Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the last few weeks, I have met and talked with many people across Ohio about our Nation's economic future--family and friends, constituents who are struggling to get by, and ministers and pastors who counsel them.

I have read letters and e-mails from Ohioans who need unemployment insurance to find a new job and to provide for their families. I have heard from concerned citizens who are willing to sacrifice for them. Ericka from Cleveland wrote me:

I make enough money to get by. I was ready for my taxes to

go back up and I could have figured out a way to deal with

it.

But I am terrified for folks losing their jobs or getting

by on low to moderate incomes. I worry that if they lose

their unemployment benefits or refundable tax credits that

the stress will be too much for too many.

I am sickened at the idea of giving such incredibly wealthy

people a tax break--I worry about the folks on the other end.

The debate of whether to extend Bush tax cuts has been revealing-- about our policies and about the needs of people worried about putting food on the table.

My top priority is to ensure that middle-class households get tax relief, and that unemployed Ohioans can continue to pay their bills and provide for their families while they look for work. And it is my priority to ensure that people's lives are not used in a cynical, political calculation.

A lot of people are angry about this bill, and they should be. That is why I have filed amendments aimed at easing the financial burden on middle-class households, on small businesses, on seniors, and on American manufacturers. These are issues that deserve real debate, and America's middle class deserves real tax relief.

I am angry that Republican Senators insist on awarding bonus handouts to billionaires and millionaires. But I would be more angry if we let them continue to play games with people's livelihoods.

That is why it is with great reluctance that--even though I opposed the cloture vote yesterday because I still hoped, maybe beyond hope, we could come to a real agreement that would work for the middle class, work for the unemployed, and work for our budget deficit; we clearly could not--it is with great reluctance that I vote in favor of this bill.

Too many working families--men, women, and children--are already suffering too much pain and anxiety. They need help now. But let's not forget how something happened this month in the U.S. Senate that we have never seen before, perhaps never in our Nation's history.

A political party, the minority party--all 42 of them, all 42 of the Senators in the minority party--threatened for all intents and purposes to stop working, unless the majority party agreed to cut taxes for America's wealthiest 315,000 people--315,000 out of 165 million taxpayers. That is less than one-fifth of 1 percent of all Federal taxpayers.

The minority party, the 42 minority party members--U.S. Senators-- were saying: We will do nothing until you take care of the 315,000 out of 165 million, until you take care of the 315,000 wealthiest taxpayers in this Nation. Because nothing much happens anymore in the U.S. Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes, the minority party knew its threats to stop everything just might work.

Two weeks ago, all 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Majority Leader Reid telling him they would block everything until the Senate passed tax cuts for millionaires, for deca-millionaires, and for billionaires.

It is ironic that a party that generally opposes a public employee's right to strike--as it did only last Wednesday--would effectively engage in a strike itself. This Republican work stoppage--since I guess Senators cannot actually go on strike--this Republican work stoppage means no tax cuts for the middle class unless millionaires get a larger tax cut.

It means leaving middle-class families and unemployed workers in the crosshairs unless deca-millionaires got a huge tax cut.

Their threat means that unemployment benefits for workers would end unless billionaire CEOs got their estate tax reduced.

It means we cannot provide the childcare or the earned-income tax credits for low-income working families who have earned this vital assistance.

It means blocking a cost-of-living increase for seniors on Social Security to help buy medicines, food, and shelter.

It means we cannot address national security concerns such as the New START treaty--something that national security experts and every living Secretary of State from both parties support.

It means we cannot do any of these things--provide for our Nation's health, economic health, and national security until we take care of the millionaires and billionaires first.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of our country--including, I should add, lots of U.S. Senators--come first, we are told. But what about the 86,000 Ohioan workers who saw their unemployment benefits run out 2 weeks ago? Or the 108,000 Ohioans expected to lose benefits at the end of this month?

Sorry. Get in line behind the millionaires who get $90,000 in tax cuts.

How about the insurance agent in Zanesville, OH, who makes $50,000 a year and is hoping for a tax cut of $800 for a small downpayment to help a daughter at the community college of Zane State?

Too bad. Not until a deca-millionaire receives his tax cut of $400,000.

What about a single mother with two children earning $30,000 a year and hoping for an expanded childcare and earned-income tax credit?

Tough luck. Wait in line for the billionaire to get his tax cut of tens of millions of dollars.

What do they think this country is all about? That we cannot help people who have lost their jobs who are desperately looking for work? That we cannot extend a tax break to a sales clerk making $27,000 a year who is raising two children until the millionaire gets his cash? That we cannot cut taxes for the broad middle class until the richest 1 percent of our country gets tens of thousands of dollars of tax cuts?

To hold middle-class Americans hostage--as all 42 Republican Senators have done--may be the most cynical political act I have ever seen.

In a recent Cleveland Plain Dealer article, Susan Harrell, a laid off bookkeeper, who does not like how tax cuts for the wealthy is a condition for maintaining unemployment benefits, said of the deal:

It's like extortion. Either you do what we say, or several

million Americans will be living on the street.

