of country and stop the washington interference with producing our own energy here at home. don't you agree? [applause] i also have had the opportunity to talk to small business. get shares and can ohio meeting with small businesses getting involved in the energy business and we are talking about people who own companies that sell equipment, sell trucks, people that own restaurants in area, people that own hotels. you have seen in westmoreland county. this is a church of creator that if we deal with this in a way that encourages rather than discouraging and we will created jobs. yet we have a president and administration looking for new ways to impose federal regulations on energy production. tim and i are talking about this toght. there are literally a dozen different federal agencies and departments looking at ways to provide federal reg natori overlay on our production of oil and gas through the shale pines.

this is not the way for us to get our upon -- the economy back on track through evan administration who -- not offshore onshore. lesser of production on federal lands including offshore decreased at a time of record gas prices. lester of production on federal lands decreased by 14%. does that make sense to you? no. we should be doing apposite promoting production, prone in jobs and american independence. i just think they don't get it. unindexed campaign trip to pennsylvania hope the president spends time with folks that are involved in the energy business. hito be spent time with a nearly 500,000 pennsylvanians who are out of work. because he keeps saying things are going great. the white house tells us that the economy is doing fine, everything is going great. i don't sense that an ohio. i know you don't sense that here in pennsylvania. unfortunately they view this as another business cycle downturn. they don't understand we have fundamental problems in our

economy and the president has not addressed it in his four years and has no interest in addressing it. republicans know we need to do some things to change the way our economy works and that includes tax reform, not raising taxes on small businesses but reforming the tax code to bring back jobs. we know we have to have regrets for relief to free up the private sector. we knew we need to develop energy resources to create jobs and opportunity. we know there are lots of things that can be done on health care cost containment. we experienced a two-year anniversary of the president's trillion dollar health care bill. how is that working? not too well. the cost of not gone down, they have gone up and if they budget buster to boost so finally we have got to deal with this deficit and debt for our economy truly to take it. it sort of a wet blanket over our economy today. we are in desperate need of a new direction. not because we are partisan. not because we are republicans.

we are americans. we understand the strength of our country comes not from washington, but it comes from people. the strength of our economy does not, rum washington and the regulatory environment in washington. it comes from three men and women in the private sector and ultimately this comes from the way our country was founded. it's a different concept, and at the time it was a radical idea. says notion found in the declaration of independence what we are in doubt not but the state not by the government, but by our creator with certain inalienable rights and those inalienable rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that pursuit of happiness is what has made our economy also the strongest economy on the face of the earth. we need to get back to some of those concepts, don't we? some of the basic concepts to say we as americans have an opportunity again to be as ronald reagan used to say that

shining city on the hill. need to do is return to those principles and values that have made us great. we need a leader who understands why america shines and i believe mitt romney is that person. he is a great leader. he has turned around businesses and turned around his state in massachusetts. he turned around the salt lake olympics are going his business career he created over 100,000 jobs. it would be nice to have someone in the white house that knows how to create jobs, wouldn't it? [applause] in the international spotlight he took over the salt lake olympics when they were mired in scandal and he rescued the games from insolvency and by the way folks this is about five months after the devastating attack on 9/11. he made america proud turning around those olympics. later as governor of massachusetts his state faced a 3 billion-dollar budget deficit when he took over. he not only balance the budget, he cut taxes 19 times and when

he left massachusetts they actually had a $2 billion surplus in a rainy day fund. that is what we needed in washington, don't we? that is the kind of turnaround. [applause] and a doing so he had to work with democrats because massachusetts is a pretty democratic states so he learned how to promote a conservative agenda by bringing people across the aisle together to solve problems. again that is what we needed washington to be able to cut spending and jumpstart job creation. he he is actually going to. he not only is expensive lead economic turnaround that he has the right plan to do it. he will cut spending. he will send to congress fundamental tax reforms that lowers the rate, makes american competitive again. to roll back the overreach of the obama administration and give people back to work. he will expand domestic energy production as we talked about tonight and he will rid us of president obama's one-size-fits-all budget busting health care plan which is

dragging down job creation by increasing costs for all of us. that is a pretty good agenda, isn't it? [applause] we have spent the last three years with a president who is over promised and under delivered. i think it's time to elect someone who knows how to lead. do you agree with me on that? [applause] and we can do it. we have gone through tough times for 600. we have gone through two great world wars and the depression and we have always come out stronger. we are tough. we are american. we still have that innovative entrepreneurial spirit and with the right leadership and the right policies again consistent with the values and principles that made this country great, we will rise to the challenge and once again that beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world, that shining city on the hill. let's go do it. godspeed to you and god alessio westmoreland county.

