that revenue that way rather than by raising rates. The President said so. He is right.

Speaker Boehner is saying, all right, Mr. President, you won the election, you want more taxes, we are willing to do that. We don't want to do it, we think it will hurt the economy, but we are willing to do it.

But to minimize the damage on the economy, at least do it through eliminating these loopholes, these so-called deductions, credits, and special provisions. Don't try to do it by raising tax rates because that directly hits the small businesses you are trying to help create jobs right now.

Here is what small businesses care about. They spend a lot. As I say, you have a dad, his two sons, maybe mom does the accounting for the firm and so on; they have to be concerned about the estate tax. Those small businesses spend a lot of money trying to plan around paying the estate tax. On January 1, if we don't do anything, there is only $1 million exempted. If you have a small business with a bunch of trucks and equipment and the like, you are going to have far more than $1 million in assets in the business. The same thing for a farm.

What happens is that rate goes up to 55 percent. The amount exempted is only $1 million. So everything above $1 million you are paying 55 percent on.

I can personally tell you the stories of small business people in Phoenix who have had to sell their business because they didn't have the money to pay the taxes. The business, the one I am thinking of right now, a printing company, is out of business now. It used to employ 200 people. It used to make a lot of contributions to charity in our community. No more. They are out of business. The employees are gone. The contributions to charity are gone. That is what happens when you don't care about the estate tax rate. So we should care about that. It shouldn't have to go up.

On capital gains, as I said, it is the same thing. A lot of people are cashing out now because they fear there is going to be a higher rate later. For larger businesses, we see some enormous dividends being paid this month. It may not be possible to pay those dividends starting in January when the dividend rate would skyrocket--close to 40 percent if we don't do anything. These are not things that help business and job creation.

What I would ask my colleagues to think of, if you are not willing to vote

on the President's plan, at least listen to what he said a year ago when he said we can raise this tax revenue. We don't have to raise tax rates. We can do it by closing some of these loopholes.

He was right about that. If we are going to have to raise revenues, I would suggest that is the way to do it--at all costs avoid raising tax rates, which would, as he said a year ago, be a blow to our economy.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. President, tomorrow this body will vote to advance legislation that will grant permanent normal trade relations with Russia and, in so doing, repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik sanctions that denied most-favored nation status to China.

As part of this comprehensive package, the Senate will also pass the so-called Magnitsky bill. This piece of legislation was inspired by a young Russian attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in 2009 after he was jailed on trumped-up charges for exposing a vast web of corruption and tax fraud by some of Russia's most senior officials.

Sergei's story, extensively reported and documented by human rights activists, business leaders, journalists, and others, helped stir a bipartisan group of Senators led by our colleague Senator Ben Cardin to draft legislation to hold accountable officials from all over the world who disregard basic human rights and fail to uphold the rule of law, including those responsible for the murder of Sergei Magnitsky.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us is deficient. While I do not intend to make perfection the enemy of the good, this bill falls short of the longstanding objective of this body to demonstrate a sustained commitment to the long tradition of U.S. leadership in the fight against corruption and human rights abuses around the world.

Regrettably, the House-passed bill deals only with Russian officials. Sergei Magnitsky's story could have been lost. It was kept alive by impassioned and inspired friends and supporters in Russia.

But from Pyongyang to Minsk, to Harare, and elsewhere, there are many

who remain voiceless under despots and strongmen and lack the advocates and resources to detail their abuses and seek justice, whether through documentary film or newspaper stories.

That is why the Senate bill went beyond the particular case of Sergei Magnitsky. Much like Jackson-Vanik forced Budapest, Warsaw, and Moscow to allow citizens to freely emigrate or travel, I believe a global approach would help to deter future abuses throughout the world. I am puzzled and, frankly, disappointed that our House colleagues did not recognize our government needs tools that will allow it to stand up for these individuals regardless of where they are in the world.

Because some have elevated the subject of commerce above human rights, there is a view that it is more important to pass PNTR than a global Magnitsky bill; thus, we should settle for a Russia-only bill. While the Jackson-Vanik sanctions we are about to repeal have obviously outlived their usefulness, there is an urgent need for additional tools to protect the invisible around the world.

I hope our collective failure to give voice to their struggles, except in Russia, will not discourage these brave men and women, whether in Beijing, Tehran or elsewhere, from their continued efforts to root out corruption or expose rule of law abuses.

