Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to briefly discuss the so- called omnibus spending package that is apparently headed this way. This budget-busting, trillion-dollar spending behemoth is nearly 2,000 pages in length, and it is laden with over 6,000 earmarks for various special interests.

This is a debacle that could have been avoided. Today is the 349th day of this year. There are only 16 days until the end of the year. There are only 10 days until one of the most sacred Christian holidays--Christmas. Yet the majority waited until just now to unveil our first real appropriations bill that will be considered on the Senate floor in the entire year.

The fiscal year began on October 1 of this year. Yet we have waited over 2 months to even consider a fiscal year 2011 spending bill. How could anybody claim this is responsible management of our citizens' tax dollars? There is no way to sugarcoat it. Congress has been derelict in its duty to produce any of the 12 annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year.

We did not even bother to debate or pass a budget resolution this year to at least create the notion that Congress wanted to constrain spending. While Americans across this country are taking a hard look at their finances, prioritizing their spending, their government continues to max the taxpayer credit card. This one is a doozy: 1,924 pages, $1.27 trillion in spending, $9 billion more than even last year's unacceptable spending levels, over 6,000--let me repeat that--over 6,000 earmarks that were funded more on geography and political influence than on anything to do with merit. That is $8 billion worth of earmarks when the American people are crying out for transparency and thought they had sent a strong message in November.

While we should have been considering how to constrain spending, the authors of this legislation were busy behind closed doors seeing how much pork they could return to their States. This ``you get yours and I will get mine'' mentality is one of the reasons we have the budgetary hole we have dug. Yet we see 6,000 earmarks tucked away in this legislation.

Let me just give three of the priorities, according to these earmarks: $200,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for beaver management; $1.5 million of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for mosquito trapping; $300,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for the Polynesian Voyaging Society.

The list goes on and on. I could be here for the next 24 hours going through the list.

When I was Secretary of Agriculture, we proposed a budget, and we would not have a single earmark in it. But after the logrolling occurred on Capitol Hill, we would get our funding back, and it would be absolutely stuffed with earmarks, spending somebody's hard-earned tax dollars.

It is a sad commentary that a few million dollars in home State pork can often convince someone to swallow $1 trillion of government spending. Yet that is where we end up too often. It looks to me like this is greased, and it is going to happen again. The authors of this legislation simply missed the message of November 2. We should be passing appropriations bills that actually rein in spending instead of doubling down, spending more, and adding to the era of big government. Yet this massive bill is laden with end-of-the-year gifts.

One supporter of the spending bill actually admitted it was the Christmas tree of all time, adorned by spending somebody else's hard- earned tax dollars. This spending juggernaut is simply not what Americans want or deserve.

While we are faced with numerous challenges, none is greater than tackling this growing spending in our national debt. In fact, a bipartisan group of almost 20 Senators came to the floor yesterday--and I was part of that group--to pledge our commitment to address the national debt.

How ironic that this massive spending bill is being discussed the very next day. Maybe actions speak louder than words. It is time for us to actually back up the rhetoric on controlling spending. A look at the last appropriations bills just since I arrived a couple of years ago shows spending is growing by 17 percent. The sad truth of that number is there is no economy--no economy--that can grow the revenues fast enough to keep up with the spending appetite of Washington, DC.

In fact, in a few years we will be spending more on finance charges than the entire defense budget. It is like a family running up the credit card and then looking for more credit cards. But, unfortunately, it is now commonplace to pass bills that spend $1 trillion when our citizens are saying: Please stop. Unfortunately, the spending has not stopped.

I will oppose this bill, and I will do all I can to advocate that my colleagues do the same. Government spends too much. We need to keep more at home with the people.

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

Mr. President, this is a rather remarkable moment. On each side, Republicans and Democrats are standing to describe a problem that literally jeopardizes not just the future of our children and our grandchildren, but it jeopardizes our security; that is, our runaway spending and our deficit.

If I might, let me put this in perspective. As a former Governor of Nebraska, I used to tell my cabinet, when we were struggling through budget issues, that this is not magic, it is math. That is the reality of what we are dealing with here. We simply have a problem that is so gigantic, it can only be solved in a bipartisan way.

Let me offer a couple of statistics to back up that statement. If you look at the entire Federal budget, this is what you see. If you add Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the interest we pay on our debt, that is 64 cents of every dollar we spend annually. Let me repeat those programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the interest we pay on our debt. Everybody will acknowledge the importance of those programs. Let's compare that to the revenues coming in this year. The revenues coming in don't even cover the full cost of those programs. So if anyone is out there suggesting that a little nip and a little tuck and a tweak here and a tweak there is going to solve this problem, it just fundamentally won't. We literally have a situation where if we just shut down the entire Federal Government--national defense, every single program out there except the ones I mentioned--we would still come up a bit short.

We need to fundamentally change how we are operating this government because, quite honestly, to date we all recognize--Democrats and Republicans--that we have been operating this government on the credit card of our children and our grandchildren. That won't work. It simply can't work any longer.

I conclude my comments today by saying I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and to work with my colleagues on this side of the aisle to try to solve what I consider the most pressing, most urgent need our Nation faces today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor for Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, we have a distinct opportunity to take what I regard as very clear and decisive action to uphold two very important principles. We as a Senate, No. 1, support enabling job creation. In this regard, repealing the 1099 paperwork mandate helps fulfill our promise to clear Federal roadblocks that are stopping small businesses from expanding and putting Americans to work.

Small businesses want to expand. They want to hire more workers. Millions of Americans want to get back to work. Yet the tax paperwork mandate hidden in the health care law requires businesses to file a mountain of additional 1099 tax forms. It will consume

resources that would otherwise be spent on wages for new employees. Our job creators need to be focusing their time and energy on hiring and expanding, not dealing with government-directed mounds of paperwork.

In addition to halting this enormous amount of tax paperwork, full repeal would prevent erroneous IRS fines and hefty accountant bills from slamming our job creators.

As the President of the National Federation of Independent Business put it:

You can't operate and grow your business if you are

spending all your time filling out IRS forms and haggling

with auditors.

I couldn't agree more, and that is why I have been actively advocating for a complete and full repeal of this burdensome 1099 requirement for many months now. Anything less than a complete repeal is simply unacceptable.

No. 2, we take seriously the concerns of so many Americans with our government's out-of-control spending. That is the second principle we can stand for today. The elections recently held, I believe, sent a very clear message about Washington's spending habits and our enormous $14 trillion debt. Voters expressed dismay and alarm with the rate of government spending and with enormously good reason. Spending has increased by more than 21 percent since 2008 and annual deficits weigh in at more than $1 trillion.