[applause] [applause] >> members of congress coming back to capitol hill today after she week recess

>> this is really a book not just about lyndon johnson but about robert kennedy and jack kennedy and the interplay of their personalities, particularly robert i guess and it's a very complicated story that i don't think people know of two very complicated people, and robert kennedy and lyndon johnson. and i had to really go into that and try to explain it because it is part of the story of all the way through the end of johnson's presidency. that is done and i suppose chronologically at the moment johnson is passing the 1965 voting rights act. that is sort of in one way opportunity. >> the world bank has named jim

yong kim president as its new chief. "the washington post" and others report after an unprecedented competition against nominees from nigeria and columbia. in a statement today the bank toward said it chose him at the institution's 12th president to succeed robert zoellick when his five-year term ends in june. bamber mental protection agency administrator lisa jackson was one of the featured speakers at the national action network's 14th annual convention. in her remark she focused on health and environmental protection. she says if we all want true quality we can't let pollution and other environmental threats fall and greatly affect the underserved and minority communities. stay let me go right to another cabinet member. we have broken their schedule and we are honored to have her with us. let me say in march, many of you

were with us from around the country, some of the chapter leaders, when we did the march from selma to montgomery about voter rights. that sunday and the brown chapel, which is the traditional service to commemorate that. our morning speakers ended up eating a methodist preacher by the name of lisa jackson. she stunned the audience and she stunned the civil rights leadership. she spoke at our martin luther king breakfast and i know she can go. she is a profoundly ambitious as well as eloquent member of the president's cabinet. she has the environmental

protection agency and she has broken are scheduled to come even though she could have said i did go in january but she said no i will come and share with you the leadership from around the country of national action network. may we welcome the epa administrator, lisa jackson. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all very much and thank you reverend sharpton. let me just start with saying first, good afternoon everyone. is good to see each and everyone of you but i have to start by thanking reverend sharpton not just for the opportunity to spend a few minutes with you this afternoon which i would never turn down and always rearrange my schedule for but as the mother of two teenaged african-american male children, thank you. [applause] i actually cannot give forts to

how important it was for us as a family to tune in and listen to your words during the period of incredible fear and anger for our families. and to my home, marc morial who grew up around the corner. i see him as the head of the urban league but i also see him as a lapel mark. [laughter] back in his day, still the day, much respect are gone now i'm really glad to be with you all and it is what it is. you have heard from my administration colleague. i'm happy for the chance to speak to you about health and environmental protection and why it is so important for you as leaders in our communities and why it's so important for our president. first i want to talk a minute about what it means to be here

in this moment in the midst of all these challenges and to be the author of this chapter in our history. you heard that i had the extraordinary opportunity to speak at brown chapel in selma, alabama. i was proud to join reverend sharpton and congressman john lewis and jesse jackson and so many others to remember and honor the bloody sunday bridge crossing that happened in 1965. i spoke that day as president obama often has, being a part of the joshua generation. in the bible, joshua took the mantle of leadership after the passing of moses. in much the same way the people of my generation, our generation, have taken on leadership in the next phase of our struggles. we are inherited her's of the moses generation. those who came before us and

lead us along the path to freedom. we are the generation that must now continue to work and bring people into the promised land. it is because of the work of the moses generation that i have the extraordinary honor to serve as the first african-american administrator of the united states environmental protection agency for the first african-american president of our country. [applause] that work also allows me to be part of the most diverse cabinet in american history, made up of men and women from different heritages, different backgrounds, many of whom you are hearing from as part of your panel and it was because of the past of the moses generation sattazahn status on that as a nation, that our most recent presidential election which gave me and my colleagues the opportunity to serve was the most racially and ethnically diverse group of people that

ever voted in any presidential election. so i am very glad to be here today to speak with you about the role that i have chosen in my profession and the work of my joshua generation moment and that is the work to protect our health and our environment. you see, i know that the promised land we are moving toward will not be a place where the water and air and the land are polluted. i believe that my part, a small part, in this generation is to make sure that when we get there it's not going to be a place where pollution weighs heavily on our health and on our prosperity. just saying that is nice. this is about the work. because environmental conditions continue to have a serious and often disproportionate impact on our communities today. consider the fact that heart

disease, cancer and respiratory illnesses are three of the top for most fatal health threats in america. i don't think anyone would argue that. consider that all of those illnesses have been linked to pollution in our air and our water. all three have had an overwhelming impact on our community. stop or a second and don't go any further than your immediate family and tell me there is not someone who once faced heart disease or cancer or a respiratory ailments like bronchitis or asthma that didn't just make them sick but took them from your family. african-americans are entering emergency rooms for asthma treatment at 3.5 times the rate that whites do. we die from asthma attacks twice as often and asthma is not the only disparity we face in the african-american community. mortality rates for cancer are higher for us than any other

group. heart disease is the most fatal illness in the black community. we can all share those stories about loved ones, friends. my father passed away from a heart attack when i was in high school. my youngest son, that teenager i was mentioning, he is already that old, but he spent his very first christmas in the hospital and he has fought with asthma his whole life. so this conference is wonderful because it brings us together to talk about a range of issues that face our community. some are right in our face and some d.c. each and every day. may point out that those range of issues are all interrelated. environmental issues like many of them really traveled alone. where their health challenges, other challenges are often there. maybe they follow and maybe they are already there. take education. millions of law school days each and every year.