Think about that. This is an unemployed, laid off bookkeeper. Like many people who write me--many of these people have worked all their lives--20, 30, 40 years. They are laid off. Susan writes: ``It's like extortion. Either you do what we say''--give us our tax cuts for millionaires--``or several million Americans will be living on the street.'' What kind of country is this that such a cynical, cynical, cynical exercise would happen?

In the same article, Debbie Kline, coordinator of Cleveland Jobs for Justice, compares the choice as ``weighing tax cuts [for the rich] and people not eating, living, and surviving.''

Some say the Republicans are merely obstructing or gaming the Senate rules. But I am with Susan--legislative extortion may be a more accurate description. Unfortunately, we may have to pay the ransom.

That means tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in exchange for unemployment insurance and middle-class tax relief.

Let me tell you about some people who are caught in the middle.

Michael from Shelby County, in western Ohio, writes me:

I am an unemployed father of four and one of the tens of

thousands of faceless Ohioans about to be cut off from

unemployment insurance benefits.

It is obscene to think that a tax giveaway for the wealthy

is gaining more traction politically than helping working

class people survive.

As an unemployed worker I have no lobby or trade

association backing. Instead, I have to worry about losing my

house, my credit rating and any sense of being a beneficiary

of the ``American Dream''.

What am I supposed to do?

Forty-two Republicans say: Sorry. Get in line. Wait until we give the tax cuts for the rich.

Stacie from Meigs County, down on the Ohio River:

I am a mother of three school-aged, honor students, one

with moderate Cerebral Palsy. I have a Masters Degree in

Education and teach in the public school system in the State

of Ohio.

My husband has been unemployed for 18 months. During this

time he has worked part-time and attended school full-time

maintaining an excellent grade point average.

As a family we have worked very hard to adjust to our

change in circumstance like many other Americans. However

with the loss of $60,000+ in income we had to file Chapter

13.

Now we are faced with not having any unemployment benefits.

This will be a loss of another $450 per week. We need to feed

our family.

Please vote to extend the unemployment insurance for all

unemployed workers who are trying to better themselves during

this economic crisis.

What about the budget deficit which concerns all of us? Two weeks ago, when the deficit commission released its report, Members of both parties somberly explained that nothing mattered as much as the increasing debt that will burden our children and grandchildren.

A year from now, when Republicans will likely block extension of unemployment, we will remind them how their own $128 billion for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires over the next 3 years alone has already blown a hole in the budget. We will remind them what their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires cost when they argue vociferously for cuts to education, for the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, and for scaling back health care. Let's not forget that congressional Republicans who were outspoken about the debt are the people most responsible for it.

Congressional Republicans have said that cutting taxes on the highest earners would pay for itself. It hasn't. The Presiding Officer sat in the House of Representatives in those days when the huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 passed. They always said they would pay for themselves. Not even close. We went from a surplus when President Clinton left office, the largest surplus in U.S. history, to massive deficits when President Bush left office, the largest deficits up to that point in American history.

Congressional Republicans, who were the most responsible for this economic situation, along with President Bush, said that the tax cuts for the wealthiest would grow the economy and create jobs. They haven't. Under President Bush, for 8 years, we lost 673,000 private sector jobs. We actually declined in the number of Americans working in the private sector during those 8 years. From 2001 to 2007, we had below average economic growth.

Republicans say that if millionaires have to pay the same tax they did before the Bush tax cuts; that is, during the Clinton years, then job creation will suffer. But it is a fact that during the Clinton years we created 22 million jobs in those 8 years--again, 21 million private sector jobs and 22 million overall. We created 21 million private sector jobs compared to private sector job loss during the Bush years.

Congressional Republicans voted for the Iraq war but have ignored its costs, charging it to our children and grandchildren. In 2003, Republicans voted to bail out the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization and charged it to our children and grandchildren.

If the last decade is any indication, it is that trickle-down economics simply doesn't work. The last decade has shown it has failed history as an experiment.

Meanwhile, during the last 2 years alone, Democrats--usually without Republican support--have already passed $500 billion in tax cuts through the ARRA, through the Small Business Act, through the HIRE Act. Our economic policies that are focused on the middle class are helping to create jobs and turn around our economy.

For the past 50 years, Republicans and Democrats alike have always acted to provide extended unemployment during tough economic times. That is because it is not only a moral obligation, but it is also an economic stimulus for our economy. The same goes for the childcare and the earned-income tax credits. They strengthen the middle class. They give people opportunity to join the middle class. They help the economy by injecting money into the economy.

So this debate really comes down to whose side are you on and whom are you fighting for. It is a choice between paying an extortionist's ransom--we are not going to do anything; we are going to do a work stoppage unless we do tax cuts for the rich--it is a choice between paying an extortionist's ransom or letting the middle class continue to struggle. It is a choice forced upon us during a time when we simply can't afford to play politics with people's livelihoods.

