Floor Statements

Madam President, today I wish to recognize an outstanding championship college football team from my home State.

This past Saturday in Rome, GA the Carroll College Fighting Saints claimed another National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics national title with a hard fought 10 to 7 win over rival and fellow NAIA powerhouse the University of Sioux Falls Cougars. The win gives the Fighting Saints an unprecedented sixth national title in the past nine seasons. Coming into the game, Sioux Falls had won 42 games in a row. In fact, their last loss was to Carroll in the 2007 title game.

Carroll College is a private, Catholic college in my hometown of Helena, MT. Carroll boasts an enrollment of about 1,500 students and is known around the country for its award-winning academic and preprofessional programs. The school is particularly strong in premedical, engineering, and nursing programs.

The game Saturday was a hard-fought victory marked by key big plays on offense led by Saints quarterback Gary Wagner and a tough defense that shut down the Cougars high-powered offense. Wagner, a native of Havre, MT, was named the offensive player of the game and scored the Saints' only touchdown on an amazing 83-yard run. The winning points were provided by place kicker Tom Yaremko on a clutch 22 yard field goal in the fourth quarter.

I would like to congratulate head coach Mike Van Diest and his coaching staff, along with Athletic Director Bruce Parker and Doctor Tom Trebon, the president of Carroll College, for their hard work and dedication in

coaching and teaching these fine student athletes. The motto of Carroll College is ``Not for School, but for life.'' Certainly the members of Carroll's football team have learned many life lessons. Coach Van Diest preaches the importance of getting a quality education, the value of teamwork, and the need to give back to the community. Last year 32 Fighting Saints were named to the Frontier Conference All-Academic team.

The Fighting Saints have a dedicated following throughout Montana. Thousands of fans dressed in purple and gold pack into Nelson Stadium on the Carroll campus for each home game. I always look forward to joining them whenever I can. And numerous fans made the long trip to Georgia to cheer on the Fighting Saints in the national title game.

Now another reason that I am so excited about the Saints winning another title is because of a bet I made with my good friend Senator Tim Johnson. I put a case of Montana microbrew beer on the line with confidence knowing the Saints would pull out the win, and Senator Johnson put up some buffalo steaks with faith that his Cougars would prevail. I am looking forward to enjoying those steaks, and I thank Senator Johnson for being such a good sport. I would also like to commend the University of Sioux Falls on a fine football season.

My congratulations and admiration goes out to all the Carroll coaches and players for their success and being great ambassadors for the State of Montana. Their hard work, dedication, and grit truly represent the best that Big Sky country has to offer. I look forward to cheering them on again next season as they go for title No. 7.

Madam President, I say to all my friends, it is imperative we work together to find a compromise. As both Senators from Idaho know, you and other Senators have been working on a compromise. Under that compromise, Idaho could have a wolf hunt, as they should. The State of Montana could have a wolf hunt, as Montana should. Northern Utah could. All wolves in Utah would be off the endangered species list. I and others have suggested that wolves in northern Utah be totally off the endangered species list. This proposal we have been working on--you, myself, and others, including Secretary Salazar and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, a short time ago, all agreed we should allow wolf hunts in all the States I mentioned. Yet I have to be honest, your side of the aisle has objected to that. You are not coming up with a total abolition, taking the wolf out of the Endangered Species Act. That is a solution that will not pass. We need a compromise.

I end where I began. I strongly urge Senators, next year, to keep working on a compromise. This is not going to work when the House passes a bill that totally takes the wolf off the Endangered Species list, which I know is the game plan. If that happens, we are back into the soup again. Let's find a solution and compromise that achieves the results we all want. It is within our reach. It is right there. Because of this interchange, we will not get it done this year. Our States desperately need a solution. That proposal was the solution. It was a compromise that achieved the results intended. I very much hope we can find a compromise to resolve this.