every time i talk to a group of schoolchildren i say how many of you have asthma? our community the numbers are overwhelming. if i asked them how many of you have a sibling or cousin virtually 100% of the class. how can you build a foundation for her children when they are missing day after day in school and they can't concentrate when they are in class. or we can talk about the economic challenges that are a cost to our small businesses when workers are at a greater risk of illness. there are costs to employers in lost productivity when workers have to call in sick. there are cost to communities when environmental pollution and degradation keeps a business from coming and investing in that neighborhood. they go somewhere else. poison in our ground is poison in our economy. a wiki environment means a weak consumer base and unhealthy air means and unhealthy atmosphere for investment.

a clean, healthy community is a good place to buy a home and raise a family. it's more competitive in the race to attract new businesses and it has what it needs for prosperity. so environmental issues are health issues and educational issues, and economic issues. for many of us, those things translate into moral issues. president obama often speaks about rebuilding our economy around the values that we americans hold dear. it is consistent with our values to say the company shouldn't be a will to dump toxins in the air that we breathe or the water that we drink. it's consistent with those values to say that the food we put on our plates shouldn't be covered with harmful chemicals that threaten our health or the health of our children, and it is consistent with our values to say that poor minority communities should not air the heaviest burden of pollution and

the health threats about pollution brings. [applause] we want true equality than we then we can't let the heaviest burden of illusion and how threats fall in the poorest communities. we can't ignore disparities and environmental health threats facing african-americans because they are uncomfortable. we cannot sit in the back and talk about how environmental degradation is chasing jobs and opportunities out of our neighborhoods and shake our heads. this is one place. my section of the joshua generation has worked to do. in the last three years we worked hard to ensure that environmental and health protections are reached in every community. first and foremost we have developed a comprehensive and my mental justice plan at epa and it's not just epa, but we have now been joined by the entire obama administration. i have called on every program, every government agency is also

doing the same. every program is doing its part to address environmental disparities, to raise awareness, to consider the impact of its decisions on former beau populations. it's not just the work of the epa. we have established or increase the number of job creating restoration activities. one of my personal favorites is in new orleans in the shadow of the mighty river, the inter-agency federal urban waters partnership. that effort is designed to do a couple of things. first, reconnect people with their waterfronts and give them opportunities to revitalize those areas as part of building healthier, stronger communities and don't think that doesn't help our community. just bringing our children and people back to the waterfront weekends to build that connection as a community.

especially in urban areas which are organized around our mighty rivers. another example is our initiative that cleans up contaminated areas, repurposes them. i like to call it the recyclable and program. we don't want to build your new business somewhere way out there that takes us forever to get to in a car or on the bus. we want you in the community but sometimes that means job training or cleanup and that is where epa is doing its work. we have also been very proud of this and taking long-overdue action to clean up the air we all breathe. at the end of last year epa finalized its mercury and air toxics standards that limits mercury and emissions from power plants. [applause] mercury is a neurotoxin, folks. it is toxic to our brains. it is toxic to our children as their brains develop and it

starts even before our children are born. before those standards were put in place under this administration, just last year, there were no national standards limiting mercury emissions from power plants. and that was not for lack of trying. you see, the clean air act called for the standards over 20 years ago but it wasn't until recently when we brought together community groups and mothers and doctors and fissures and environmentalists and others that we were able to get it done. it is a major victory for our health. once the standards are fully implemented they will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths a year, nearly 5000 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks a year. behind those numbers are stories. pregnant mothers who can rest a little easier knowing that their children won't be exposed to

harmful toxins, young people who can go outside without worrying or their parents worrying about an asthma attack. we are doing our best to make real changes in people's lives. when i was in summa i borrowed some of the words to that effect from the wonderful reverend joseph lowery. reverend lowery said -- today and every day. what i'm thinking of are his words at their memorial for rosa parks and said we wouldn't do justice to her memory by letting our tribute and in ceremony. reverend lowery said you have to move from ceremony to sacrament. we have to do more than just honor the history. in fact we do it little honor for don't take action to keep our history moving forward. this is a call to the joshua generation. this is why we have a national action network.

[applause] and this is why -- this is why i am here to ask you for your support, because there are people today who will tell you that the best path forward is to strengthen the protection for the polluters who make us sick and dirty our communities instead of making sure that we are protected. there is a large and loud group of people who seem to think that in order to move ahead economically, to be willing to sacrifice our environment which is asking us to sacrifice our health. in fact they seem to feel that way about a lot of issues, that you can't move forward. we just need to roll back. we are the joshua generation and we know better and if we are going to fulfill her promise than we have to do more for the next generation, not less. in the joshua story, after

crossing the jordan river, joshua had his followers gather up 12 stones from the riverbed. remember that? and establish a memorial. why do you have a memorial? so? so that children will remember their history. so i ask you, when will our -- what will our 12 stone memorial look like? what will our 12 stones be? what will this generation leave behind to lead our children know what challenges we took on and overcame? years from now, will it be one stone for closing the achievement gap in education? [applause] will we be able to lay down one stone for rebuilding our struggling city? how about one stone for helping