I can't look an unemployed worker in the eye and tell him that our political principles stand in the way of their earned benefits. As much as I dislike what they did and how they did it, as much as I dislike these tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the richest people, the estate tax cuts, the huge hole they are driving in the deficit, as much as I dislike that--and they are my principles I stand on--I just can't imagine saying to an unemployed worker: Sorry, as much as I want to help you, I just don't believe this is fair that we should do this. I can't look at a single mother making $27,000 a year and say: The earned-income tax credit is not important, even though it is for you, and turn my back on them. The unemployed worker, the single parent making $28,000 a year working two jobs should not have to end the holiday season and enter the new year worried because of politics and about how the arcane Senate procedure stood in the way.

I may not like the choice, but I have to stand with the Ohioans who may have to wait until midnight when their unemployment benefits are activated to buy necessities such as milk and bread. We have to stand with the mother and the father and the teacher and the nurse and the farmer who need middle-class tax relief to care for a child, afford a college education, or to build a small business.

It is with that in mind that I vote in favor of this bill--people such as Ericka and Susan and Debbie and Michael and Stacy who say: Enough is enough. Please help me. Because of them, I will continue to fight on their behalf.

I hope my Republican colleagues learn something from this. Legislative threats of a work stoppage and legislative blackmail may have helped their rich friends and may continue today, but in the end, it is bad for our economy, it is bad for the Senate, it is terrible for our country, and it is terrible for our future.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich, my State's senior Senator, be recognized at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 15, to bid farewell to the Senate for up to 20 minutes; further, that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 21, Senator Specter be recognized to deliver his farewell to the Senate; provided further that on Wednesday, December 15, upon conclusion of the vote on proceeding to executive session, the Senate return to legislative session in order for Senator Lincoln to say farewell to the Senate; that at the conclusion of her remarks and any of her colleagues, the Senate then resume executive session at the same status prior to Senator Lincoln's recognition in legislative session.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4005, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, December 15; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date; that the morning hour be deemed to have expired; that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to concur with respect to H.R. 4853, the vehicle for the tax compromise, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of up to four rollcall votes at approximately noon tomorrow. At 2:15, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to executive session to consider START.

As a reminder, under a previous order, there will be several farewell speeches tomorrow: Senator Bayh at 10 a.m., Senator Voinovich at 10:30 a.m., and Senator Lincoln following the 2:15 vote.

Mr. President, if there is no further business before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

My sense is similar to yours. I was just on a TV show a minute ago. I was asked, the liberals or the conservatives, what they think about this. This really is not a liberal-conservative issue. First of all, the tax cuts overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest taxpayers. We are seeing the kinds of tax cuts that millionaires and billionaires get from the income tax and from the estate tax. But it is also equally important that it blows a hole in our budget deficit.

In some sense, we are borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year now--if this agreement becomes law, we are borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year from the Chinese, and we are putting it on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren for them to pay off who knows when, and then we are giving these tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. In those simple terms, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in our relationship with China. It doesn't make sense in the lost jobs that come from that China trade policy. It doesn't make sense in undermining the middle class. It doesn't make sense in terms of fairness in the tax system. It doesn't make sense for our children and grandchildren and the burden they are going to have to bear to pay off this debt. Giving a millionaire a tax cut and charging it to our kids, who are paying taxes on, unfortunately, in the last few years, declining wages, is morally reprehensible.

I know Senator Sanders has been on the floor 2 hours now talking about this and how important it is and really analyzing it and educating about it and all that. I think about the economic policy, too, that this embodies.

Nine or 10 years ago, Senator Sanders and the Presiding Officer, when he was a Member of the House, Senator Udall from Colorado, and I and others voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, principally because those tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the wealthy and ended up adding to our national debt. We had a surplus then. We sure don't now. We had the largest surplus we ever had in 2001. It blew a hole in that. But we passed those tax cuts under the belief, those who supported it-- President Bush and Senator McConnell and so many others--under the belief that that kind of trickle-down economics would grow our economy.

In the 8 years--and this is not partisan, this is not opinion, this is fact--from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2009, President Bush's 8 years, we actually had private sector job loss in this country. Contrast that with a different economic policy--January 1, 1993, to January 1, 2001, the Clinton 8 years. Again, this isn't partisan, this isn't opinion, this is fact. During the Clinton 8 years, we had 21 million private sector jobs created--21 million private sector jobs created--and literally zero private sector jobs in the Bush 8 years of trickle-down economics.

Why would we blow a hole in the budget, which this bill does, for our kids to pay off? Why would we continue an economic policy that clearly did not work for this country? It didn't work for the middle class. We saw middle-class wages--not only no job increase during those 8 years, except for the people at the very top, we saw actual wage stagnation or worse. Most Americans did not get a raise during the 8 Bush years. Most Americans simply saw their wages flat or in many cases decline. The superwealthy saw a big increase in their incomes and in their net assets. And now we are going to give a tax break to them.

This is not class warfare. Lots of people I know have a lot of money. I don't have any ill will for them. But why would we help those people who have done so very well and then have our children pay for it?

Senator Sanders just mentioned the letter from Barbara Kennelly from one of the largest seniors organizations in the country and what this will mean for Social Security. Here is my fear. If this is passed, we are going to see our budget deficit increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office, about $900 billion because of this package, $800-some billion over the next couple of years.