For now, at least, we address the problem in Russia. While I will not be here next year, I hope my colleagues in both the House and Senate will seek to uphold U.S. values and to do justice to Sergei Magnitsky and his legacy by passing a global bill sometime in the future.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the CRPD. The United States has a long and proud tradition of protecting human rights, especially those of the disabled. I do not believe we need to ratify an international convention to demonstrate our firm commitment in this area.

CRPD ratification would do nothing to improve the lives of the disabled in the United States, and if other countries are looking for good examples of how to improve their laws, they could do no better than to refer to U.S. laws. Just as with many treaties before this one, the CRPD would offer cover to regimes that have no intention of actually helping their citizens, while needlessly tying the hands of countries such as the United States that have actually made great strides in this area.

I take China as just one example. According to Human Rights Watch, Chinese citizens even suspected of having a mental disability can be arbitrarily committed to institutions because Chinese law offers almost no protections against involuntary civil commitment. Moreover, Beijing is now considering a draft mental health disability law that would ``permit the indefinite involuntary detention, forced medication, and forced labor of persons suspected of having a mental disability.'' Obviously, this is in direct contravention to both the spirit and the letter of the CRPD even though Beijing has ratified it--I repeat: even though Beijing has already ratified the treaty. So while this convention has no mechanism to force countries such as China to actually respect their disabled citizens, what it does do is allow their leaders to falsely present themselves as forward-leaning on disabled rights just as they continue to run roughshod over such protections at home.

Supporters of this convention claim that ratifying it would allow our country to assume the moral high ground when it comes to addressing other countries' gaps in disabilities rights. I would argue just the opposite. As I just mentioned, becoming a party to this convention would actually put us in the company of nations that are nowhere near the high ground on this issue, moral or otherwise.

Moreover, we already have the most comprehensive disability rights laws and protections in the world, period. In fact, the U.S. record of disabilities rights-related laws stretches back more than four decades, unequivocally demonstrating our commitment and leadership in this area. That is why many nations look to us for guidance in developing their own disability laws and discrimination protections. We do not need a treaty to provide that guidance, obviously.

For example, the European Union is looking to current U.S. law as a model for its own accessibility initiatives. In January of 2011, European Commission Vice President Viviane Reding discussed proposals for what is designated a ``European Accessibility Act,'' citing progress made in the United States under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,'' which I was proud to support. Reding believes ``that the EU should learn from this positive experience and go ahead in Europe too.''

The convention's supporters also erroneously contend that U.S. ratification would result in tangible benefits for Americans with disabilities who choose to live, travel, or work abroad. They assert that it would allow the United States to have greater influence over disability rights in such areas as employment or accessibility among other states that are party to CRPD. I think this is far from certain.

To be sure, Americans with disabilities face serious challenges when they travel abroad precisely because those nations' laws are not as supportive as are those here in the United States--the matter I spoke of a moment ago. But it is the example we have set through our legislation, not ratification of this convention, that could improve their access, for example, to technology, as our Telecommunications Act of 1996 does, or accommodations that would be available, as the American Fair Housing Act does, for example. Only individual member states can draft and implement and enforce the type of wide-ranging laws that are necessary to actually protect the rights of persons with disabilities--laws, I might add, that are already in place here in the United States of America.

We know all too well from experience with other treaties that states such as China routinely flout their treaty obligations. I believe it boils down to this: Countries look to the United States for leadership in this area not because we are party to an international treaty but because we have actually demonstrated our commitment through tangible and sustained action. Our

commitment to the rights of the disabled does not end with the passage of laws or the enforcement of regulations; rather, it is an ongoing commitment through civil society and a myriad of civic groups, NGOs, and religious organizations, many of which work abroad to help improve the lives of persons with disabilities. It also extends to individuals, including entrepreneurial Americans who continuously seek to develop new cutting-edge technologies to improve the lives of anyone who might benefit from such tools.

I am not naive regarding the challenges we face in ensuring that persons with disabilities around the world can benefit from the kind of education, employment, and housing access Americans with disabilities already enjoy here in the United States. I firmly believe the United States must continue to pursue this disability diplomacy on both a bilateral and multilateral basis where it is appropriate. But it is not at all clear to me that it is necessary to ratify this convention to achieve our goal of promoting disability rights and protecting the disabled from discrimination.