American households across this great country are doing the best they can to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. In the face of a very difficult economic environment, they are doing everything they can to survive. Our families have seen their wages slashed, jobs lost, and home values plummet. Their solution to these difficulties isn't to continue spending with disregard for the level of their debt. Instead, they dig deep and figure out ways to cut costs and to make ends meet. Meanwhile, they look at their Federal Government in disbelief when they see how we continue to spend money we don't have.

My amendment takes their concerns to heart by fully offsetting the cost of the 1099 repeal. The alternative amendment piles $19 billion of debt onto the backs of future generations, further kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road.

Then-Senator Obama said this in 2006: America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

When he refers to the debt problem, he is absolutely right. How true that is. Even the sponsor of the alternative has spoken very well on this issue. Again, I am quoting, and the board shows the quote:

There is no one here who would argue the point that our

deficits are too high. . . .We have to pay our national debt

and then go on and find ways to reduce the budget deficits. I

think all of us can agree that is something we have to do.

Getting our fiscal house in order will not be easy, but for the sake of the country's future, we have to take action.

Today we have an opportunity to do that: No. 1, repeal the onerous 1099 requirement; and No. 2, without adding a single penny to our deficit or to the cost of the health care law.

Some here may try to argue that we don't have to pay for the repeal. I could not disagree more. This repeal should and must be offset. As my colleagues may recall, in September, I offered a similar repeal that also was fully offset. It did receive significant bipartisan support, but some objected to my proposed offsets and came to me on the floor and said: I would be with you on this but for the offsets.

Opponents explained they voted no because they opposed taking money from the new health care law. So we sat down and, in the spirit of compromise, I took those criticisms to heart and came up with a new, noncontroversial way to pay for this needed repeal.

My amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from Federal accounts to fully pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate. This fiscally responsible approach is not controversial, and it has been done many times before. At the end of every year, there is money left in the accounts of Federal agencies that has not been obligated for a specific purpose. According to the most recent OMB estimate, roughly $684 billion is just sitting in these accounts at the end of fiscal year 2010. This almost $700 billion does not include--does not include-- accounts for the Department of Defense or Veterans Affairs. We leave them off the table. So my amendment boils down to using about 5 percent of these funds--5 percent.

Additionally, my amendment gives the Office of Management and Budget discretion to decide what programs from which the funds can come. Again, this is not unusual; it has been done before. This approach is better than an across-the-board cut. It allows important programs to be spared any reduction. However, let's face it. This funding has been available all year long--some of it for several fiscal years. If it was important to our Nation, Federal agencies would have spent it now. As a former Cabinet member, I ran one of these agencies.

So there is no basis for the claims about what vital programs this amendment might reduce. Again, I emphasize, this has been done many times before. It is simply 5 percent of the nonsecurity-related funding that was lying dormant in Federal accounts at the end of the year. If we cannot agree to this noncontroversial offset, then the public demand for fiscal responsibility voiced in November has fallen on deaf ears.

In September, when the Senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the concern was about the source of the offsets. No one argued that we simply did not need to pay for the repeal. No one got up and said: Well, we don't have to pay for this. This was never a part of anyone's argument. Yet that is exactly what the Baucus alternative amendment proposes. It says to our children and grandchildren: It is too tough for us to find $19 billion, so we are going to add it to the debt you will have to assume. It is a rejection of fiscal responsibility.

After all the hoopla over pay as you go, the alternative amendment doesn't include a single budgetary offset to cover costs. The amendment simply says: Let our kids and our grandkids sort it out on top of the $14 trillion of debt we are leaving them. That is unfortunate. If we can't come together to agree on a few billion dollars in budget constraint, how do we ever hope to address the $14 trillion national debt?

Any Senator who votes for the Baucus amendment is sending a clear message to his or her constituents that fiscal responsibility is not a priority. Any claim otherwise truly does ring hollow.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Baucus alternative and vote for the Johanns amendment. It will be a vote to protect our job creators and the prosperity of our children and grandchildren. We simply cannot keep kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road.

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

Mr. President, I do not see Senator Baucus in the Chamber, so I will go ahead and get started. My understanding is we will be going back and forth. So I will finish my opening remarks, and then if he arrives I will yield to him.

In just a few hours Senators are going to have a distinct choice. Two amendments will be offered to repeal what I think we have all come to regard as a very nonsensical tax paperwork mandate that was included in the health care reform bill.

There is broad agreement the 1099 repeal is necessary to remove Federal roadblocks to job creation. But today we have a choice on the two amendments. Today's choice comes down to what I regard as a very straightforward choice, a choice relative to fiscal responsibility, and it is illustrated by the chart I have in the Chamber.

My amendment fully offsets the cost of the 1099 repeal. The alternative Baucus amendment piles $19 billion of debt onto the backs of future generations. The irony of this is just unmistakable. On one hand, we have a provision in the health care law that we have all come to regard as crazy, foolishness. Even the President has said it does not make any sense--or words to that effect.

On one hand, to repeal it, we are adding to the debt of future generations.

On the other hand, my amendment fully offsets that cost.

Americans have sounded an alarm regarding Washington's out-of-control spending. They demand we address what is a huge $14 trillion debt. They look at their Federal Government in disbelief when they see Washington continuing to spend money we simply do not have.

Yet the alternative amendment proposes to do more of the same. It does not have a single offset. It simply passes the buck, and in this case it passes the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Now, both amendments, as you can see from the chart, repeal the 1099 requirement. But in the case of the Johanns amendment, it repeals the 1099 requirement without adding a single penny to our deficit or to the cost of the health care bill.

It also has taken care of the issue of the controversial offsets. As my colleagues remember, I listened in September when many came up to me and said: Look, I am with you on repealing this 1099 provision. My small businesses are asking me to get it repealed. But I just cannot go along with your offsets. Well, my new 1099 amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from Federal accounts to fully pay for the repeal.

At the end of every year, there is money left in the accounts of Federal agencies that is not obligated. As someone who was a Cabinet official in a previous life, I can tell you that occurs. My amendment boils down to using about 5 percent of these funds--5 percent.

Additionally, the amendment I am offering gives the Office of Management and Budget the ability to decide what programs to pull funds from and in what amounts. This approach is far better than an across- the-board cut, and it allows important programs to continue to be funded.

Some are probably going to argue: Whoa, this is historic. This has never been done before. But I want to assure my colleagues, it has been done repeatedly.