As soon as it is signed by President Obama, even though it was negotiated

with the Republican Senate leadership and overwhelming numbers of Republicans in the Senate and House--I assume they are going to vote for it--they are going to say: Look at the huge budget deficit President Obama created. From that day on, they are going to go after ways to cut the budget. That is OK. I agree we need to deal with spending and taxes and the whole picture.

But I also know from watching Republicans--I saw them in the House when they moved toward Medicare privatization in 2003, 2004, and 2005. They had some success. Fortunately, we were able to beat back most of it. I remember that in 2005, after President Bush was reelected in a very close race, he spoke repeatedly about privatizing Social Security. I know that is what they want to do. In the 1990s, Speaker Gingrich-- fortunately beaten back by President Clinton--tried to privatize Medicare.

That is the way they cut the budget, they go after Medicare and Social Security. So this vote on this package--to me, we need to call the President, write the President, work with the President to say: No deal, and this has to be something very different from what it is now because it will cause huge deficits our children and grandchildren will have to bear. It will not help the economy appreciably because we saw what the trickle-down economic policies of the Bush years did. It does not help the middle class enough.

So it is pretty clear to me how this jeopardizes Social Security, how it jeopardizes Medicare, how it will force more cuts and more pressure on those programs that have lifted so many people into the middle class. In 1965, when Medicare was first passed, half of the senior citizens in this country had no health insurance--half of the seniors had no health insurance. Today 99 percent of seniors have health insurance, something like that.

I know we are a country now that has created a strong middle class. We have seen that middle class--because of these tax cuts for the wealthy, trickle-down kind of economic policy, we have seen the middle class shrink in the last few years. I do not want that to keep happening. That is why I am very concerned about this. That is why I am working with the Senate to say: No deal. We need to much more seriously focus on not running up a huge debt, on making sure Social Security is protected, on an economic policy that works for the middle class, on a tax policy that is fair to the middle class.

That is why Senator Sanders' work is so important on the floor today, taking the floor for a longer period than anybody I have seen since I have been in the Senate, in a filibuster kind of setting, where he is raising these questions, asking these questions, educating the public, talking to people all over the country, in this Chamber and outside to change this policy.

It tells a story. I came to the floor right after that vote. I had supported it all along. I cosponsored Senator Sanders' effort to bring that to the floor, for the $250 check for all seniors and all disabled veterans, I might add, not just Social Security beneficiaries. But I came to the floor right afterwards because I was pretty amazed.

I know there is partisanship here. I know some people think their whole view of the world is to give tax cuts to the richest people of the world and it will all trickle down and we will all do better, it will lift all boats. That is a pretty good economic theory you might have learned at Harvard or you might have learned at Johns Hopkins near here or wherever. But it does not work. It is a nice theory, but it does not work to lift all boats.

So Senator Sanders' effort was to provide a $250 check, one time, at a cost of $14 billion. But one time, not continued $14 billion--one time for seniors who had not had a cost-of-living adjustment in 2 years. It just seemed to make so much sense when the average senior in this country gets about a $14,000-a-year Social Security check. I think that is about $1,200 a month. That is not their entire income for most seniors, but it is a big part of it. Many seniors live only on that. Many more seniors live on that, but only another couple $300, $400 a month.

There is not inflation maybe for people my age so much in this country, but if you are older and you have a lot of health care costs, there is inflation because the health care costs seem to go up higher than maybe anything but higher education, and maybe as much as that. So it was important that $250 be provided, we think, to every senior in the country and every disabled vet.

What was so amazing about it was that 42 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they would do nothing, nothing in the Senate, until tax cuts for the rich were approved, until they were signed into law.

Now, I have never seen Senators engage in a work stoppage or a strike. I mean, it was not quite a strike, which it is probably illegal for us to strike. I do not know, maybe. But it was a work stoppage.

They are saying: We are not doing anything until you give tax cuts to my rich friends, and I might say also to many people in the House and Senate whose income is in that bracket too. I am not accusing them of that, to be sure, but they were there for their rich friends and their biggest contributors and the wealthiest people in this country. But they were not there for a senior citizen living on $1,200 a month that could use that extra $250.

I have met too many seniors, and I know the Presiding Officer, when he travels to Colorado Springs or he goes to Cimarron or he goes to Denver, I know he hears seniors say: I cut my pills in half because I need my prescription to run for 2 months rather than 1 because I cannot afford it. Or I skipped my medicine today because my house is too cold, and I do not have enough heat. We know seniors make those choices. We make choices here, and the choice we made is 42 Republicans made it and blocked it because we need 60 votes. We had a majority of voters, an easy majority, for Senator Sanders' effort, 53 votes, 53 votes to do this, the $250, but we need 60 votes.

So 42 Republican Senators engaged in their work stoppage saying: We are not doing anything until we get these tax cuts for the rich. They said no to seniors. I am amazed by that, the callousness. I guess I am even more amazed when you consider--what is today, the 10th--when you consider in 2 weeks it is Christmas Day. That does not seem to bother them. It does not seem to bother them on unemployment benefits. And 85,000 Ohioans, a week and a half ago, lost their unemployment benefits--85,000. Their holiday season is ruined.