Mr. President, I support H.R. 6517. This bill extends three of my longstanding trade priorities, Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. TAA provides job training for workers here at home, training that is more important than ever in these difficult economic times. And GSP and ATPA support thousands of jobs here in the United States and provide livelihoods for millions of people in the developing world as well. If we do not act, these programs will expire on December 31. The bill also includes miscellaneous tariff bill provisions, and provisions to replenish the wool trust fund, all of which will support jobs in Montana and across America. I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the things that I love most about Montana--the North Fork of the Flathead River. Everyone who experiences the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger than life landscapes, and raw wilderness. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier- Waterton International Peace Park. It is one of the last untouched places on our continent. For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one, each time victorious. After 35 years, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in the North Fork.

In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana signed a memorandum of understanding, agreeing to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the watershed. Senator Tester and I have negotiated the retirement of the primary interest in about 200,000 acres on the U.S. side of the border--about 80 percent of the leased acreage--without cost to the American taxpayer. In June of this year, we asked President Obama to work with Canadian Prime Minister Harper to put in place measures to establish permanent protections for the North Fork. On June 28, the two met in Canada, and pledged cooperative efforts to protect this one of a kind ecosystem. Work is continuing behind the scenes on this effort, and we are very optimistic that it will be successful.

I thank the Senator. In 1975, I introduced the bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated as such a year later. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said:

A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those

who follow us will survey what we have left behind . . . let

us leave the Flathead as we found it. Let us prove that we

care about those who will come after us.

Today, this small step demonstrates that with cooperation between our two nations, between the Province and the State, we can ensure that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will survey the North Fork of the Flathead River and share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her work on this important provision to help airline workers, and I want to make it clear for the record that I will work to include this airline worker rollover provision in the next appropriate legislative vehicle.

I know there is an order for the Senator from Ohio to speak. I would ask for the Senator's indulgence for maybe 15 or 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with the Senator from Louisiana. She is right. These projects cannot be built fast enough. There is just not enough time. The placed-in-service date should be extended an extra year. It is not expensive at all. I hope we can find some way to accommodate this need.

The people in Louisiana and the whole gulf coast need this extended service date because, otherwise, these homes will not be built. I hope we can find some way to pass what the Senator from Louisiana is suggesting.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes under the leader's time.

The Senate is about to pass a bill that should significantly bolster our economic recovery. The bill we are about to pass will cut rates for families. It will reauthorize unemployment insurance. It will extend the child tax credit and the college tuition tax deduction. It will extend the research and development tax credit and accelerate depreciation for businesses. It will cut payroll taxes for workers.

These are important provisions. But the bipartisan leadership did not include several other important items which I think deserve special attention.

I worked hard to include these provisions in the bill we just passed. But some on the other side of the aisle worked to prevent their inclusion. These are commonsense provisions and, frankly, I cannot imagine how any Senator could oppose them.

One provision I want to highlight this morning is the provision to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements. Small businesses across America were disappointed that this provision was not included in the bill. I am talking about the repeal of the recently expanded form 1099 information reporting requirements. Surprisingly, some on the other side of the aisle blocked inclusion of a provision to repeal these requirements.

I included a repeal of these requirements in the tax alternative the Senate voted on earlier this month. Senator Schumer included repeal of this provision in his alternative, as well.

Several measures to repeal the new rules have received bipartisan support. Frankly, repeal of this reporting requirement ought to be a no-brainer.

The new rules take effect at the beginning of 2012. That means many

small businesses will soon begin spending money to gear up for them. Small businesses in Montana and across this Nation should not need to spend their time and money to fill out more government paperwork. Instead, we should let them focus on staying in business, growing their business, and creating jobs.

Many small business owners have contacted me about this provision. Many are puzzled that some Republicans now appear to oppose repeal in private, after having advocated repeal in public. I can understand why small businesses are puzzled and, frankly, I don't see how any Senator can oppose repeal. I intend to keep working on behalf of America's small businesses to see that this unrealistic reporting requirement is repealed.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4849

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of H.R. 4849; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Senate agree to the Baucus amendment to repeal the form 1099 reporting requirements, which is at the desk; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that this all occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Wyoming. I cannot agree to amend my request in that way because of the excessive cuts in appropriated spending in the Johanns amendment. It is way beyond repeal of the 1099 requirements. It is a totally different animal. Therefore, I cannot agree.

I think our colleague has the floor to speak.