If my colleagues choose the alternative amendment in a few hours, then the public demand for fiscal responsibility will have fallen on deaf ears. In September, when the Senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the concern was about the source of the offsets. It was the health care bill, and many said to me: Look, I am with you, but I cannot go along with these offsets. So we changed them. But back then, no one--no one--argued that we simply did not need to pay for the repeal. No one argued that. Yet today the Baucus alternative amendment proposes no pay-fors, adding $19 billion to the national debt, without a dime of budgetary offsets.

So after all the hoopla about pay as you go, there is not a single budgetary offset to cover the cost of this amendment. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the fully offset Johanns amendment. It will be a vote to protect our job creators. It will be a bipartisan vote because we have all come to agree that this 1099 provision does not make any sense. And, most importantly, when we talk to our constituents about how we did this, we will be able to clearly tell them we paid for it, we took care of the cost of repealing the 1099 amendment with offsets that were a compromise to try to get this done and get this behind us.

Several of my colleagues also want to speak on this issue, so I am going to yield 5 minutes of my time to Senator Enzi, followed by 5 minutes to Senator Thune, 5 minutes to Senator Brown, and 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison. So I yield to Senator Enzi.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time we have on this side?

Mr. President, let me address some of the arguments that have been raised.

First of all, on this issue of the Baucus amendment simply doing more than the Johanns amendment or that it is especially friendly, here is what I would tell you. We checked into that and we have an e-mail from the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and he says the two amendments do the same thing--they repeal the 1099 requirement. That seems to be especially friendly. As Senator Baucus pointed out, we are both going to accomplish the same thing; that is, we are going to repeal the 1099 requirement.

To get to the issue of this being an unprecedented grant of power to the executive branch versus the legislative branch, we also researched that. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 basically gave the Secretary of Commerce the sole discretion to determine from which accounts and in what amounts funds would be rescinded. In other words, the Secretary had sole discretion to decide how to rescind that.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the House and the Senate, rescinded more than $192 million in unobligated balances available to NASA and gave the Administrator sole discretion.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2008, again when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in sole control of the House and the Senate, rescinded $33 million in unobligated balances for the National Science Foundation and gave the Director sole discretion.

The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act rescinded $270 million of nondefense administrative and travel funds and again gave sole discretion to the executive branch.

Very simply, the argument that somehow this is new, this is unprecedented, and this has never happened before simply doesn't hold water.

I then heard the argument of my colleague from Hawaii, a very respected Member. But I look at these unobligated balances--the Department of Agriculture, $9.6 billion. I ran that Department for about 3 years. He talks about fire suppression. We dealt with fire suppression every year. Yes, some

years were worse than others when it came to fire suppression. If we had a year where literally we had to go find additional funding because the fires were worse, we worked through that and we solved the problem. We dealt with that issue when it was presented to us.

Here is what I would say. In September, I came to the floor and I said: Look, here is how I want to pay for this. It came out of the health care bill. My colleagues said: Oh, we can't do that, but I am with you on this 1099 repeal. I listened. This repeal is paid for by using money that is literally sitting there in Federal accounts.

The other matter I would point to is that the alternative is the Baucus amendment, and here is what the Baucus amendment does. Yes, it handles the problem, just like Congress has been handling the problem for way too long. It says to our children and grandchildren: Out of this multitrillion-dollar annual budget--$1 trillion in deficit, with 40 percent of the money being literally borrowed--we can't find $19 billion. It is too hard. It is too hard, and so our kids and our grandkids are going to have to deal with it. That is exactly what the Baucus amendment does. It says it is too hard.

It is going to be the President's own Budget Director who is going to identify the funds that will pay for this. Are my colleagues on the other side suggesting we can't trust that process? Well, if we can't solve this problem and pay for it, how do we ever solve the multitrillion-dollar deficit this country is facing? Congress has allowed the administration to deal with this kind of issue on other occasions. To somehow claim that on this occasion it can't simply misses the point.

With that, I yield to Senator Hutchison from Texas, who wishes to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side.

Mr. President, I will use that 3 minutes just to wrap up with a couple thoughts.

The first point I wish to make in wrapping up this evening is that there has been a 21-percent increase in appropriated funding over the last 2 years--21 percent. So every small business out there is asking the question: Why is the cost, at least in part of this health care bill, falling on my back, when there has been a 21-percent increase in appropriated funding over the last 2 years? Why are you punishing me, when I am trying to do everything I can to stay afloat?

Senator Hutchison said it well. You can't go anywhere in this country without a small businessperson saying to you: What is it about this 1099 requirement? They are dreading the fact that they will spend valuable resources on accountants to be in compliance and to deal with this requirement. They are asking the question: Why are you picking on us?

The second point I wish to make is, the money from unappropriated, unobligated accounts--again, excluding the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs--is 5 percent. It is 5 percent of the total. I look at that massive Federal budget, I look at what we are dealing with, and I get down to the same point--$19 billion. Why would you add that to the Federal deficit? That is exactly what the Baucus amendment does.

You simply will not find offsets that are better equipped to deal with this problem than the one I am proposing. Again, I just wish to emphasize, in September, when we were arguing this on the floor and my colleagues were coming to me and saying: Mike, look, I am with you, I want to repeal this, this doesn't make any sense, and my phone is ringing off the hook, but I can't go along with these health care offsets, we changed the offsets. We are paying for the Johanns amendment.

The Baucus approach simply does not pay for it. So what does it do? In the end, it hampers the next generation. It adds to the national debt. If we can't find $19 billion to solve this problem, how are we ever going to solve the problem of this massive deficit we are passing on to our children and grandchildren?

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the Johanns amendment and to oppose the Baucus amendment. My hope is that we can get the votes necessary, pass this amendment, and move on to the next issues we face.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.

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

Madam President, I move to suspend the rule XXII, including any germaneness requirements, for the purposes of proposing and considering amendment No. 4702, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, if I might take my minute to explain what is happening tonight, the first amendment we will vote on is the Johanns' amendment. It repeals the 1099 requirement in the health care law. This came before us in September. Many colleagues came to me and said: I do not like the pay-fors coming out of the health care law. This is paid for. It is paid for out of unobligated funds in the Federal system, if you will.

The second amendment, the Baucus amendment, simply is not paid for. So you will be adding to the Federal deficit if you support the Baucus amendment.

Madam President, do I have any time remaining?

In reference to the argument of the Senator from Montana, Congress has allowed the administration to make similar decisions on rescinding funds in 1999, 2004, and twice in 2008, while our friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of Congress. That argument simply does not hold water.

I urge my colleagues to support the paid-for amendment, the Johanns amendment.