But I guess all of us will go home. I want to go home and be with Connie and my kids on Christmas. My children are grown. We have one grandchild. I want to be with him for as much of Christmas as I can. But we have a job to do today, this week and next week and this month and this year; and that is to extend unemployment benefits to people who have lost them, who are looking for jobs as hard as they can in a great majority of cases, and extending the tax cuts for the middle class and doing the right thing. So far, we have not done that.

I need to go to the airport. But I want to yield back to Senator Sanders for his work today. I hope next week, when we come back on Monday, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to say no deal on this one and to make this work for the middle class, make it work for Social Security beneficiaries, make it work for unemployed workers.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I hear what the Senator says about the tax burden in this country; that it falls predominantly on the middle class. When I hear him talk about the estate tax, couples pay no estate tax on the first $10 million of their assets after they both die. Considering they shelter a good bit beyond that, then the tax rate only on the dollars above $10 million were lowered significantly in this proposal--and then what has happened with extending the tax cuts.

I was intrigued, I guess it was yesterday, when the Senator offered a motion on the floor. In light of the fact that a relatively small group of people are getting huge tax cuts--millionaires and billionaires-- whether it is the estate tax upon their death that their heirs enjoy this huge tax break or whether it is when earning $1 million or $2 million or $5 million a year and getting a huge tax cut, the motion yesterday simply said, if I recall, that every Social Security beneficiary--and that is tens of millions--

Fifty million people would get a check for $250 from the government, because, I believe, about $13 billion for 1 year, it wouldn't have been a long-term deficit issue; it would have been a one-time cost for people who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year. So we know the average Social Security beneficiary gets about $14,000 a year. We know an awful lot of Social Security beneficiaries live mostly on their Social Security. Most people have a little bit more than that, but an awful lot have only a little bit more or nothing more so that is what they live on. They have no cost-of- living adjustment this year because of this sort of complicated formula.

But what was pretty amazing to me is how at the same time, every Republican signed a letter, 42 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they will do nothing else until they get their tax cuts for the rich. It is almost like a work stoppage. It is almost like the Republican Senators are on strike, saying: We are not going to vote or we are not going to do anything around here. We are not going to work or vote yes on anything around here until you give my people a tax cut, my wealthy friends and contributors in my States.

So the contrast of their saying we will not do anything for anybody else except millionaires and billionaires, we will not--even a $250 check, since there was no cost-of-living adjustment to seniors who are making about $14,000 a year from Social Security.

What that check would mean to them is--I think that contrast made was so important to understand. Give us some more about what that contrast means with those Social Security beneficiaries.

It was filibustered again, blocked by a minority of Senators, right?

That $750 billion is $75 billion a year for 10 years for millionaires and billionaires versus $13 billion once for senior citizens. In essence, that $750 billion--without getting too much into the weeds on numbers--in essence, we are borrowing that money from China, charging it to our children and grandchildren, putting it on their credit cards. They will pay it off who knows when. Then we are giving that $750 billion to people who are fabulously wealthy already, right? But they are unwilling to move forward on unemployment benefits or on your proposal to help a senior with $250 because they really are on strike.

They say: We are not doing anything until you give tax cuts to the rich, to my people.

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

Mr. President, I stand here simply amazed at what happened in the Senate, although I probably shouldn't be. I stand here amazed because in these economic times, senior citizens from Gallipolis to Ashtabula, to Middletown, to Toledo, in my State, and from the Iron Range to Rochester, MN, the State of the Presiding Officer, and all across this country, who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year; who are victims of inflation--medical inflation especially--and the inflation rate is not very high in our society, so they didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment, even though their cost of living has gone up--every single Republican in this institution--every single Republican--voted no on a $250 one-time check to go to senior citizens. It would have meant the equivalent of about 1\1/2\ percent or less than that cost-of-living adjustment.

If they are so interested in balancing the budget that they do not want to do that, maybe that is one argument--although not a very good one in these economic times--but when, in the same week, they sign a letter saying we are not going to do anything--every single Republican signed a letter saying we are not going to do anything in the Senate-- we are not voting yes on anything until we get the tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, that is pretty outrageous.

In the tax cut they are asking for, someone who makes $10 million a year gets a $40,000 tax cut--I am sorry, somebody making $10 million a year gets a $100,000 tax cut, I believe; somebody making $1 million gets a $40,000 tax cut. And they are saying they are willing to vote for that, but they are not willing to vote for $250 for every senior citizen in this country.

The cost of that, if you want to get in the weeds and talk about budget issues, the cost of that $250 that Senator Sanders sponsored would be about $13 billion. The cost of these tax cuts for the wealthy is about $700 billion over the next 10 years.

Basically, what they are doing, what we are doing for their tax cuts for the wealthy is in essence borrowing $700 billion from China and putting it on our children's and grandchildren's credit card to pay off later--let them worry about it--and giving that money to millionaires and billionaires. They are willing to do that, but they will not vote $250, a total of $13 billion one time. They are not willing, for this year, to help those seniors in Youngstown and Lima and Zanesville and Chillicothe and Tipp City, OH. I just don't get it.