Mr. President, both the Senators from Louisiana have stated the case very well and, frankly, this is not a typical extender. This is just a very important proposal where the placed-in-service date has to be changed because projects beyond the year could not be put in place the second year. So it is not a traditional extender where we extend for 1 or 2 years some other provision. This is more in the nature of what was started in the first year gets accomplished in the second year, and that is why this 1-year add-on is so important.

I will work with the Senators and the Finance Committee, when we bring up legislation next year, to do our very best to make sure this provision is included so we can help these people who are desperately in need of housing in Louisiana.

I will add that my view would be at the earliest possible opportunity. I don't know when that is exactly, but it is something that should be placed high up, near the very top.

Well, I hope. The Senator knows how this place operates, but it is certainly very, very, very early.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all subsequent votes after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration; further, that prior to the vote on the motion to concur there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Madam President, the debate over the bill we have before us can be boiled down to one simple thing: jobs. Extending middle-class tax cuts will help create jobs. Not extending middle-class tax cuts would cost jobs. Jobs must be our No. 1 priority. And so we must pass this bill.

We know cutting taxes for middle-class families is one of the most effective ways to grow our economy. When working folks keep more of their hard-earned money, they pump it back into our economy and support jobs.

This bill also includes a number of other important provisions designed to create jobs, and I would like to take a moment to focus on one of those provisions--the 1603 grant program that makes resources available for renewable power development.

The 1603 grant program provides renewable energy companies with money up front to cover 30 percent of the costs of renewable power facilities, such as wind farms and solar projects, and that means jobs.

According to a study by the independent Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the 1603 grant program is responsible for saving 55,000 American jobs in the wind industry alone.

It is estimated that 1603 is responsible for helping to produce as many as 2,400 megawatts of wind power--about a quarter of all wind power installed in 2009. This includes projects such as the Glacier Wind Farm near Shelby, MT.

Before 1603, producers had to rely on Wall Street investors to fund their renewable energy projects through a complex system known as tax equity financing. Through tax equity financing, Wall Street firms would invest in renewable power projects in exchange for tax credits. When Wall Street collapsed in 2008, this system of financing collapsed along with it, threatening the future of American renewable power.

So we created 1603 grants in the Recovery Act to bypass Wall Street and provide cash directly to renewable power developers. As a result, most experts have credited the 1603 program with saving the wind industry--and the good-paying American jobs that go along with it.

The tax equity financing market has begun to recover. But tax equity financing is still much more expensive than that provided under 1603, and 1603 also provides a greater bang for our taxpayer buck. By cutting out expensive Wall Street middlemen, 1603 provides grants directly to energy developers to support energy projects and jobs. And 1603 supports smaller projects that wouldn't have otherwise been financed by Wall Street.

Industry experts predict that extending the 1603 grant program will result in 45,000 new American jobs in 2011 in the wind and solar industries alone and many more in the geothermal and biomass.

Supporting renewable power also helps put America back in control and puts the United States on a path toward energy independence. And supporting renewable power projects today supports even more jobs manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels tomorrow. That is why I am working hard with leaders in my State to bolster long-term growth in the wind sector by bringing wind manufacturing jobs to Montana. Today, Montana is poised to begin a significant expansion of the generation capacity of our wind resources. Montana's wind energy resources rank in the top 5 in the United States, but our State is ranked No. 18 in installed capacity. The extension of the 1603 grant program will make Montana's wind-generation expansion possible, creating an ideal situation for a wind turbine or component manufacturing facility.

Madam President, we need an energy policy that puts America back in control. Extension of the 1603 grant program is just one example of a commonsense policy that will create jobs, ramp up American energy production, and help us build a wind energy industry in Montana, and across America, that will be a cornerstone of our Nation's energy independence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 15, 2010, at 12 p.m. in room S- 219 of the Capitol Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 15, 2010, immediately following a vote on the Senate Floor.