Mr. President, this adds $19 billion to the Federal deficit.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Judd Gregg.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, including any germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment no. 4702 to S. 510 or

any related substitute amendment to S. 510.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that I believe does cross the political divide; and that issue is, protecting children from needless pain. Forty years ago, when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, it was believed that babies simply did not feel pain. At that time, the medical community thought a baby's nervous system was not yet developed enough to have a sense of pain, so surgeries were literally performed with no anesthesia. Parents were told not to worry if it appeared their child was in pain.

We found out the medical community was wrong.

Twenty-five years ago, a doctor at Oxford University proved that newborn babies do, in fact, feel pain. His groundbreaking research was inspired by his own recognition of the signs of pain.

Dr. Anand noticed preterm babies returning from operations with weak pulses, with rapid heart rates, and other signs of stress that would typically be associated with the feeling of pain.

As a result, he studied two groups of babies. One went through surgery without anesthesia, as was the practice at that time. A second group was given anesthesia before the surgery took place.

The results were remarkable. Most of the babies who were given pain medicine sailed through the procedures while the babies who were given no pain medicine suffered significant stress. This study opened the eyes of the medical community, shifting both medical opinion and common practice.

Today, pain relief for infants is now the standard of care. If my child needed surgery today, and a doctor told us it would be done without anesthesia, without pain medicine for the baby, we would walk straight out of the door; and any parent would.

Performing surgery on an infant without pain medicine is unimaginable today, despite having been common practice, the accepted standard of care 40 years ago. Medical research shattered a commonly held belief, and it changed medicine forever.

I stand before you today in recognition that medical research has again advanced. Again, it should shatter a misguided assumption. You see, doctors now perform surgery on unborn babies. They can go into the womb and save a baby as young as 20 weeks old.

This has allowed researchers to study reactions to pain by these unborn babies. The eye-opening results simply cannot be denied. Much like the original groundbreaking study of newborns,

the research involving unborn babies presented evidence that they feel pain.

When pain medicine was administered during surgery involving unborn children, their blood flow, their heart rate remained normal. But without pain medicine, blood flow and heart rate were affected, as unborn babies endured the pain.

The medical evidence is so compelling it alone should inspire us to act. But we do not have to rely upon a doctor's research. All of my colleagues have surely seen with their own eyes the breathtaking images from ultrasounds. Perhaps it was the picture of a child or a grandchild that showed a face and fingers and toes. Some might have been lucky enough to be in the room for a checkup and actually listened to that heartbeat.

There is no denying that those fingers and toes--that face, that heartbeat--is about a baby, a tiny, little miracle that can feel pain. Pretending there is some magical line that is crossed at the moment of birth that allows a baby to feel pain is literally absurd. There is no such line. There is no difference in the pain a baby begins feeling about halfway through pregnancy and the pain a newborn baby feels.

Just as the medical community now admits it was wrong to assert that newborns feel no pain, we know it is wrong to say unborn children feel no pain. But while medical science has moved forward and taken this step, our laws and our practices still rely on decades-old information and mistaken beliefs.

So it is time for us to acknowledge in law and in practice the realities revealed by these advancements in medical science. We must be willing to change our mindset based upon this evidence, and I would suggest we have an obligation to do so.

Mothers have a right to know that their unborn babies feel pain. Respected doctors are on record saying that abortions in the second and third trimester likely cause unborn babies ``intense pain.'' How can we claim to be compassionate, yet look the other way in denial of this pain? I would suggest we cannot. We can see these precious faces. We can hear their hearts beat.

That is why the legislation I am introducing today is so critically important. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would merely require those who perform abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy or later to inform the mother that her unborn child feels pain. And the mother may request anesthesia for that child to lessen the pain if she does not choose life.

Women should not be kept in the dark. They have the right to know what their unborn child will feel during an abortion. And those who provide abortions should not dismiss the reality of the anguish. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act says: At the very least, let's provide mothers with the complete medical and scientific research we have at our disposal today. Let's simply provide the truth before they make a life-changing decision. We cannot in good conscience know of this medical reality and fail to share it with mothers who are contemplating the most difficult and consequential decision of their entire lives.

Our country is awakening to the reality of the pain felt by unborn children but slowly, just as we were slow to accept that newborn babies, yes, in fact, do feel pain so many years ago. Thankfully, our States are leading the way when Congress has failed to act. Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah have passed similar legislation. Several other States include information about the pain an unborn child experiences in their counseling materials. In fact, in my home State of Nebraska, we became the first State to ban abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that an unborn child can, in fact, feel pain.

Unborn children cannot tell us what they feel, but medical research cries out on their behalf. They deserve the same human compassion we show newborns, 2-year-olds, and children of every age. They all feel pain.

So I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Thus far, 18 Senators have signed on, and I hope more will follow. I would suggest that this legislation has little to do with whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. It is about basic human decency and concern for human suffering. I hope my colleagues will review the medical research, look to their conscience, and follow what is right. I hope they join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that I believe does cross the political divide; and that issue is, protecting children from needless pain. Forty years ago, when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, it was believed that babies simply did not feel pain. At that time, the medical community thought a baby's nervous system was not yet developed enough to have a sense of pain, so surgeries were literally performed with no anesthesia. Parents were told not to worry if it appeared their child was in pain.

We found out the medical community was wrong.

Twenty-five years ago, a doctor at Oxford University proved that newborn babies do, in fact, feel pain. His groundbreaking research was inspired by his own recognition of the signs of pain.

Dr. Anand noticed preterm babies returning from operations with weak pulses, with rapid heart rates, and other signs of stress that would typically be associated with the feeling of pain.

As a result, he studied two groups of babies. One went through surgery without anesthesia, as was the practice at that time. A second group was given anesthesia before the surgery took place.

The results were remarkable. Most of the babies who were given pain medicine sailed through the procedures while the babies who were given no pain medicine suffered significant stress. This study opened the eyes of the medical community, shifting both medical opinion and common practice.

Today, pain relief for infants is now the standard of care. If my child needed surgery today, and a doctor told us it would be done without anesthesia, without pain medicine for the baby, we would walk straight out of the door; and any parent would.

Performing surgery on an infant without pain medicine is unimaginable today, despite having been common practice, the accepted standard of care 40 years ago. Medical research shattered a commonly held belief, and it changed medicine forever.

I stand before you today in recognition that medical research has again advanced. Again, it should shatter a misguided assumption. You see, doctors now perform surgery on unborn babies. They can go into the womb and save a baby as young as 20 weeks old.

This has allowed researchers to study reactions to pain by these unborn babies. The eye-opening results simply cannot be denied. Much like the original groundbreaking study of newborns,

the research involving unborn babies presented evidence that they feel pain.

When pain medicine was administered during surgery involving unborn children, their blood flow, their heart rate remained normal. But without pain medicine, blood flow and heart rate were affected, as unborn babies endured the pain.