african-american families that are still living in an economic recession today? how about one stone for bringing health care to every american? [applause] and one stone for ending the epidemic of violence and drugs that had ended too many promising lives? [applause] and certainly, we should have one stone to remind us to keep marching until people are more focused on passing laws that make it easier for americans to vote, all americans, not harder. [applause] the list goes on but you had better give me a stone for environmental justice. , please. [applause] i am asking you and calling on you today to help me in that effort. this month his earth month. nine days on sunday the 22nd, we will celebrate another earth

day and i challenge all of you to take some time to find a way to make those environmental health issues part of your conversation this month in your communities and get involved in the help of your community. i challenge you as leaders in your communities to step up and raise awareness about what clean air and water main to our children, not just some faraway place but our children. the challenge is to make a lasting priority in our lives and take action where it needs to be taken. this is how i believe we move -- live up to our title and our awesome responsibility is the joshua generation. i look forward to moving forward with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> lisa jackson.

before you leave, administrator jackson i want to say two things. one, you know they are going to say tomorrow the action network to set a stone and throw it. [laughter] but i also want you to know that when she says that when joshua crossed the jordan, she said and gathered the stones, she looked it up and said do you remember that? reverend richardson remembers it. [laughter] thank you legislator jackson. >> and the senate gaveling and shortly after two-week recess. they will consider a plan to tax millionaires at least 30% called the subs over. at 4:30 they will set the buffett aside for the federal

appeals court. she worked for the justice department in west virginia and washington state on a vote on that nomination be be beheld it five-time for 30. also a vote on whether to move forward on the buffett row. live coverage now of the u.s. senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of might and mercy, we lift our hearts in praise. thank you for this day with its opportunities for courageous and noble service. use our lawmakers this day to validate the faith of our forebears through faithful service to you and country. as they labor, may they feel the nearness of your presence

and be guided by your wisdom. equip them to bear the responsibilities they cannot assign to others, as you strengthen them for life's inevitable twists and turns. draw near to them and give them your peace. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 16, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: as millions of americans prepare to file income tax returns the senate will consider one of the basic unfair provisions of the tax code. today, the wealthiest 1% of the stakes home the highest share of the income since the early 20's, the roaring 20's. while their bank accounts have firestone, their tax bills have become smaller. the wealthiest americans pay the lowest tax rate in more than five decades, the rich pay less than they have for more than 50

years. this unfair system has turned the gap between the richest few into a gulf, not a gap. they've seen their incomes stroct scroct by almost 300%. for the rest of americans they haven'tth kept pe with the price of a modest home, college or a secure retirement. times are tough for many middle-class he families but millionaires and billionaires aren't sharing the painor the sacrifices, not one bit. last year there were 7,000 millionaires who didn't pay a single penny in federal income taxes. 7,000 millionaires didn't pay a single penny in taxes. instead, ordinary americans footed the bill and, mr. president, that's not fair. in recent years saw americans earning north of $110 million a year paid a lower tax rate than millions of middle-class families.

mr. president, that's also not fair. that's how someone like our frequent warren buffett ends up paying a lower tax rate than his secretary which also is not fair. when the richest few are making more than ever before, they can afford to shoulder their fair share of the burden to make this country prosper. and they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind tax loopholes that rig the system in their favor. the paying a fair share tax act known as the buffett rule would restore fairness to a system that has favored the interests of the wealthy far too long. this legislation would ensure americans whoer more than a million dollars a year may by the way, at least 30% of their income in taxes. the bill would hold harmless nearly every small business in america, in fact, more than 99% of small businesses would be held harmless. it would maintain the deduction for charitable giving and it would be a small but important step toward restoring fiscal responsibility as our nation makes difficult choice bess where to spend and what to cut.

three quarters of americans believe millionaires and billionaires should scrbt crbt more. two-thirds of millionaires say it's time to even the playing field. yet everyone, all republicans except those within the beltway, believe that's not the case. republicans in congress would rather end medicare as we know it, set forth in the so-called infamous ryan budget, they would rather slash education funding as set forth in that same infamous budget, than ask the richest of the rich to contribute even a penny to make education more meaningful and to continue maintaining medicare as we know it. as the senate democrats work to make our democrats fair for all americans republicans in the house continue to pursue a budget that would hand more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. the so-called ryan budget.

at its heart this debate and the buffett rule is about priorities, setting priorities. americans can build a world-class education system that will allow our children and grandchildren to compete in the industries of tomorrow. and we can ensure seniors who worked hard all their lives look forward to a secure retirement and quality, affordable health care. or we can keep protecting tax breaks for the riches of the rich. we can't do both. we must make smart choices. president frankly -- franklin roosevelt said in our personal decisions were individualists but in seeking progress as taition a nation we all go up or all go down as one people, close quote. so i hope my republican colleagues will join democrats this evening as we choose a path toward economic fairness, that allows all americans to rise together as one people. mr. president, h.r. 5 is at the

desk and due for a second r50eding -- reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill the second time. the clerk: h.r. 5, an act to improve patient access to health care services and so forth. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings at this time, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. plpts. mr. reid: following -- the presiding officer: the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: of course. i'm sorry. the presiding officer: and the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will proceed to s. 2240, the paying a fair share act, and executive session to consider calendar 460, stephanie dawn thacker of west virginia to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit with up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by between senators leahy and grassley or their designees. upon the use or yielding back of that time, about 5:30, there will be a roll call vote on confirmation of thacker nomination.