I know it is the Christmas season. That is not a reason to do it, but you would think there would be a little more generosity in their hearts during this most difficult time for seniors who are barely making it. The average senior citizen in this country gets about $14,000 Social Security a year. Many seniors in my State, in places such as Columbus and Dayton and Portsmouth, live on not much more than their Social Security check, and a $250 payment would have made a difference--maybe not having to split their medicine in two and taking half a dosage each time or maybe actually being able to heat their homes as it gets colder and colder as the winter comes upon us, that they would have a little opportunity to at least do that and live a little more comfortably.

Instead this place again said yes to tax cuts for the rich, no to the senior citizens. A majority of Senators voted for this, but every single Republican voted against it. I don't get it. I don't mean to sound partisan, but when it is like that it is unbelievable. When Senators--most of us are going to go home and enjoy our holidays--that we would put our Nation's seniors through something like that.

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

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Montana, who laid out exactly why his efforts to extend the Bush tax cuts to the middle class up to $250,000 and to not extend them beyond that is the exact right public policy. It is good fiscal policy. It is good economic policy. It is good for our country. It is exactly the right thing to do. I thank him for his explanation of including the earned-income tax credit, which is the best tax incentive to help people who are working hard, playing by the rules, making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, get a much fairer tax--really encouraging work the way the IETC does.

I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Montana, for including the unemployment insurance in this because 85,000 Ohioans have lost their unemployment insurance. These are people--or many of them are, as I have read letters on the Senate floor and will read a couple today--who have worked for 20, 30, 40 years and simply can't find a job.

There are five people applying for every one job opening in my State and in this country. It is so important that these people continue to get some assistance. In spite of what some of my Republican colleagues suggest, unemployment insurance is insurance, not welfare. Their employer, on their behalf, pays into the unemployment insurance fund in their States. When they lose their jobs, because it is insurance, they should get assistance. It is like fire or health insurance. You don't want to use it, but you want it to be there if you need it. That is why it is so important. I appreciate Senator Baucus's discussion of why this is the right policy.

Before I read some letters from people about unemployment benefits, I want to talk about why that is the right policy. The Bush tax cuts primarily went to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. As Senator McCaskill said, it was an experiment. For 10 years, we tried to see if this worked. I didn't support that when it passed in the House many years ago because I thought they were tilted toward upper income people and not focused on the middle class. So it was an experiment in many ways where major tax breaks were given to the rich, and according to the so- called trickle-down economic theory, they would hire people and much would trickle down and they would provide jobs and strengthen the middle class.

What we saw during the Bush 8 years as the main thrust of the economic policy was the tax break for the rich. That was the stated policy; that if we cut taxes enough on the wealthiest Americans, it would drive the economy forward. But we know that in those 8 years of the Bush administration there was a 1 million net job increase, not enough to provide jobs to keep up with the growing population or not enough to provide jobs for the kids coming out of high school or those leaving the Army or those coming out of college.

So it is clear the experiment failed. They cut taxes for the rich and there was only a 1 million increase in jobs. It didn't work.

Look at the 8 years before that, the Clinton years--and these are facts, not opinions--where President Clinton did a mix of tax cuts, tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts, and he balanced the budget. We ended up with a 22 million job increase with that economic policy, which we want to follow today, versus a 1 million job increase, which was not even enough to keep up with the growing population with the Bush economic policy.

It is clear what this means--not to mention what Senator Baucus pointed

out too. We are, in essence, borrowing $700 billion from the Chinese to pay for these tax cuts. That is where we borrow a lot of money. We are talking about borrowing $700 billion and putting it on a credit card for our children and grandchildren. The pages sitting here will get to pay off that $700 billion in tax cuts for the rich, and then the $700 billion is given to the wealthiest taxpayers. So they want to borrow from China, charge it to our children and grandchildren, and give it to millionaires and billionaires.

What kind of moral policy, let alone the bad economic policy, is that? It is bad fiscal policy to do anything but tax cuts for the middle class. It is bad economic policy. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren.

Also, I will make a comparison in this bill between unemployment benefits, extending and maintaining unemployment benefits to the 85,000 families in Ohio who found out 2 days ago their unemployment insurance was no longer. Some of those families will lose their homes, and a father will have to sit down with his 12-year-old daughter and say: Honey, we are going to lose this house and move somewhere else. The child will say: What school district are we going to be in, Dad? He would say: I don't know yet.

We know the hardship this will create if we don't extend these benefits. These people want to go back to work and they are trying to find jobs, but there are not enough jobs out there. They need money for gasoline to drive around and look for jobs, and they need all these things just to stay alive and have a decent standard of living. But take the money in the unemployment extension--as John McCain's chief economic adviser during his 2008 campaign said, $1 put into unemployment benefits of a person in Zanesville or Lima or Hamilton, OH, that father or mother, that man or woman will spend that money because they need to. They need to buy shoes for their kids, food for themselves; they need to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. That money will be spent. Every dollar you put into unemployment generates $1.60 in economic activity, and that will create jobs.