The medical evidence is so compelling it alone should inspire us to act. But we do not have to rely upon a doctor's research. All of my colleagues have surely seen with their own eyes the breathtaking images from ultrasounds. Perhaps it was the picture of a child or a grandchild that showed a face and fingers and toes. Some might have been lucky enough to be in the room for a checkup and actually listened to that heartbeat.

There is no denying that those fingers and toes--that face, that heartbeat--is about a baby, a tiny, little miracle that can feel pain. Pretending there is some magical line that is crossed at the moment of birth that allows a baby to feel pain is literally absurd. There is no such line. There is no difference in the pain a baby begins feeling about halfway through pregnancy and the pain a newborn baby feels.

Just as the medical community now admits it was wrong to assert that newborns feel no pain, we know it is wrong to say unborn children feel no pain. But while medical science has moved forward and taken this step, our laws and our practices still rely on decades-old information and mistaken beliefs.

So it is time for us to acknowledge in law and in practice the realities revealed by these advancements in medical science. We must be willing to change our mindset based upon this evidence, and I would suggest we have an obligation to do so.

Mothers have a right to know that their unborn babies feel pain. Respected doctors are on record saying that abortions in the second and third trimester likely cause unborn babies ``intense pain.'' How can we claim to be compassionate, yet look the other way in denial of this pain? I would suggest we cannot. We can see these precious faces. We can hear their hearts beat.

That is why the legislation I am introducing today is so critically important. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would merely require those who perform abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy or later to inform the mother that her unborn child feels pain. And the mother may request anesthesia for that child to lessen the pain if she does not choose life.

Women should not be kept in the dark. They have the right to know what their unborn child will feel during an abortion. And those who provide abortions should not dismiss the reality of the anguish. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act says: At the very least, let's provide mothers with the complete medical and scientific research we have at our disposal today. Let's simply provide the truth before they make a life-changing decision. We cannot in good conscience know of this medical reality and fail to share it with mothers who are contemplating the most difficult and consequential decision of their entire lives.

Our country is awakening to the reality of the pain felt by unborn children but slowly, just as we were slow to accept that newborn babies, yes, in fact, do feel pain so many years ago. Thankfully, our States are leading the way when Congress has failed to act. Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah have passed similar legislation. Several other States include information about the pain an unborn child experiences in their counseling materials. In fact, in my home State of Nebraska, we became the first State to ban abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that an unborn child can, in fact, feel pain.

Unborn children cannot tell us what they feel, but medical research cries out on their behalf. They deserve the same human compassion we show newborns, 2-year-olds, and children of every age. They all feel pain.

So I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Thus far, 18 Senators have signed on, and I hope more will follow. I would suggest that this legislation has little to do with whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. It is about basic human decency and concern for human suffering. I hope my colleagues will review the medical research, look to their conscience, and follow what is right. I hope they join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Madam President, Scott and Nicole Sherer, of Lincoln, NE, are extraordinary Nebraskans who opened their hearts and homes to four beautiful children in need of parents. This is a tale of love, devotion and caring.

In 2007, Nebraska officials found a young boy named Darren, developmentally disabled--a victim of neglect.

The State removed Darren from the household and began to search for a foster family.

They didn't have to search far because Nicole and Scott Sherer were happy to take him into their home.

The following year, a little girl named Mariah was found to be a shaken baby and was taken to Children's Hospital.

Mariah's brother Christian was also removed from the home and the State again looked for a healthy home.

Once again, the Sherers did not blink. Two more children needed parents; they needed a home. Two more children found their family.

And this exceptional family still had more room in their hearts and their home.

Two year later, Darren's sister Desiree was born and was delivered to the Sherers from the hospital.

They formally adopted Christian and Mariah in April 2009 and then adopted Darren and Desiree in July 2010.

During this time, they were able to provide a safe, healthy home for a fifth little boy until a permanent home could be found. The family was able to keep the biological siblings together and provide a loving home for four children.

And the new family began their lives together.

Nicole and Scott recently celebrated their seventh wedding anniversary. They have taken in four children in need and consider themselves to be blessed.

I have great admiration for foster and adoptive parents, and I was thrilled to nominate Nicole and Scott Sherer as Adoption Angels.

Their commitment to care for these four children, to give love freely, is an inspiration for all. It is my hope that their example will inspire other couples to open their hearts and homes to children awaiting adoption.

May God bless Nicole, Scott, Darren, Desiree, Christian, and Mariah, as well as all adoptive parents who give children the gift of a loving family.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Marine SSG Michael Bock of Omaha, NE.

Michael was a proud member of the 3rd Combat EngineerBattalion, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Forward, operating in one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, the Helmand Province.

On August 13, Staff Sergeant Bock was shot and killed while on foot patrol.

His death is a great loss to our Nation and especially to those of us from Nebraska.

Michael will be remembered as a caring, outgoing, and responsible young man, always ready to help family and friends with a smile and a burst of energy.

From childhood, he had wanted to serve in the military.

At an age when many young Americans are not yet tackling adult responsibilities, Michael was ready to offer his service and sacrifice for our Nation.

He started Marine boot camp a month after graduating from high school.

The Marine Corps became a family for Staff SergeantBock.

In fact, he convinced his brother David to join and serve.

Over time Michael's family grew.

His marriage to Tiffany was followed by the birth of his son, Alexander.

By that time, Staff Sergeant Bock had already seen combat during two tours in Iraq.

He served with distinction then, and again during his third deployment--this time to Afghanistan.

The Helmand Province is a well-known Taliban stronghold, but progress toward our goals has also been significant.

Afghan citizens there today enjoy freedoms they have not witnessed for generations.

Much of that credit is due to heroes like Staff SergeantBock.

His Marine buddies remember him as a disciplinedNCO dedicated to accomplishing the mission at hand.

Family and friends say he was always positive and ready to help.

To his wife Tiffany, he was a devoted husband with a big heart--a man whom his son, Zander, will undoubtedly admire his entire life.

His decorations and badges earned during his military career speak to his dedication and bravery: the Purple Heart, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Marine Good Conduct Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Medal,the Humanitarian Service Medal,the Iraq Campaign Medal,the Global War on Terrorism Service and Expeditionary Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation, the President Unit Citation, the NATO Medal for Afghanistan, and the Sharpshooter Rifle and Pistol Badge.

Today, I join Tiffany, Michael's other family members, and friends in mourning the death of their beloved husband, son, brother, and friend.

Michael made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation, and he now stands among our national heroes, never to be forgotten.