At the end of the day, I believe the proponents argue two contradictory positions: first, that it is really important that the United States ratify the convention so that nations will have to respect the rights of disabled persons. The second argument they make is that the United States need not be concerned about obligations under the treaty because it is not enforceable, it really has no effect on us.

Well, both things cannot be true. Either it is a problem or it is not effective. In either event, it is not an argument for ratification of the treaty. So while I respect the goals and the aspirations of the proponents, they do not justify committing the United States to another international obligation. As a result, I will oppose the resolution of ratification.

First of all, I want to say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I very much have enjoyed the conversations we have had, and perhaps more so when we have been in disagreement because I think we have brought out a number of important points on a variety of issues. So I always appreciate his views. Secondly, since the Senator has specifically referred to the points I have made, let me just respond in one way.

I don't gainsay the argument that people who have a deep belief in trying to pursue a particular human right or other goal believe that getting together in the international community and talking about these things is a useful exercise. It is hard to argue in the abstract with that proposition, so I can understand the letters that would be written.

The hard reality is, however, that there are nation states such as China that do like to sign up to these organizations and gain the reputation for doing good things while, in fact, not doing things, as I pointed out. So to some extent it can serve the opposite goal of giving cover to countries that really have no intention of acting in good faith or in good ways that we have demonstrated as the United States, and that is one of the problems here.

I do acknowledge, and I will not use any more of the Senator's time, but when one of two things is true, either it is fairly meaningless or it is really meaningful. I don't think that we can make both arguments as arguments in support of our signing up to the treaty.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

If the Democratic manager of the bill has nothing right at this moment, I wish to modify an amendment which is at the desk, No. 3123, and ask that the amendment be withdrawn and the Senate consider, instead, the amendment I have at the desk.

I yield to the Senator.

That is correct.

The original amendment, No. 3123, would be withdrawn. The modification of that amendment, as written by Senator Kerry, and I believe cleared by the Senator's side, would be the modified.

That is correct.

To make about a 45-second statement.

Eventually, but not today.

Correct, although I would say I am not going to need a rollcall vote at the end.

Yes. This amendment is also offered by Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Risch, Lugar, Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn, Rubio, Wicker, Ayotte, Collins, Corker, and Vitter. I do understand it has been cleared by both sides, and I do appreciate the cooperation with Senator Kerry.

The amendment provides that the administration shall brief the appropriate committees on the dialogue between the United States and Russia on issues related to or limits on or controls on nuclear arms, missile defense systems, or long-range conventional strike systems.

I think it is in the administration's interests to consult with the Congress and keep us adequately briefed on these discussions because they could, of course, eventually lead to an agreement which might then require the advice and consent of the Senate.

I note former Senator Arthur Vandenburg first said, ``If I'm going to be in on the crash landing, I want to be in on the takeoff,'' meaning, of course, that it is much easier for the administration to obtain our consent if they seek advice during the consultation process. I would confess this amendment was prompted by recent press stories, including one on November 8, which reported that our Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul said, ``President Obama would like to have a serious conversation with President Putin about a further round of reductions in nuclear weapons to build on the START treaty.''

I conclude that another round of negotiations or discussions with Russia concerning nuclear arms will be extremely complicated and important and is likely to concern the missile defenses as conventional long-range strike systems, about which I know I and others have serious misgivings. I think this suggests the necessity and the desirability of the kind of consultation we would be requesting of the administration prior to any agreement being reached.

I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence. At the appropriate time I will ask for approval of the amendment, as modified.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Texas for her leadership on this and so many other issues that we have worked on over the years. One of my regrets in leaving the Senate is that I will not be able to work with her, and she has said the same thing about me. We will be off doing something else, but we are not going to give up on some of the fights we have been engaged in during these years.

I want to just begin where my colleague left off, about the meaning of this fiscal cliff and what is being proposed as alternatives to going over the fiscal cliff. I was interested this week that the President has embarked on what one newspaper referred to as ``the fiscal cliff campaign trail.'' We have seen the pictures. He is out speaking as if the campaign were still going on, and the centerpiece of his pitch--and I heard him say it on TV again last night--is that the House of Representatives should pass a bill that was passed in the Senate related to 2001 and 2003 income taxes.