Conversely, a dollar in tax cuts for the wealthy--a dollar that goes to a millionaire--what are they going to buy that they are not already buying? They meet their needs. They have millions of dollars at their discretion to do it. They are not going to buy more food or go to a fancy restaurant or take an extra vacation. They have the money they need. That $1 going to the wealthy, according to the analysis of John McCain's chief economic adviser, ends up generating about 30 cents in activity and creating significantly fewer jobs.

I want to read a couple of letters from people in my State of Ohio about what this legislation means in terms of unemployment benefits.

This is from Shanata from Montgomery County, in the Dayton area:

I have been out of work since February and have been

receiving unemployment benefits. I am 36 years old and have

been working since I was 16.

This is par for the course in the letters we get. These people have been working hard since a very young age.

I have applied for 100 jobs in the past month alone, and

have found absolutely nothing. If unemployment stops, I will

have even less. I am in school full-time, but I know that I

can't return in January since I will have absolutely no way

to pay my bills. Unemployment is not allowing me to go on

trips, eat out every day, shop 'til I drop, or anything else

frivolous. I just need to keep a roof over my head and food

in me and my daughters' stomachs. Please work diligently to

help extend unemployment for those who will have nothing

without it.

This is Dagney from Lorain County, my home county, between Cleveland and Toledo:

Please, Senator, please do everything you can to get the

unemployment extension passed. I have been unemployed for

more than a year and have not found a job yet. We are two

months behind on our mortgage and I am so afraid we are going

to lose our house. We have exhausted our savings and my

husband is off work too due to an accident. I am so worried.

Please help us.

This is from Carol from Summit County, in Akron:

I am writing for myself and thousands of other unemployed

Ohioans whose unemployment benefits are running out. We need

help.

Mr. President, again, 85,000 families lost their benefits in my State alone three nights ago.

I am 61 years old and have been on unemployment since June

2010 and my benefits run out December 20. There are no

extensions at this time and there are no jobs for a senior

citizen with over 40 years of work experience. Believe me, I

have tried everything from Walmart to McDonalds. I have no

savings and lost what little retirement I had a couple years

ago with many others. I'm not asking for a handout--just some

help until the job market picks up out here. Please encourage

Congress to provide at least one more extension--without it,

many Ohioans will be destitute. I never thought when I was

raising my family as a single mom that I would find myself in

this position at this age.

I know my colleagues want to do the right thing. I believe even those who vote no on everything that I believe in, I think they want to do the right thing. I just wonder--I know they get letters like this because every one of us--whether you are in Missoula or in Eugene or in Dayton, every one of us gets letters from constituents in our States who are hurting, even in States that have pretty good economies. I don't know if they don't read them or if our colleagues never meet people like this. I assume our colleagues probably don't visit food pantries as I do, but some of my other colleagues do and hear the stories. I don't know that I have been to a food pantry in the last 2 years where I don't hear a volunteer--and most of them are staffed by all volunteers--or a paid director say: You know, see those people over there? They used to bring food in, and now they are picking up food. That is the story I hear time after time.

I don't think my colleagues are hard hearted or callous. I just wonder if they know, or if they are hearing from, people like Carol and Shanata and Dagney, or if they are not visiting food pantries and stopping at a union hall and talking to an out-of-work carpenter or a laborer who hasn't been called to a worksite for 7 or 8 months.

I have said to the majority leader that I think we should stay here until New Years. I would rather be home with my family; family is very important to me. But if we don't continue these unemployment benefits, we are going to ruin the holidays for those 85,000 Ohioans--and that number keeps growing--so we don't deserve much of a holiday either if that is the best we can do.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will in a moment--in the spirit of fair play, we are waiting for some Republicans to enter the Chamber--I will ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from S. 3981 so we can bring up and move forward on maintaining unemployment benefits for thousands of people. In my State alone, last night at midnight, 88,000--that is 1,000 people in every county; we have 88 counties in Ohio--Ohioans saw their unemployment benefits stopped because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to maintain unemployment benefits. What is shocking to me is that this Senate and the House of Representatives, regardless of party, for years, when our country has been in bad economic times, have maintained unemployment benefits for laid-off workers.

Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has made a couple comments that disturb me and make it very hard to do this. We need a supermajority. We need 60 votes. They continue to filibuster or threaten to filibuster. Senator McConnell has made two statements, one through a letter in the last 24 hours and one 3 or 4 weeks ago when he said his No. 1 goal is that Barack Obama be a one-term President. I understand political parties, but his No. 1 goal is that President Obama serve only one term? Minority Leader McConnell, in a letter signed by all his Republican colleagues, which was sent to Senator Reid, signed by every Republican, said:

We write to inform you we will not agree to invoke cloture

on the motion to proceed on any legislative item until the

Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented

the tax increases that currently will happen in January.