May God be with the Bock family, friends, and all those who celebrate his achievements, the man he was, and his legacy that shall remain.

There is a very special class of Americans who wear the military uniform and shed their blood so that we can sleep safe.

Michael joined that special community of patriots, past and present, which protects America and keeps us free.

They shall be remembered and honored until the end of our days.

May God bless them and their families, and see them through these difficult times.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what I consider to be a rather disturbing trend on the floor of the Senate. I am observing more and more the majority bringing legislation to the floor for political reasons, knowing it doesn't have enough votes to pass.

Rather than working to address our economic woes in any kind of meaningful way, we instead find ourselves voting on what I would describe as ballot box topics designed to gain favor with select groups just weeks before the November elections.

Is it any wonder that the American people continue to give Congress such a dreadfully low approval rating? Is it any wonder that the people of this country look at what is going on and have come to the conclusion that the problems they are facing every day are not being solved?

Back in August, when I was going across the State, I did 14 townhall meetings, open events, where anybody could show up and offer their thoughts. What I heard over and over is that people are just exhausted, sick and tired of the games and the election year politicking that is going on, when we should be working to deal with the problems this country faces.

You see, the people don't care who is scoring political points. They care about their jobs, they care about finding a job if they have lost their job, and they care about keeping food on the family's table. For all too many people in this country, they care about the fact that the job they once had may never come back. They want action. In fact, they are crying out for action.

They want thoughtful approaches to our Nation's problems--not populist rhetoric devoid of any real solutions or a serious attempt to find solutions.

We find ourselves on the floor of the Senate this week debating a bill that has been labeled a jobs bill. Let me point out that there have been no hearings. There has been no debate on the proposal currently before the Senate. There has been no give-and-take in the hearings process to try to figure out if there is a way to come up with an approach that would make sense to create a jobs bill. None of that has happened.

You see, what this bill tries to do is seek to punish U.S. companies that do business overseas under the very misguided assumption that doing so will somehow result in economic growth and job creation at home.

This bill would not create jobs. What it will do is hurt U.S. companies that do operate globally. Let's take a look at exactly what is in this bill and set aside the rhetoric.

The first part is a payroll tax holiday. I want to be the first to admit that I supported the payroll tax holiday when the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, offered it during the stimulus debate. It is so amazing because when that was offered by Senator McCain, our friends on the other side of the aisle wanted no part of the idea whatsoever. Instead, what they wanted was to shove tens and tens of billions of dollars into government spending, leaving businesses essentially out of the stimulus equation entirely.

Now we are seeing an eleventh hour, last-ditch effort that ties strings and redtape to tax relief for businesses.

Yet this proposed payroll tax holiday is different from Senator McCain's. Senator McCain, appropriately so, said: If we are going to get this Nation's economy going again, we need to include all employees in an attempt to bring money to the economy, back to the workers' wallets, where they could better spend or better decide how to spend those dollars.

What we have here is just a narrow element--only for those businesses that replace a foreign worker with an

American worker. How many jobs will that really create? When faced with a tsunami of uncertainties, ranging from increased taxes to a hostile business attitude in this administration--a downright antibusiness attitude--will a business really choose to hire because of this 24- month supposed tax holiday? There are some business groups out there that have answered that question for us. Let me quote from the chamber of commerce. They said this:

The concept of economic growth is not a zero-sum game.

Replacing a job that is based in another country with a

domestic job does not stimulate economic growth or enhance

the competitiveness of American worldwide companies.

At a time when we have a 9.6-percent unemployment rate and an underemployment rate in the double digits, do we really want to enact legislation that will set back job creators and threaten our ability to compete in this world? Why does it leave out mom-and-pop, Main Street businesses? Why are they left out in the cold? Even if these small businesses wanted to hire to get a 2-year payroll tax holiday, they could not because they do not have any foreign employees. How absurd. The payroll tax holiday before us today is designed to only help the biggest of the big multinational conglomerates. Talk about standing up for the little guy. Are you kidding me? It tells Joe's Garage or Smith's Tool Shop: You are just simply out of luck. Considering the fact that 65 percent of all new jobs are created by those small businesses--businesses such as those on Main Street in Nebraska-- excluding them from hiring tax incentives simply defies any rational logic whatsoever. But that is, unfortunately, what this legislation does.

Let's keep examining the so-called jobs bill.

The next part of the legislation is a provision that would immediately tax the earnings of foreign subsidiaries. In other words, the legislation would repeal the so-called deferral rule. Currently, firms are able to defer taxation on their foreign-generated income until it is brought back to the United States. At a time of sluggish economic growth, enacting policies that will threaten U.S. business is downright unwise, and it is reckless economic policy. Repealing the deferral rule will only further hurt the ability of U.S. companies to compete against other companies around the world.

The United States imposes a 35-percent corporate tax rate. That is already one of the highest in the world. In fact, we are behind only Japan in how aggressively we tax our corporate businesses. Only Japan has a higher tax rate. The average for the other G7 countries is just under 29 percent, while the group of industrialized nations that make up OECD average only 19.5 percent. Let me say again that we are at 35 percent. We are punishing the job creators already. How can we expect these companies to compete with their foreign counterparts when the foreign companies have such a lower tax burden, when their countries say: Look, we want these companies to be successful and have kept the tax burden low. How do our companies compete with that? The simple answer is, they cannot. If we really want to spur job creation, we would be lowering our corporate rate, not trying to punish our multinational firms that are trying to compete in the international marketplace.

Once again, do not believe me. Go to people who are in the midst of this. The National Association of Manufacturers said of the bill:

Manufacturers are concerned that the bill's proposed tax

increases would impose new costs on American manufacturers,

making them less competitive in the global marketplace and

jeopardizing U.S. job creation.

Let me repeat the last piece of that: ``. . . making them less competitive in the global marketplace and jeopardizing U.S. job creation.'' This is not a jobs bill at all. It is a political punishment bill.

Once again, the majority has sought to villainize a piece of our economy hoping that somehow by villainizing them, it improves their chances. First, it was the credit card companies. Then it was the student loan makers. Next it was the insurance providers, the energy companies. And the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, this time they are trying to villainize companies that are trying to compete in an international economy.

But this bill also misses a very key point. A big part of the reason companies are not hiring is because of the vicious onslaught of bad policy Washington is throwing at them. I talk with businesses in our State. They are paralyzed with fear over what Washington will do next.

Let me share a story. I had a business roundtable in an area of Nebraska, Sarpy County, NE. A group of small businesspeople were sitting there. I was asking them: What can be done to help your businesses grow so you can hire people?