The President is a constitutional scholar, and he served in the Senate. He knows that can't be done. It is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all revenue measures must be initiated in the House of Representatives. That is one reason the bill got through the Senate, because everybody knew it couldn't pass. It was simply a statement by our Democratic colleagues. It wasn't serious legislation. But if we look at the legislation itself, we begin to see why Republicans are so opposed to what the President is proposing--because of the job-killing policies contained in that bill the President would ask the House of Representatives to pass.

What are we talking about specifically? I don't like to get into this kind of detail very often, but somebody has to at some point just discuss the actual facts of what this bill would do. It would raise the marginal income tax rates from 33 percent to 35 percent in the fourth bracket, and in the fifth bracket from 36 percent to 39.6 percent-- almost 40 percent.

Well, what is the problem with that? Let's start with the fact that 53 percent of all income from so-called flowthrough businesses is subject to these higher tax rates. That is because most small businesses are not corporations. They are called flowthrough entities-- subchapter S corporations, limited partnerships, and those kinds of entities that pay their income taxes as if they were individuals. So they are governed by the top two marginal rates.

Well, they are governed by all the marginal rates of the income-tax code. So when we raise those rates, we are raising taxes on much of small business income. In fact, almost 1 million small business owners--940,000 to be exact--would be hit by the higher taxes caused by the President's proposal. That is an average, by the way, of well over 18,000 per State of the Union.

What else would it do? It goes directly to business taxes, such as capital gains taxes. It raises that from 15 to 20 percent, which is why we are seeing a lot of activity right now taking advantage of the lower rate, and we are going to find virtually none of that after this rate is increased to 20 percent. It is one of the reasons we will go back into recession, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out.

It also raises taxes on qualified dividends from 15 percent, where it is today. The problem of raising taxes on qualified dividends is, as the Wall Street Journal has reported over and over again, that companies that are paying dividends are dumping them all right now so they will all be paid out before the end of the year.

If you are a retired teacher or a retired fireman or have a pension and you are counting on your investments to pay dividends in the future, forget it. Once the dividends rate goes back up, corporations are not going to plow their earnings back into dividends to the shareholders as they do today. But these don't even tell the whole story because, of course, once you are taxed as a corporation--and this pertains just to the corporations, not the flowthrough entities I mentioned--you are doubled-taxed if you also pay a dividend or you have a capital gain. You have to pay not only your corporate income tax but the tax on the gain, or the individual pays the tax on the dividends that are paid out by the corporation.

So we already have the fourth highest integrated capital gains and dividends rates in the industrialized world at over 50 percent. Why would we want to make ourselves even less competitive by raising these taxes? We would fall even further behind our international competitors with the second highest capital gains rate, 56.7 percent.

Talk about a blow to the economy--which is the way the President put it 2 years ago when he decided not to raise all of these rates. Of course, we all agreed with him on that. It would be an even bigger blow to the economy to do so today. Our growth rate today is less than it was 2 years ago when the President himself said these very policies he is advocating would be a blow to the economy.

The last thing I would mention, everybody knows about the death tax. We have forgotten about what would happen with the death tax. The death tax rate would go to 55 percent, up from 35 percent today. A lot of people think 35 percent is way too much and would like to see it eliminated. I would. But think about this. You would only have $1 million of the farm or the business or the estate exempted from the tax. After that, over half--55 percent--of everything you have worked for all your years would have to go to Uncle Sam, leaving your heirs frequently with the requirement of selling off all or part of the business or the farm, whatever it is, in order to pay for the estate tax.

It would increase the number of estates hit by the death tax from 3,600 this year to over 55,000 next year. There would be 24 times more farm estates that would be hit, 13 times more small businesses, 15 times more taxable estates.

This is not good for our economy, and it is not good for our families. The estate tax raises about 1 percent of all the tax revenue. To hurt the small businesses again by raising this death tax rate is just unconscionable.

People need to stop and think. This is not just about hitting the rich; this is about hitting small business folks, the very people we anticipate will create the jobs coming out of the economy.

Let's turn to job creation issue for just a second. Ernst & Young, the respected accounting firm, released a study recently that estimated the long-run effects of a plan very similar to the Senate bill that the President is advocating--the top two rates increasing, combined with the ObamaCare tax rates taking effect, all of this together, that study found that 710,000 jobs would be lost just as a result of this, 710,000 jobs.