there will be a second roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2230, the paying a fair share tax acts. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, there's one thing every american can agree on right now, it's that we've got serious challenges in this country. and the time isn't on our side. action needs to be taken soon. just to cite a few things, everybody is holding their breath waiting for the federal debt to catch up with us. it's not a question of if. it's a question of when. many young people are basically giving up on the american dream. seniors and those approaching retirement are concerned about the safety and sustainability of entitlements. working americans and those who employ them are frustrated by the growth and the reach of government. and nearly 14 million americans

who can't find work are wondering how it got so hard to land a good-paying job in what is supposed to be the most prosperous economy on earth. now, all these people know we're in rough shape. they live it every day. and frankly, a lot of them have given up hope that lawmakers here in washington are interested in doing anything, anything at all that would help. but the truth is there is some good news to report out of washington. and that's the growing bipartisan consensus not only about the existence of these problems but also about the proper solution. just about everybody agrees that comprehensive tax reform would help turn this economy around, strengthen entitlements, spur innovation and economic growth, and create jobs. the problem is we've got a president who seems more interested in pitting people against he'll he each other than

he is actually doing what it takes to face these challenges head on and to solve them in a bipartisan manner. and if anybody had any doubt about that, the president's relentless focus on this so-called buffett tax over the past few weeks should have dispelled it. this entire debate has been very illuminating for a lot of folks. it's revealed a lot about this president. by wasting so much time on this political gimmick, that even democrats admit won't solve our larger problems, it's shown the president is actually more interested in misleading people than he is in leading. now, i know that it may sound a little strong to some, but just step back and think about what's going on here. we've got a $15 million trldz debt -- $15 trillion debt, some call it the most predictable crisis in history.

we have the largest tax increase in the history of the country looming that will hit every single american in less than nine no, sir from today. -- nine months from today. are president obama looked at the options, sat down with his political advisories -- visors and said let's go with peel-tested tax increase on investment and job creation that won't fix anything and won't pass anyway instead of actually doing something about the debt and the deficit. aim saim thing on gas prices. the president looked at $4 a gallon gasoline and said let's go with a poll-tested tax on energy manufacturers which would increase the price at the pump instead of actually doing something to solve the problem. isn't this precisely the kind of thing president obama campaigned against in the first place? politics as usual.

but that's all we get. the worse our problems get, the less serious he becomes. the more people coalesce around a bipartisan solution, the more he focuses on something that's completely irrelevant or that has absolutely no chance of passing. we're in a crisis here. and sadly, it's all politics all the time. somewhere along the way, this president seems to have forgotten why he elected. for him, it's not about jobs or the economy. it's about his idea of fairness, about imposing it on others. and if we lose more jobs in the process, oh, well, so be it. just take the buffett tax. any time the president proposed anything in the past, he told us how many jobs it would create. whether it was the f.a.a. bill,

the highway bill, the stimulus, you name it. apparently those days are over. nobody is even claiming this thing creates jobs. it's all about the president's idea of fairness now. well, i think americans are tired of the blame game. they want their president to solve problems, not point fingers. they think their president should spend his time working out a solution between the two parties instead of running around the country trying to distract people from his own inhe ability to get the job done instead of running around lecturing everybody on fairness. now, president is using two arguments in favor of the buffett tax. first, he says it's a matter of fairness. and second, he thinks the government would do a better job of investing the money than the

people he hopes to take it from. first, it's a matter of fairness, and second, he assumes the government would do a better job of using that money than the people he's taking it from. on the first point, i think most people have heard enough about the president's notion of fairness to know it doesn't match up with theirs. to most people, what's fair about america is that they can earn their success, earn their success, and expect to be rewarded for it. nobody ever crossed an ocean or a desert to come here for the government health care. people come here because they think that everybody here has a shot at something more than that. it's a point my colleague, the junior senator from wyoming, hits home pretty well this morning in an op-ed he wrote for "investors business daily." it's nield buffett tax divides

americans but solves smog nog and by like to ask consent that that appear in the record at this point. the presiding of -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: here is some of what he wrote. this is senator barrasso. "people think it's fair that children and grandchildren will be saddled with debt because of its reckless spending. washington spends 42 cents out of every dollar it spends. the president thinks that's fair. he thinks it's fair to pile debt on top of households over the last three years. the president thinks that's fair. he thinks it's fair to use college students as props for his campaign-style rallies without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in debt. he thinks it's fair to force hardworking taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car because it fits his idea for

american energy. he thinks it's fair to hand out hundreds of millions of tax dollars to politically connected solar energy companies that then go bankrupt. he thinks it's fair to tell thousands of workers they won't have jobs because he blocked the keystone x.l. pipeline to solidify the support of a few far left environmentalists. and apparently president obama thinks it's fair that three years of his policies have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment. senator barrasso then explained what he thinks americans actually think fairness consists of: equality of opportunity. freedom for everybody to pursue their dreams without government blocking the way.