There was one lady there, and she said: Mike, I have a business franchise in both Lincoln and Omaha. Our business in Omaha actually is not too bad. But I have looked at this health care bill. I have gathered information on this health care bill, and I have come to the conclusion that if I grow my business beyond 50 employees, which is right where I am today, I get tangled up in this mess. I do not want anything to do with it, so I am not hiring.

That is what I am hearing all across our State. And this payroll tax holiday for those who bring back workers to the United States is not enough compensation for all of the other looming tax increases businesses are facing. It is not going to offset the problems that have been created by this onslaught of higher taxes and regulation.

I am so disappointed that in these last days before we recess, a decision was made to take up such a flawed piece of legislation. Yet what is going to happen is this messaging attempt will take up our time. We will recess until after the elections, and we will miss the opportunity to take an important vote on what is headed to be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. A vote on preventing the looming tax increases would have given individuals and some businesses some certainty about the future. We cannot expect any meaningful economic recovery to occur until businesses are provided with some certainty about what is happening in Washington.

Every day, I get calls from constituents. Every time I am home in Nebraska, people are saying: Mike, please tell me what is going to happen on these tax issues. Tell me what to expect on January 1.

I can tell you that it is no consolation to them for me to say: We are debating a bill that everybody knows is not going to pass. That is how we are using our time between now and a recess that will extend well into November.

It does not make any sense whatsoever. No tax credit will prevent the punitive measures that are headed toward our population. Again, do not take my word. The National Federation of Independent Business has described it this way:

Uncertainty about the economy and looming tax hikes has

kept this sector from hiring new workers, resulting in a weak

economic recovery and slow to nonexistent job growth.

The NFIB went on to say:

Congress can take an important step to address the

uncertainty by holding a vote and passing legislation

extending all of the expiring tax rates. No small business

owner should face higher taxes.

I could not agree more.

As I go across my State--and I doubt it is any different in any other State--Americans are struggling to meet this month's payroll. They do not need legislation designed only to gain political points at the polls. They want us to come here, to have a debate about what is going to happen on January 1 of next year, and that is the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. These good people deserve real solutions, not populous slogans meant to fool the electorate and somehow gain favor between now and November.

I know what is happening out there, and if we all think about it, what we are seeing is the American people are not fooled. They simply will not be fooled. They know that this latest bill supposedly meant to create jobs will not do a darn thing to address their concerns--looming tax increases, mounds of new regulations, and new 1099 paperwork mandates.

If I were going to design the perfect strategy for economic growth in our country, here is what I would say the people of Nebraska are telling me. They are saying: Extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions. Why? Because

that is what makes the most sense for our economy. They see this massive tax increase out there, and they are asking themselves: How could you let that happen in these economic times?

Second, they would say: Repeal the 1099 mandate. We had a vote on that issue recently, as you know, Mr. President, on an amendment I offered. In that health care bill buried at section 9006 is a provision that says to every small business, every large business, every medium- sized business in America: Thou shalt do it this way, and this way is that if at any time during the year you buy more than $600 from any vendor, you have to produce and provide to that vendor a 1099 form and provide a copy to the Internal Revenue Service. It doesn't stop there. It also applies to churches, to nonprofits, to State and local governments. It is an absolute wave of new paperwork. One business group estimates it would increase paperwork by 2,000 percent. What have I heard from my businesses in Nebraska, especially our small businesses? They are saying: At a time when we need your help, what you are doing to us is burying us in paperwork, and we don't have the employees to deal with this.

This is a crisis that is hitting our job creators, and I am extremely disappointed with where we are today. We are literally not advancing the cause of creating jobs in this country. We are taking a course of action, instead, that is all about populism, that is all about gaining favor between now and November.

But I will say again: The American people have figured this out. They get it, they understand it, and they are watching us very closely. The bill we are debating is nothing more than an election year stunt, when we could be acting to prevent the largest tax increase in our Nation's history.

In those 14 townhall meetings, as I traveled from the largest community in our State--the city of Omaha--to some of the smallest communities in our State--Benkelman, in the very southwestern part of our State--I heard a common message. People wanted me to come back to Washington and fight for them against whom? Against a Washington government that they think has lost touch with their real problems, their real concerns. They wanted me to come back and speak on their behalf about what Washington politicians are doing to their businesses, to the job creation which this country depends upon, and to their pocketbooks. They asked me to come back and speak on their behalf because they see this tsunami of legislation that has come their way and they do not like any part of it.

It is no surprise to me whatsoever that what we are seeing out there are people who are sick and tired of what is going on here. They are sick and tired of a health care bill that is raising their premiums, forcing them into individual mandates, and complicating business creation literally to the extent where a job creator says to me: I can't grow this business beyond 50 employees because of what you have done to us in this health care bill.

It is a remarkable day in our Nation's history when the people of this great Nation are asking their elected representatives to come back here and fight against their government, but that is exactly what is happening. They are asking us to stand for them and to say to what is going on here: Enough is enough. We have punished the American people with endless regulations and with endless tax increases. At the end of this week, every Member of this body will be forced to go home and say: In a week where we could have made a difference and given you certainty and extended the 2001-2003 tax cuts, it wasn't done. Instead--instead-- during this time, politics was played and nothing happened; just like we know today that politics is being played.

I think it is an unfortunate situation. I think we can do better for the American people than what is being displayed.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about something that is enormously important, and that is tax policy and the economy.

Over the most recent break, I had the opportunity to go out across the State of Nebraska. I traveled throughout the State and I conducted 14 townhall meetings. I listened to a lot of concerns, but there was one issue that dominated all of the discussion and that was the state of our Nation's economy. Nebraskans, like all Americans, are wondering when the economy will turn around. They are wondering when this administration is going to actually take action to support job creators instead of just talking about it.

A recent CNN poll shows that 57 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the economy. The President's job agenda to date has simply failed to produce the results that were promised.

Take a look at the economic stimulus that cost taxpayers $862 billion--$1 trillion if you add interest--and it has come up short. Instead of more government spending that fails to create jobs, we need to create a progrowth environment that fosters job creation that is so desperately needed in every part of this great Nation. In order to do so, we must first and foremost give individuals and businesses some degree of certainty about the future. Unfortunately, the health care bill and the financial bill are doing exactly the opposite. Businesses are actually fearful of the regulatory environment and the list of pending tax hikes, causing them to wait out the anxiety and stay on the sidelines.

The National Federation of Independent Business describes it this way:

Uncertainty about the economy and looming tax hikes have

kept this sector from hiring new workers, resulting in a weak

economic recovery and slow to nonexistent job growth.

But the NFIB doesn't stop there. They further describe this:

Congress can take an important step to address the

uncertainty by holding a vote and passing legislation

extending all of the expiring tax rates. No small business

owner should face higher taxes.