The President likes to brag every now and then that we have an increase

of 100,000 or 115,000 jobs in a month. Here is 710,000 jobs they say would be lost just from the increase in these tax rates. Our gross domestic product would decline by $200 billion, and wages would fall by 1.8 percent.

I know these statistics make our eyes glaze over sometimes, but these are the facts; these are the results. And poorer families and a weak economy and a lot of joblessness are the result.

To put these numbers into perspective, 42 business organizations representing tens of millions of American employees--including those in wholesaling, air conditioning, retail, franchising industries, and others--recently sent a letter to the congressional leadership urging Congress not to raise income taxes during negotiations over the fiscal cliff and instead to pursue comprehensive progrowth tax reform.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

I will conclude by quoting one sentence from it.

We call on Congress to avoid raising marginal tax rates on

employers, either as part of negotiations over the fiscal

cliff, or as part of a larger effort to reform the tax code.

Instead, Congress should seek to enact comprehensive tax

reform that simplifies the tax code and encourages economic

growth for both passthrough businesses and corporations.

As I said, the passthrough entities are those small businesses, and the corporations are those that pay under the corporate tax rate. So I think the data, as well as the voices from employers around the country, make it clear that the Senate bill, combined with the tax increases from ObamaCare, would have a devastating effect on economic growth and our ability to create jobs.

What should we do instead, just to summarize? I think the better approach is the one the Republicans have been proposing. We actually have a plan, as opposed to the administration's plan--the only part of which I can discern is to pass the Senate bill, which raises tax rates. Our plan is to avoid the tax rate increases that would otherwise automatically occur on January 1 and commit to tax and entitlement reform that raises revenue through economic growth, eliminates wasteful credits and deductions and loopholes, and cuts spending in the future.

Recall that, in 1986, President Reagan signed into law a historic tax reform bill that lowered corporate and individual tax rates and eliminated a lot of loopholes. It wasn't a perfect bill, but the 1986 reform package can serve as a guide for revenue-neutral tax reform moving forward. Cutting our corporate tax rate--which had a combined rate of 39.2 percent as the highest in the industrialized world--would dramatically boost American competitiveness and improve our standard of living.

Many studies have found that lowering our corporate rate will increase growth, including one which found that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1 percent. Since we are only a little over 1.1 percent as it is, cutting it by that much would have a dramatic impact.

Comprehensive tax reform also means lowering tax rates on individuals, including the 95 percent of passthrough entities that file as individuals.

The Reagan tax reform also provided relief for businesses that are not structured as C corporations. During Ronald Reagan's 8 years, 20 million new jobs were created. More specifically, after tax reform became law, inflation and unemployment fell.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed an additional 1 minute.

If we are interested in growth, Congress must avoid raising tax rates in the lameduck session and instead pursue tax reform, which sends a signal to the world that we are open for business.

Short of going off the fiscal cliff entirely, passing the Senate tax increase instead of pursuing these progrowth and fiscal reform ideas is the worst idea on the table. Raising the top two marginal rates would reverse longstanding tax policy and hit nearly 1 million business owners in the process, and it would eliminate over 700,000 jobs.

So if the President is genuinely interested in economic growth and higher tax revenues that come from it, he should drop his demands for the Senate bill and listen to the growing bipartisan consensus that higher taxes hurt growth and lower taxes help create jobs and prosperity.

Exhibit 1

November 27, 2012.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington,

First, I would like to speak to the Senator's amendment. I want to compliment her, commend her and her other cosponsors--Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and others--in their effort to bring attention to what is clearly a great need that is going unmet. I agree the House's action is very important to begin to move this process forward.

The Senator's amendment is even less specific than the action taken by the House. We are going to need a study of the environmental impacts and evaluate possible locations. It is going to have to be done. It seems to me to make sense that this amendment would begin that process, and so I support that very strongly.

I would also like to speak to some of the military requirements which go to the fundamental question of whether we are going to move forward. If the Senator does not want to speak further right now, I would like to speak to that issue.

All right. Mr. President, as I said, this particular amendment doesn't require that the administration actually establish a site for an east coast defense, but I do believe such a site would provide an important and critical measure of protection for the east coast of the United States and also those in the southeastern part of the United States.