for the president, fairness is about taking from some and giving to others. it's about taking from taxpayers and giving it to solar companies. it's about taking from the private economy and giving it to government workers so they can blow it on $823,000 awards dinner for themselves. it's anything but fair. as for the president's second argument? well, you tell me. what about the way government spends the money it gets from taxpayers makes anybody think they would do a better job with the money they hope to get from this tax? does anybody seriously think the government would do a better job spending this money than the people from whom they would extract this additional tax? it's completely ludicrous. i mean, until washington can show that it's a better steward

of taxpayer dollars or that it knows how to invest in a winner, it shouldn't expect people to hand over another penny. here's my point. we've got serious problems to address and the president is not behaving seriously. there's a need and a growing desire on both sides of the aisle to do something. the president needs to step up and provide the serious leadership he promised the american people. and our folks, the people in this country, all 306 million of them, have a right to expect something better. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2230, which the

clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 339, s. 2230, a bill to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective tax for high-income taxpayers. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much, mr. president. on a late spring day 27 years ago, president ronald reagan addressed a group of high school students in atlanta, georgia. many of the students in that audience that day were about to join the work force, and president reagan spoke about the strange, to use his word, tax system that would soon claim a portion of their paychecks. in his speech, president reagan pledged, "we're going to close

the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share." he went on to note that under the country's complex tax rules, it was possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver pays 10% of his salary. president reagan called this inequity, with millionaires paying higher tax rates -- lower tax rates than bus drivers -- to use his word -- crazy. and he said, "it's time we stopped it." one year later, president reagan signed into law bipartisan tax reform that closed many of the loopholes and ensured that the highest-earning americans paid a fair share. the 1986 tax reform deal set the tax rate on investment income, overwhelmingly earned by those at the very top of the income

ladder, at the same rate as regular wage income. unfortunately, in the years that followed, lobbyists have been all over congress and congress has restored many of the loopholes that president reagan cut, and it has repeatedly reduced the tax rates on investment income. the capital gains tax rate has gone from 28% in the bipartisan reagan tax reform to 15% today. once again, those at the very top of the income spectrum have opportunities to cut their tax bills that are not available to regular middle-class families. let's look at where we are today , a quarter century after the last major overhaul of our tax system. this is a building that has a story to tell. this is the helmsley building on park avenue in new york city. this building is large enough that it has its own zip code.

so we know from public i.r.s. information gathered by zip code that the very wealthy and successful individuals and corporations that call this building their home, with an average adjusted gross income of $1.2 million each, paid on average a 14.7% total federal tax rate in the last available year that we have information for. a 14.7% total federal tax rate is less than the rate that the average new york city janitor, the average new york city doorman, or the average new york city security guard pays. the system is upside-down. and it's not just in the helmsley building. each year the internal revenue service publishes a report detailing the taxes paid by the

highest earning 400 americans. last may the i.r.s. published the most recent data on the top 400 taxpayers for the year 2008. let's look how they did in that year. they had average income of $270 million each. that's not bad. in fact, that's wonderful. that's part of what makes america great. but here's the crazy part, to quote president reagan. on average, these 400 extremely high-earning americans -- $270 million in one year -- actually paid an average federal tax rate of just 18.2%. on adjusted gross income. we've spent a fair amount of time in the senate debating whether the top income tax rate should be 35% or something else like 39.6%, as it was in the clinton boom years, but the

ultra rich get around this top rate through a variety of tax gimmicks. we looked at what level of income a single filer would have to make to start paying 18.2% or more in federal taxes. it is $39,350. if you look at the department of labor's wage levels, that's about what a truck driver on average earns in rhode island, $40,200 is what an average truck driver, according to the bureau of labor statistics, in rhode island, more than the $39,350, which means that they're probably paying actually a higher tax rate as a single truck driver in providence, rhode island, than a billionaire who just made $270 million in the last year. that's just not fair. that's not right. that's not the progressive tax system we've always had. i recently heard from one such truck driver in rhode island,

mike noons. mike noons is a member of teamsters local 251 and he joined me for a round-table discussion on tax issues in cranston, rhode island. mike said, "i've been a middle-class worker here in rhode island since i was in my early 20's. my wife and i pay our taxes and it's frustrating to hear that multimillionaires are getting special treatment to pay a lower rate." well, mike's right and i hear the same thing as i travel around rhode island of the i know that my colleagues hear the same thing as they meet with their constituents across the country. they all agree with president reagan, that a tax system that allows many of the highest income among us to pay less than a truck driver must be fixed. the problem goes beyond the top 400 income earners in the country. the congressional research service confirms that roughly one-quarter of million-dollar-plus earners -- about 94,500 taxpayers -- pay a

lower effective tax rate than over 10 million moderate-income taxpayers. reuters recently reported this: "taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year pay an average u.s. income tax rate of nearly 19%." and the story goes on, "about 65% of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million face a lower tax rate than the median tax rate for moderate-income earners making $100,000 or less a year." let me say that again. "about 65% of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million face a lower tax rate than the median tax rate for moderate-income earners making $100,000 or less a year." our tax system is supposed to be progressive. the more you earn, the higher the rate you pay. that's not class warfare. that's tax policy.