What the Republicans are doing, I don't even understand it. They are saying they insist on a millionaire and billionaire tax cut come January, and they will, for all intents and purposes, shut down the government if they don't get their way. They are saying: Forget extending unemployment benefits, forget food safety legislation, forget don't ask, don't tell, forget the Russian-American START treaty--it used to be that politics ended at the water's edge; those days are over--and forget a middle-class tax cut. They are saying: We will shut down the government if we can't get a tax cut for billionaires and millionaires. My first priority is extending unemployment benefits to the 60 or 70,000 Michiganders; perhaps from the State of Senator Schumer, I would guess over 100,000 New Yorkers; from New Mexico, I would guess probably 10,000; and Alaska, thousands in that State. They are willing to say to those unemployed workers--and this is not unemployment welfare; this is unemployment insurance. Every worker in the State, he or his employer--academicians will debate whether the employee or employer actually pays it, but they put into the unemployment insurance fund. When they are laid off, they get money out of the fund. It is similar to health insurance or car insurance. You don't want to collect on it, but it is called insurance. You hope you are working so you don't have to collect on it, but they need to.

There are five people applying for every open job, on average. In Michigan and Ohio, it is probably worse than that. These are not people sitting around with nothing to do, not wanting to work. I will not do this today, but I have read letter after letter from Ohioans saying: Here is my story. I have lost my medical coverage because I don't have a job, and you are cutting off my unemployment benefits--``you'' meaning the Republican filibuster.

They will say: I am about to lose my house, and I have to tell my 12- year-old daughter we will have to switch schools, and I don't even know what school we will go to because we are going to live in an apartment somewhere else because the house is foreclosed on. They are now going to the food bank they used to give money to.

Do my Republican colleagues know any of these people? Do they go out and talk to people who have lost their jobs and have to explain to their families that they will lose their house and explain to the wife that their insurance has been canceled because they will not extend unemployment benefits? This is not a big, new welfare program. This is extending unemployment benefits. I just don't get it. They would rather do tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They would rather borrow $700 billion from the Chinese, put it on a credit card that their kids and grandkids will have to pay off, and then give it to billionaires and millionaires. That is the choice they are making.

It is clear whose side people are on here. Are you on the side of maintaining unemployment benefits or are you on the side of millionaires and billionaires? Are you for giving a tax cut to the middle class, moving to pay down the budget deficit? It is so clear what we need to do.

My colleagues still aren't here to make the request. I will add a few more comments.

The other reason to maintain unemployment benefits is all economics. Senator McCain, when he was a candidate, his chief economic adviser said the best way to grow the economy, the best stimulus dollar you can spend is unemployment insurance. Because when you put a dollar in a laid-off worker's pocket from Lima or Zaynesville, she will spend it at the local grocery store, the local shoe store, to pay property tax, to pay the gas bill, whatever.

That money is recycled in the economy. You give a tax cut to upper income people--a millionaire or billionaire--according to John McCain's economic adviser, you only get a 32-cent bang for your buck out of that versus $1.60 when you extend unemployment benefits, when you pay unemployment benefits. What that means clearly is the best thing to do for our economy is these unemployment benefits, not tax cuts for somebody already making $3 million a year. They are not going to buy anything more. They already have what they need. To give them another $30,000 or $50,000 in tax cuts simply does not mean anything.

It is so important for purposes of the budget deficit, it is so important for purposes of growing this economy, and it is so important because it is the right thing to do for our workers, our laid off people, our communities that suffer if these workers are not spending these dollars in our communities. It is just so important that we move forward and do that.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor for one of my colleagues who has another unanimous-consent request.

Yes.

Yes, that is it. To illustrate that further to Senator Schumer and to the Presiding Officer, as to the last two big tax cuts that were done in this country for the wealthy--in 2003 by President Bush, in 2001 by President Bush--we know what happened from those two tax cuts. In the 8 years of President Bush, the hallmark of his economic policy was two major tax cuts for the wealthy, and there was a 1 million job increase in those 8 years during George Bush's Presidency--a million jobs--not even a net increase, not even enough to keep up with people coming out of the Army or coming out of college or high school.

During the Clinton years, where they had a mix of tax cuts, some increases for higher income people, and they balanced the budget, did some budget cuts that Senator McCaskill supports--some of those--we ended up during President Clinton's 8 years with a 22 million job increase. There was a 22 million job increase by managing the budget right and giving assistance to middle-class people.

In the Bush 8 years, with tax cuts for the wealthy: 1 million jobs. Yet Republicans now are arguing that the most important thing, possibly, to do for the economy, the most important thing to do for our country, is to reward the people who have already done very well in the last 10 years, at the expense of the broad middle class who have seen basically stagnant wages or worse during this decade.

Mr. President, I would emphasize what all my colleagues are saying, particularly what the Senator from Missouri said--a State that, as of last night at midnight, probably had some 40,000 to 50,000, to 60,000 unemployed people lose their unemployment benefits they had earned because they had worked and they and their employer paid into it, but I would especially emphasize what she said.

Ten years ago, these tax cuts primarily, overwhelmingly, went to the wealthiest Americans, and it was an economic experiment. I opposed them. I was in the House then. Congresswoman Stabenow opposed them. She was in the Senate then, I guess. But it is clear they haven't worked--1 million jobs during the Bush years, 22 million jobs during the Clinton years.

As a result--and I would emphasize this too--all of these proposals we are going to bring forward now--and we will ask unanimous consent to get these passed to get the economy up and running--the cost of all of them is less than the cost of this tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.