This has become more important due to the cancellation of earlier plans to deploy long-range ground-based interceptors in Poland. That is what it originally was going to provide, full protection for the United States. That would have provided what is called an ``early shot'' or a shot early in the trajectory of a missile coming from someplace--for example, the Middle East--toward the United States.

In conjunction with the missile defense sites that we already have in Alaska and in California, a site further to the east would provide what is called a multiple-shot opportunity or an ability in the event that there was more than one missile or one had to distinguish between decoys or one of our first missiles wasn't effective in reaching its target; it would give us, in effect, a second chance to shoot down the missile, which is always what we want to do in planning these kinds of missile defense systems.

In fact, this was the actual rationale for, the actual basis for the third site deployment in Poland, to improve protection of the United States, while at the same time affording protection for our European allies against longer range ballistic missile threats from the Middle East.

This is a critical point. We are involved in missile defense not just to protect our allies, say, in Europe but also to protect the homeland of the United States of America. But the current administration's plan seems to be oriented toward protecting allies in Europe and not strengthening the protection of the people in the United States of America.

The administration says it can cover the ballistic missile threat from the Middle East with the current inventory of 30 ground-based interceptors. First of all, I seriously disagree with that assessment. In any event, there is no way to know if that can be done for sure.

Let me cite the President's own Ballistic Missile Defense Review report, which says:

Looking ahead, it is difficult to predict precisely how the

threat to the U.S. homeland will evolve, but it is certain

that it will do so.

So you can't say based upon what happened a couple of years ago, or the deployment of the ground-based interceptors, that only 30 of them, bear in mind, are going to protect our homeland at all.

Now how does the administration then plan to make up for what it has done in terms of canceling programs that further develop the so-called Ground-Based Interceptor. Well, it plans to compensate for this loss of original Ground-Based Interceptor deployments with something that is called the IIB missile, the SM-3 Block IIB.

That is a missile that would be deployed in Poland, for example, but the problem is there is no SM-3 Block IIB missile. That is something that is in the minds of some scientists. It is on vu-graphs. There are pictures of what it might look like, but there is no such missile.

Indeed, without discussing classified material here there is no way to know whether we are actually even going to be able to develop such a missile. In fact, its development, rather, has already been delayed to the year 2021.

Now, think about it. Think about it. This is 2012, and we wouldn't even begin developing such a missile for another 9 years? This is something way off into the future, if it works, and there is no commitment to deploy it and, indeed, the President has already talked with President Medvedev of Russia about further flexibility in designing our missile defense system. It is no secret that this is potentially on the chopping block, notwithstanding the commitments of the President earlier to deploy it.

The NRC has, in fact, recommended that there be an interceptor site on the east coast of the United States as a possible substitute for this Block IIB. This concern has been raised before, and the administration has yet failed to provide a hedging strategy that the fiscal year 2012 NDAA required. So we have known of this deficiency, the fact that the GBI system is not adequate, the fact that the SM-3 Block IIB system may never be deployed. We have asked for a hedging strategy.

So what do we do if none of this works, if we don't go forward with it? We don't have that even if the law has required it.

What this amendment does is to shine an even brighter light on the concern that I have had for a long time, which is why the administration hasn't provided sufficient resources and attention to our missile defense efforts to protect the homeland of the United States. That is precisely what this would do. Sure, it would help with regard to our friends in Europe, but the primary point of this is to protect the American people. What is wrong with that?

Some examples that lead to my concern are that in his first budget, the President reduced funding for the ground-based system. That is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System that is also known as the national missile defense system, by $500 million, $\1/2\ billion. Then another billion dollars was reduced between his fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, 5-year budget plans. So they have taken an enormous amount of money out of the development of the system that was supposed to protect the United States. The President cut back the number of Ground-Based Interceptors for the defense of the homeland.

Originally, under the Bush administration, it was going to be 44. Well, that is a pretty small number when you stop to think about it, but they have cut it back to 30. Then in addition they subsequently cancelled the 10 GBI interceptors that we were going to send to Poland for defense of Europe as well as the United States.

So they have not only cut back on the funding for the development of the program, they have cut back on the actual number of the interceptors that we have already developed.

Third, the President curtailed any significant development and modernization of the GMD system, and he

cancelled the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program, which was intended to be a significant upgrade to the current Kill Vehicle. The current design is over 20 years old.