and it's been that way for decades, if not generations. we undermine that principle when we allow the highest-income americans to pay a lower tax rate than the package truck driver delivering packages to their door pays. it's no wonder that so many of the rhode islanders with whom i've spoken have lost confidence that our tax system gives them a straight deal. with the top 1% of americans earning 23% of our nation's income -- the top 1% of americans earning 23% of our nation's income -- and controlling 34%, more than a third, of our nation's wealth, it would be difficult to argue that our system is too progressive. let's look at this other graphic of all of our nation's wealth, the top 5% of americans own over 60% of it. of all of our nation's wealth, the top 5% own more than 60% of

all the wealth in the country. the top 1% control over a third of it. and the 400 families at the very top -- the 400 i talked about earlier -- own almost 3% of all america's wealth just among those 400 families. these are proportions we have not seen since the roaring 1920's, and they're getting steadily worse. now, we're not going to overhaul the nation's tax laws this evening, but in a few hours, we will have a chance to advance legislation to restore some fairness into our tax system. this long overdue bill, "the paying a fair share act of 2012," would implement the so-called buffett rule, after warren buffett, who's famously la meant that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. to correct this glaring tax inequity, this bill would ensure that those at the very top pay at least the tax rates faced by middle-class families. i want to thank senators akaka,

begich, leahy, harkin, blumenthal, sanders, schumer, reed of rhode island, rockefeller, franken, boxer, durbin and levin for cosponsor this measure, and i would ask unanimous consent to add senator lautenberg as an additional cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: the structure of the bill is pretty simple. if your total income, capital gains included, is over $2 million, you calculate your taxes under the regular system. and if your effective rate turns out to be greater than 30%, you pay that rate. if, on the other hand, your effective tax rate is below 30% 30% -- like the 11% tax rate warren buffett paid in 2010 -- then you'd pay the fair share tax of 30% instead. taxpayers earning less than $1 million -- which is more than 99.8% of americans -- would not be affected by the bill at all. for taxpayers earning between $1 million and $2 million, the fair share tax gets gradually phased in so that ultimately when you earn over $2 million,

you're subject to the full 30% minimum rate. the one exception the bill makes to the 30% minimum is maintain the provision for charity giving. taxpayers are permitted to subtract the same amount of contributions allowed under the regular income tax from their tashingable income. the reason for this one exception should be self-est dent. charity benefits others and taxpayers should be encouraged to give. some say that given our fragile economic recovery, now is the wrong time to raise taxes on anyone. while middle-class families continue to struggle through the recovery, it seems the boom times have already returned for those at the very top. according to a recent analysis by university of california at berkly economist eye manuel sies, 93% of the income growth in 2010 went to the top 1% of income earners, 93% of the

income growth went to the top 1% of income earners. even more astounding, 37% of the income growth went to the few thousand taxpayers in the top 0.01%. with so much income growth at the very top and with looming budget deficits, it is hard to argue that people with seven, or eight, or even nine-figure incomes can't afford to pay a reasonable tax rate. and just to be clear, it's been said on this floor that this is a tax on investment investmentt this is a tax on job creation. that is wrong. this is a tax on one thing -- income. republicans have criticized the amount of revenue that would be generated by the bill. the ranking republican on the senate finance committee called the $47 billion that the joingts committee on taxation has estimated a meager sum.

well, in rhode island we don't consider $47 billion to be a meager sum. it's enough money, for instance to permanently keep subsidized student loan interest rates from jumping from the current 3.4% to 6.8% in july, which they will do unless we act. if we could use this bill to overset the cost of keeping student loan interest rates low, then there are millions of students out there who would call that benefit something other than meager. we could use the $48 billion on badly needed infrastructure projects and create 611,000 jobs nationwide. in rhode island, we have 11% unemployment and a long backlog of transportation infrastructure projects. at the top of that list is the via duct bridge on interstate 95 through providence. this critical link on the northeast corridor running up

through rhode island has wooden boards inserted between the i-beams underneath to prevent the concrete on the roadway from falling in on the traffic below and also where the being a tram rails are there are wooden planks to keep it from falling on the trains below. i don't think repair of this bridge and others would be meager at $47 billion worth, particularly if we phut it into an infrastructure bank and renched it for even more jobs. it's wort worth noting that this legislation would generate far more revenue than the $47 billion that the republicans complain of if the republicans were to succeed in extending the very high bush tax cuts. if the bush tax cuts for people continue, the revenue from the bill jumps from $47 billion to