Mr. President, I too want to say a couple of words about Bob Bennett. We are deeply impressed with his sense of integrity and his commitment to working for basic, sound principles. I might say he made a big impression on me when he came to my office--I think on his own, but maybe he was appointed to do so--to help find a way to make the Senate more relevant and to find ways to change the Senate rules to address some of the frustration a lot of Senators have. People who are watching may wonder, gosh, why do Senators think they are not relevant? I must say that a lot of Senators feel they want to get something done quickly and they are sometimes frustrated with the actions of another Senator who doesn't quite have the same idea. I was impressed with Bob's attitude. He talked to me and asked, ``What can be done, Max? What ideas do you have?'' It was very refreshing. I remember thinking at the time that this will be difficult, and I told him it would be difficult. I didn't tell him how difficult I thought it would be. But I was impressed with his freshness and his desire to help adjust the Senate rules.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed on the floor for the duration of the debate on the tax bill: Michael Grant, Kane Ossorio, Jack McGillis, Nicole Marchman, Manishi Rodrigo, Will Kellogg, Danielle Dellerson, Mary Baker, Greg Sullivan, Andrew Fishburn, and James Baker.

Mr. President, about 2 years ago, our economy was on the brink. One of the first things we did with our new President was to enact the American Recovery and Investment Act. We did so to jump-start our economy, and we did so to create jobs.

In the 2 years since, our economy has created and sustained more than 3.5 million jobs--3.5 million more than would have been available had we not taken that action. The economy is now starting to move in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go.

The positive momentum in the economy is fragile. We need to work tirelessly to protect it. Our first priority must be to create more jobs.

The lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003, along with a number of other tax provisions, are set to expire at the end of this year. If we do not act, taxes will go up.

In addition, last month, the emergency Federal unemployment insurance programs expired. If we don't act, then by the end of next month 2 million Americans will be without the critical assistance they will need. That is help they will need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. The tax cuts and unemployment insurance both have a critical effect on the middle-class families, our economy, and on jobs.

A little more than a week ago, the Senate voted on two amendments that would have extended these tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment insurance. Our amendments would have

focused those extensions on the most effective ways to create jobs. The amendments we voted on last Saturday would have given critical relief to middle-class families. They would have provided unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. These two amendments--the Baucus amendment and the Schumer amendment--would have extended tax cuts that would have benefited all taxpayers.

Those amendments would have extended critical tax cuts such as the college tuition tax deduction. They would have made the child tax credit permanent, and they would have cut taxes for employers, freeing up cash for them to expand and hire new workers.

Those amendments focused on providing middle-class families the tax relief they need. They focused on creating the jobs our economy needs, and they focused on getting the biggest bang for our buck in creating those jobs.

Cutting taxes for middle-class families and extending unemployment insurance stimulates our economy. They do so because the families who benefit from those policies are the families most likely to spend that extra money. Spending that money injects it directly back into our economy, and that helps the economy to grow and create jobs.

The best way to extend these expiring tax provisions is to focus on the middle class. That is what my amendment did, and that remains my strong preference.

There are some in this body, however, who want to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest as well. These folks have held tax cuts for the middle class hostage to get these tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are not the best way to create jobs. The Nation's wealthiest are more likely to save their money, rather than spend it and put it back into the economy.

Permanently extending tax cuts for the richest Americans would cost our economy $700 billion over the next 10 years. That is too great a cost for a budget already burdened by deficits and debt. But despite this disagreement, creating jobs needs to be our first priority.

If we do not extend unemployment insurance, then by the end of the next month, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own would lose their unemployment benefits. If we allow those benefits to expire, families who currently receive them would lose much of their income. Emergency unemployment insurance has benefitted about 40 million people. That has included, I might add, 10\1/2\ million children.

Emergency unemployment benefits particularly help middle-class families. Middle-class families receive 70 percent of total UI benefits. These are folks with a work history. They lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Unemployment benefits are the only lifeline many workers in Montana and across the Nation have left in this tough economy. These benefits support Americans who have worked, who are looking for work, and who will work again.

If we do not extend unemployment insurance, we take some of the most stimulative dollars out of the economy. That will just hurt the economy's ability to create jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says unemployment benefits have one of the largest effects of economic output in unemployment per dollar spent of any policy. The Department of Labor reports that for every $1 spent on unemployment insurance, $2 are reinvested in the economy. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that as of September, emergency unemployment insurance benefits have increased the level of employment by nearly 800,000. That is just since September.

Unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately. That increases economic demand. It is critical to extend unemployment insurance to support a fragile economic recovery and to help create jobs.

If we don't extend lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 and the other tax provisions expiring, at the present, the end of this year, millions of middle-class families will pay higher taxes next year. Middle-class families are the backbone of our economy and this recession has hit middle-class families hardest. Too many middle-class folks who have worked hard all their lives have been knocked off their feet by this great recession. Too many middle-class families are still struggling. If we don't act, individual taxes will go up. If we don't act, the child tax credit will shrink and the college tuition tax deduction will end. So will the State and local property tax deduction and the property tax deduction itself and a host of other tax breaks critical to middle-class families. Now is certainly not the time to raise taxes on middle-class families.

If we don't act, taxes will go up on employers. Taxes will go up on employers engaged in critical research and development. That is R&D our economy needs to stay competitive in the global market, to grow and to create jobs. If we don't act, taxes will go up on employers working to develop new types of sustainable energy resources, such as wind power. Sustainable energy is the industry that could create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Now is not the time to raise taxes on employers with potential to create jobs we need.

So we must act, because if we fail to extend these critical provisions, we place our economy at risk. If we fail to act, we place middle-class families at risk. So while I strongly prefer acting in a way that focuses more on the middle class, that focuses on getting more jobs and gets us the biggest bang for our buck, inaction is clearly not an option. For that reason, I will support the bipartisan compromise the President has proposed.

Plain and simple, this bipartisan compromise is about creating jobs, extending middle-class tax cuts will help create jobs. Not extending them would cost jobs, and we cannot afford to lose jobs. Job creation needs to be our No. 1 priority. Our economy has come a long way in the last 2 years, but the growth is still fragile. Let us keep the focus on creating jobs, let us keep moving our economy forward, let us pass this important legislation.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of President Obama's nominee Darrell Bell for U.S. Marshal for the District of Montana, and I call on my colleagues to support his confirmation. As the former police chief for the City of Billings-- Montana's largest community--Darrell possesses the qualities necessary to lead Montana's U.S Marshal's Office. For the last 3\1/2\ decades, Darrell has served Montana's law enforcement community with passion and expertise. Since 2006, Darrell has served as a criminal investigator for the Montana Department of Justice, Gambling Control Division.

Darrell served over 30 years with the Billings Police Department, including 5 as the Deputy Chief of Police. Originally from Joliet, Darrell graduated from the Montana Law Enforcement Academy and began his career with the Billings Police Department as a patrolman in 1974. Working his way up the ranks, Darrell has served as a sergeant and then lieutenant of Operations Division as well as captain for the Investigations, Training, and Support Services Division. Upon the request of Billings city administrator in 2005, then-Deputy Chief of Police Bell stepped in to become the Interim Chief of Police. Darrell has served Montana and his community on the executive boards for high- intensity drug trafficking areas and the Montana chiefs of police.

Darrell has a proven track record of bringing folks together, working with local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials to provide a safe environment for Montana's communities. Darrell's experience and leadership in law enforcement will truly be an asset for Montana's U.S. Marshal's Office. Mr. President, I congratulate Darrell on his nomination, in recognition of his continued service to the State of Montana, and I urge the Senate to confirm Darrell Bell's nomination.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

How much does the Senator seek?

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Madam President, I think it is important to lay a few facts on the table.

The Senator from Oregon did a good job making this point clear, but I think, frankly, very few people in the country understand this point, this debate. To be honest, I think there are a good number of Members of the Senate who do not understand this point; the point being that under my amendment, for those individuals who earn $200,000 or less, their tax cut is permanent. Under that amendment, it is important to remind all of us that every individual will get a tax break regardless of their income; that is, every individual who has more than $200,000 of taxable income will receive a cut of at least $5,400. So if you are above $200,000, you still get a tax cut; you get a tax cut as an individual of about $5,400; and if you are a couple, it is probably close to double that. That is under my amendment.