When we talk about a kill vehicle, of course, we are talking about what is on the nose of the missile that goes up, the interceptor missile, how it intercepts the ballistic missile in flight, how it finds it, how it triggers the final phase of the intercept, and how it actually impacts the offending missile.

The technology has improved dramatically since the 20 years that has elapsed from the design of the original kill vehicle of the GBI. First of all, they have reduced funding for the program. Secondly, they have cut back the number of missiles in the program. Third, they have stopped the development of the next generation of the real business end of the missile, the kill vehicle, so that it can't improve with technology and improve to meet the evolving threats of those that are developing missiles against us.

Remember, countries such as Russia, for example, have extraordinarily sophisticated multiple-entry vehicles with decoys and other technology to try to evade a missile defense that the United States has produced. If we don't develop our technology and deploy it to keep up with these developments, we are not going to have an effective system.

Over the next 5 years the administration intends to spend $20 billion on regional missile defense compared with only $4 billion for homeland missile defense. So we are going to provide protection for our allies-- European allies and so on--but only $4 billion over the next 5 years. That is about $1 billion a year on a system that is critical for the protection of the United States.

I would ask my colleagues to recall the Missile Defense Act of 1999, going all the way back then, which requires the United States to build a missile defense system capable of protecting our Nation against limited ballistic missile attacks from rogue nations and protect against any accidental and unauthorized launches from any source. We need to ensure our homeland missile defense system is as robust as possible, and a missile defense site on the east coast may be one of the best means for accomplishing this.

In other words, of course, we are concerned about North Korea or Iran, but there are a couple other countries in the world that may not wish us any harm but that have extraordinarily capable systems--I speak specifically of China and Russia. We have always wanted--and the law requires us--to provide protection against the kind of unauthorized or accidental launch that can occur. This is not an idle concern. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy and money trying to make sure these extraordinarily lethal weapons are never launched by accident or by some unauthorized event. That is one of the reasons for a missile defense system, to ensure that kind of accident never would result in harm to the United States. Of course, what they are also worried about is, if that ever happens, then there is the question of retaliation. How do we know this is not intentional? How do we know we shouldn't retaliate?

Wars can be started almost by accident, and the best protection against that is a missile defense system that can ensure no harm is done even if there is such a launch. In the meantime, we can find out whether this is real, whether we need to respond, whether we need to start another war. That is the benefit of a missile defense system.

It is beyond me why the administration reduces the funding, cuts back the numbers, and kills the advanced technology we could put into our system to protect the people of the United States of America. I understand the difficult choices that have to be made in a time of austerity, but we are not talking about extraordinary amounts of money. The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire simply calls for a study of the location of the site and what the impact of that would be. That is the first step in deciding where to put this additional bit of protection.

I think this is a priority. To oppose just the idea of investigating how we are going to be proceeding, especially with the little bit of money that entails, is difficult to understand. It is not too much to ask. We have a moral responsibility to protect our people. It makes strategic sense because of the exposure of our American homeland to these long-range missile threats and because of the critical vulnerability we have right now.

The commander of NORTHCOM, the military entity with responsibility here--General Jacoby--told Congress last March:

No homeland task is more important than protecting the

United States from a limited ICBM attack . . . we must not

allow regional actors, such as North Korea, to hold U.S.

policy hostage by making our citizens vulnerable to a nuclear

ICBM attack.

That is part of the problem. There are some people in the United States who actually believe it would be beneficial for the United States to be vulnerable to a missile attack from another country. They actually believe that would be advantageous. The reasoning is rather weird, but it goes something like this: If we develop defenses that could protect the American people, then other countries will want to develop even more effective systems that can try to override those defenses, and that puts us into a spiral of arms development that would be very costly.

One can argue that theory, but there are a couple things wrong with it. First of all, recall this was the argument used against getting out of the ABM Treaty to enable the United States to develop an antiballistic missile defense. It was going to create this big arms war between then-Soviet Union and the United States. It didn't. Both sides have reduced our warheads. One of the reasons why is because it is so expensive, and the Soviet Union, now Russia, realized we could have driven them into bankruptcy. It is one of the reasons--one of the reasons--Russian officials have cited for the collapse of the Soviet Union. They knew Ronald Reagan meant it when he said he was going to develop a missile defense system. They knew they couldn't spend enough money to overcome it or, if they tried, they would go into bankruptcy. It is expensive.