At a time when Americans are struggling in their businesses to meet next month's payroll, they don't need more uncertainty from Washington. What they need are assurances from their government that there will be no more taxes or unnecessary regulatory burdens piled on top of them at a time when their plates are already overflowing.

Even White House economic adviser Larry Summers recently acknowledged the importance of providing businesses with certainty about the future. He said something actually quite profound:

Confidence is the cheapest form of stimulus, and we've got

to be very attentive to creating an economic environment in

which there is confidence.

I agree with him.

One way to help eliminate this uncertainty and bring confidence back to the economy is to continue the current tax rates. Failing to do so will only cause further uncertainty and inadequate growth. Most alarmingly, letting these tax rates increase will result in the largest tax hike in American history. Let me repeat that: One hundred days from today, the largest tax hike in history will take effect, unless Congress acts.

Considering the state of our economy, with a lackluster growth rate of 1.6 percent and unemployment at 9.6 percent, with real unemployment in the double digits, tax increases are the last thing Americans need. Tax increases are the last thing our job creators need.

It is no surprise that businesses aren't willing to take the chance to expand and to hire. We keep hearing the President and his administration tell businesses to create jobs, to get off the sidelines. We keep hearing the President say that. Meanwhile, the same administration has increased taxes, imposed mandates, created uncertainty, and now is willing to allow this massive historic tax increase to hammer our job creators. It simply makes no sense. Why would an administration that is supposedly committed to small businesses try to take more of their money while at the same time urging them to spend more money on expanding and creating jobs? Maybe it is because they claim that only rich Americans--rich Americans-- would be impacted.

As small business owners across the country can tell us, this is simply a false notion. Many small business owners file as individuals and, therefore, report income above $200,000. We rely heavily on these small businesses to use that capital to create jobs to boost our economy.

Over the past 15 years, small businesses have been responsible for generating--get this--64 percent of all of our new jobs. Under the administration's proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that nearly 750,000 taxpayers with small business income will be hit with a tax increase 100 days from today. I don't get it. I can't fathom why we would raise taxes on job creators when we are facing record unemployment and a sputtering economy.

It is not just small businesses. It is also family farms and ranches that would be caught up in the net of this massive tax increase. Suddenly, they would all find themselves classified as the ``rich'' people this administration claims are the only ones impacted by this foolhardy policy.

It is unfair and unwise policy I am speaking about. What our small businesses, farms, and ranches need now is a stable economic environment, not tax increases from their government. It is time for government to stop suppressing businesses and give them a chance to grow in a certain environment--to expand, create jobs, to buy new equipment--because that is what will fuel job growth in this Nation. Our small businesses are the heart of our economy. We need to give them the opportunity to move our economy forward, not be stifled by government policies.

The original intent of the tax cuts when instituted nearly 10 years ago was to free up capital for these entities to grow, to hire, and to produce. In fact, in 2007, once these tax breaks had taken effect, our tax collections achieved an all-time high in this Nation. Let me repeat that. In 2007, once these tax rates took effect--they were fully in place--our tax collections achieved an all-time high. The reason is obvious. When you have people working, they pay taxes, they add to the economy, they fuel economic growth.

The bottom line is that tax breaks help to get our economy moving which, in turn, generates revenues. We saw it in 2007. Even Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, recently published some research on tax policy. I am quoting:

Tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output

effects.

In contrast, she wrote:

Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and

highly significant negative impact on output.

I couldn't agree more.

Standing idly by while taxes skyrocket at the end of this year, in 100 days, will--and it is very predictable--have a chilling effect on American businesses and, therefore, hard-working families. It is time that the actions of this administration and this Congress match the promises being made about creating an environment that fosters growth instead of hindering it.

The American people are no longer willing to accept empty words at face value. They want to see policies that match promises. Fortunately, it is not too late. This administration and this Congress still have an opportunity to make good on their promises to small businesses, to those working families, but it will mean taking action to prevent a massive tax hike on January 1, 2011.

I ask all of my colleagues to show they are willing to work together to fulfill their promises to small businesses. Let's deliver on those promises to provide stability instead of uncertainty. Let's work together to prevent a huge tax hike on our job creators in 100 days.

The American people--hard-working families--deserve no less.

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

Madam President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Army 1LT Mark A. Noziska of Grand Island, NB.

Mark was a proud member of the 1st Battalion of the 4th Infantry Division. He was active in and around Kandahar, one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan. Sadly, Mark was killed on August 30 by an improvised explosive device. He had dismounted from a convoy vehicle to investigate suspicious activity when he was attacked. But by taking the lead, he likely prevented many more casualties within his platoon. His death is a great loss to our Nation and to my home State of Nebraska.

Mark loved life, he loved the Huskers, and he especially loved the Army. His leadership qualities became apparent early on in his life. He was recognized in Who's Who and selected to represent Nebraska in People to People while a student at Papillion High School. Before graduating, he was voted Mr. Monarch, a very high honor.

Mark enlisted in the National Guard in 2004 and before long was selected as the Nebraska Army National Guard Soldier of the Year. He subsequently finished as first runner-up in the Soldier of the Year national competition. Yet Mark had even higher aspirations. He enrolled in college and ROTC to become an officer. The University of Nebraska- Omaha ROTC Program honored Mark with the Military Order of the Purple Heart Medal.

After graduating with his college degree, he proceeded to the Infantry Officer Basic Course. His family reports that being an officer in the U.S. Army was an obvious joy and privilege for him.

First Lieutenant Noziska will be remembered as an eager, playful, yet very dedicated young man. His family recalls his lust for life, his love of his favorite football team, the Huskers, and his commitment to serving his country. His young nephew longs for Mark's teasing.

To Army leadership he was an energetic lieutenant with unlimited potential. His decorations and badges earned during his short but distinguished military career speak to his dedication and to his bravery: the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the NATO Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Reserves Component Service Medal, the National Guard Individual Achievement Medal, the Adjutant General Outstanding Unit Citation, and the Combat Infantry Badge.

Today, I join family and friends in mourning the death of their beloved son, their brother, and their friend. May God be with the Noziska family and all those who mourn Mark's death and celebrate his life.

Mark laid down his life in defense of our freedom and security, and our Nation must never forget his sacrifice, just as we remember all of the Nation's fallen heroes. We have not been forced to relive the horror of 9/11 because heroes such as Mark offered their lives to protect us from it. America can never repay them. We are forever grateful.

I ask that God be with all those serving in uniform, especially the brave men and women on the front lines of battle. May God bless them and their families, and may God bring them home safely.

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

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