The same is also true under the Schumer amendment. Under the Schumer amendment, for those who make $1 million, their tax cut is going to be about $40,000. Even though the cutoff is $1 million, those who earn more than $1 million will get a tax cut. You get a tax cut under my amendment and you get a tax cut under the Schumer amendment. The tax cut you will receive under my amendment is about $5,400, if you make over $200,000; and the tax cut you will receive under the Schumer amendment, if you earn over $1 million, about $40,000. If you are a couple, it is probably almost double that, most likely.

Add to that, in my amendment--and I think it is also in the Schumer amendment--the dividends rates are lower from ordinary income to 20 percent. So those folks who rely on dividends are going to get an additional tax break.

So the point I am making very clearly is, everybody gets a tax cut under our amendments. It is not fair for the other side to characterize it that only some people are getting a tax cut. It is true those under $200,000 will get a bigger break on a percentage basis, but in dollar terms, they are going to get less of a break than those who earn $200,000 and above and under the Schumer amendment $1 million and above.

The second point I wish to make is that we have to make choices. We often hear the expression: There is no free lunch. Nothing is free. Life is choices.

We make choices in this Senate. Sometimes the choices we make are quite difficult, but they are also significant.

I am a little bit bemused--I was bemused, and I still am bemused-- because I heard the Senator from South Carolina praise the President's deficit commission report, which recommends cutting the national deficit through various mechanisms, revenue increases, and spending cuts, cutting the national debt by about $4 trillion over 8, 9 years. The Senator was praising that. I say ``bemused'' because the basic view of the Senators on the other side is to increase the national debt by about $4 trillion; that is, the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky will, over the next 10 years, add $4 trillion to the deficit-- not subtracting $4 trillion from the deficit but adding $4 trillion to the deficit, for a swing of about $8 trillion over 8, 9, 10 years. That is fairly important.

It is important because many commentators are concerned about the debt we have as a country. They point out the problems Greece has, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. There are even articles that maybe countries in Europe should break away from the euro and have a separate currency.

The main point is, we live in somewhat precarious times, and we have to not add to the deficit. The amendment I offer does add to the deficit, I might say, in all candor. It adds about $2 trillion over 10 years because we cut taxes in the manner in which I explained. The Schumer amendment adds a little bit more to the deficit. But that is only about $2 trillion, $2.3 trillion, $2.4 trillion; whereas, the other side would like to add $4 trillion.

I am just saying, everybody gets a tax cut under the amendment I am offering, and those who make more than $200,000 get more in dollar terms than do people below $200,000. That is a statistical, mathematical fact. Again, it is about $5,400 for those whose income is $200,000 or above. Under the Schumer amendment, it is about $40,000 for those whose income is $1 million or above; whereas, those below that get a tax cut as well but not as many dollars.

Just to remind everybody, we do have to make choices. We have to keep an eye on the debt. We should not increase the debt more. These various provisions do a bit. Let's not increase the debt more than we have to.

I might add to that, too, and it is something I think we should be concerned with, over the last quarter century, the top 5 percent wealthiest Americans received an aftertax break of about 150 percent; that is, the aftertax income of the top 5 percent of the American people, over the last quarter of a century, grew by about 150 percent. Compare that with middle-income Americans. Over the last quarter century, the aftertax income of middle-income Americans grew only 28 percent. So it is a huge difference.

So our policies cause those most wealthy to have much greater aftertax benefits than for middle-income Americans. Add it all together, I think it makes sense. We have to have balance. We have to make choices. Everybody gets a tax cut under our two amendments, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the two amendments. I think it is not perfect, but it is a good, fair, balanced policy. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask that all time be yielded back on both sides and that we proceed to the vote.

He is not the majority leader, I might add.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, there are several Senators who are prepared to speak this morning but would be unable to because of limited time. In order to accommodate them, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers on the Democratic side by the following: Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes; Senator Boxer, 10 minutes; Senator McCaskill, 10 minutes; and Senator Casey, 10 minutes. Further, if there is a Republican seeking recognition on the floor, that we alternate back and forth between the two sides.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I consume.

Sure.

Mr. President, I thank the leader for all his very hard work. Nobody is working harder than the leader to try to work out the schedule so we can address these issues, and we all thank him.