I don't necessarily think we have to fear a new expensive arms race because there are very intelligent people in other countries, such as Russia, for example, who appreciate the fact that would be a fools's errand. They may want to threaten, but they are not going to do it because they can't afford it any more now than they could back in the days of the Soviet Union. They know the United States has the resources to trump whatever they do come up with. That is the first point.

But the second point is the moral one. Is it moral for leaders who have responsibility for the national security of the American people to deliberately--knowing this is the case--leave them vulnerable to an attack that could kill millions of Americans at a time? If we have the means of avoiding that result, we should. We do. We have that means. It may require a little bit more money. It may require not cutting back the number of interceptors we have deployed. It may require continuing with the advancement of technologies we know are out there. It may require siting missiles in a country of Europe, on Aegis cruisers or on the east coast of the United States. We know how to do all these things.

Is it moral for leaders of the United States to leave our people deliberately vulnerable to an attack by others when we know we have the means to prevent it, and there is a cost-benefit that obviously favors the deployment of an additional site of ground-based interceptors?

I think for the Senator from New Hampshire to propose that we begin looking at where a new site might be and determine what the environmental impacts of that are as a complement to what the House of Representatives has already done in passing the bill that says we need to move forward is a perfectly reasonable step, and I commend her and the other cosponsors of this amendment for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate and to the people of the United States. This is part of our responsibility to our constituents and all the other citizens of our great Nation.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. President, I would indulge my colleague, apparently there are two people on our side we would have to check with. I ask if our colleague could withhold that request to see if we can work it out.

I would also ask, is it not possible that if further amendments can be worked out to be voted on tonight after the two that are scheduled to be voted on, there could be other votes tonight to try to continue to dispose of amendments on the bill; is that correct?

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk No. 3123.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Let me begin by saying that I send this amendment to the desk with an understanding of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and of the Armed Services Committee that before I would request a vote on this amendment, we would work out the language, the specific language of this amendment, along with the ranking members, and would not ask for a vote unless that is achieved.

This amendment has been offered not only for myself, but also Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Risch, Lugar, Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn, Rubio, Wicker, Ayotte, and Collins. Our purpose is to get a greater involvement at an earlier stage of the Senate in discussions between the United States and the Russian Federation regarding nuclear arms, missile defense, and potentially long-range conventional strike systems. These are all three matters that have been the subject of treaties and agreements.

There has been an indication by different people within the administration, indeed even the President, that he may be wanting to talk to the Russian Federation representatives about additional agreements in these areas.

There have been concerns that the Congress is not adequately briefed on those discussions and certainly not at an early enough date. Clearly, if these agreements reach a formal stage, they can require ratification by the Senate. We think it is important that they not be, in effect, negotiated in their entirety before they are known to the Senate and before some input from Members of the Senate can be provided to the administration.

What the amendment as originally introduced therefore would do is to require regular updates of Congress on the military implications of proposals that the United States and Russia have under consideration in their negotiations on nuclear arms, missile defense, or long-range conventional strike systems, and in its current form would require the Secretary of Defense to brief the Foreign Relations, the Armed Services, and the Appropriations Committees.

One of the changes that we might want to make here is that the briefings might include other groups within the Congress as well. These briefings could occur, under this proposal, no later than 30 days after the act goes into force, and would affect the quarterly briefings where the administration would, on a quarterly basis, provide consultation between the Congress and the Secretary of Defense regarding any proposals to limit or reduce nuclear arms, missile defense or, as I said, long-range conventional strike systems.

The amendment also does something else which we may have to modify the language of, but it would express the sense of Congress that any agreement between the United States and Russia

that would limit or constrain or reduce our missile defense or our nuclear weapons or long-range conventional strike systems in any militarily significant manner could only be done pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President as set forth in the Constitution. And that, of course, is in order to protect our right to consult, provide advice and consent to any matters that reach that level of negotiation between the administration and, in this case, the Russian Federation.

We will have more to say about this if we have an opportunity to further debate. As I said, I am happy to sit down with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee to consider any changes they might want to make to this language with the purpose of getting it adopted, rather than just having something to talk about.

This is something we need. Congress needs to be advised. We need to be consulted on matters this important. I do not think the administration would argue with that; it is a matter of coming to an agreement on how we would actually do it.

I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman of the committee and the ranking member.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

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