$162 billion over a ten-year budget who are rye xiong. -- horizon. the buffett rule can ensure that those at the top pay a fair share no matter what loopholes, no matter what special treatments congress adds to the tax code in the future. finally, the senate republican leader has described the bill as yet another proposal from the white house that won't create a single job or lower the price at the pump by a penny. the minority leader is right that the aim is mott to lower the unemployment rarity or the price of gasoline. however, phut the $47 billion in revenue into infrastructure, you could create 611,000 infrastructure jobs and a lot of good infrastructure as well. and if you put the $47 billion

into liheap, you could help millions of americans pay their energy bills. but let me add an additional point. the republicans are claiming that this bill, which is a tax fairness bill, not a job-creating bill, will not create a single expwrob. of course if you spent the revenue, it would, but that's a separate discussion. at the same time that they're making that point, the republicans in washington are sitting on our highway bill, which creates three million jobs, and they won't call it up on the house side because they don't want to rely on democrat votes. three million jobs are waiting action in the house on the bipartisan senate highway bill that had 75 senators supporting it, and they won't call it up -- the republicans won't call it up because they don't want to use democrat votes? what kind of washington insider

logic is is that? the people across this country who will go to work on those roads and bridges don't think that makes any sense. and for the republicans now to be talking about jobs on this bill while they have a three million jobs bill that they are blockading in the house, the word "jobs" should turn to ashes in their mouths. there are plenty of things that this narrow fairness bill won't do. it will not bring world peace. it won't save endangered whales from extinction. it won't cure the common cold. it will do none of those things. it will restore the confidence of middle-class americans in our tax system by ashiewr assuring t those at the very top of our income spectrum aren't paying lower rates than regular families do. in addition to restoring

fairness to the tax code, the bill will generate considerable revenue to cut the deficit or invest in job creation and critical programs. i happen to think that tax fairness and tens of billions of dollars in revenue or in deficit reduction are reasons enough to pass the bill. and if the republican leader would like to work with us on attacking other issues, i'm wide thoap that. but today's vote is about tax fairness. it is about undoing a gimmick in the tax code that allows people earning over a quarter billion of dollars a year to pay lower tax rates than truck drivers. this has become a partisan issue, which is really surprising, because the principles of a progressive system of code has always been a basic american tax policy principle, and the arguments we're making today about paying a fair share were made exactly by ronald reagan. but things have changed, and so there is this squabble.

even business owners support this bill. a recent poll conducted by the american sustainable business council, the main street alliance and the small business majority found that 58% of business owners said that those making over $1 million a year aren't paying their fair share of taxes. and 50% supported increasing taxes for tows at the top. these business owners knows that it's simply fair for the most fortunate and successful americans to pay a larger share of their income in taxes than less successful families do. that's what a progressive tax system is supposed to do. that's what it has always done. vadly, over the past few -- sadly, over the past few decades, the effective tax rates have plummeted. this chart shows the effective federal income tax rate for the top 400 income earners since 1992. as you can see, there has been a dramatic drop from 1995 to 2008.

these rates are for federal income tax. thank you add in the small amount of payroll taxes paid by those at the very top, which is a separate discussion, but they fall 100% on the income of middle-income families but only on a small portion of the superhigh income families, the tax rate for 2508 goes up to 18.1% counting in the withholding. that is the effective federal tax rate of those truck driver in providence. the trengdz in falling tax rates for those making seven figures in income or more who is eroded the confidence of ordinary americans who do pay their fair share. this is another quote from president reagan's 1985 speech on tax fairness. president reagan, the man whom so many conservative republicans revere, said, quote, "what we're

trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. we want to see that everyone pays their fair share. and no one gets a free ride. our reasons -- its good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they're rich and powerful." that is president reagan in 1985. today his party is defending that manipulation. in the 27 years since that speech, the american playing field has been skewed ever more toward the rich and powerful u from bankruptcy reform that favors big corporations over people to the citizens united decision which has allowed corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited cash to influence american elections. to this lower tax rate for ultra high income earners. the american people have simply not been getting a street deal

from washington. many are calling the vote we will have on the buffett rule today a test vote because it is on a procedural motion and the pundits don't expect it to pass. i agree. this is a test vote, but it's a test of a different sort. this is a test of washington, d.c., to do something that is simple, to do something that is right, and to do something that is fair for the middle class. if we proceed to and pass this bill, it will show the american people that congress is capable of 1257bd standing by their sidt exong is exaivel being by their side, that congress is capable of saying "no" to a powerful and well-funded special interest. if we fail, it will indicate exactly had a president reagan feared: that the rich and powerful are able to manipulate the system to their advantage and we in congress will do nothing about it.

one of the things that america stands for in this world is that we are fair with each other. we get a straight deal and we give each other a straight deal. that is one of the ways in which america stands as an example in the rest of the world. there are plenty of countries whose internal, political, and economic systems amount to a racket, a racket that is rigged for the benefit of the rich and powerful and against farmers and workers and small businesses and ordinary families. some of those countries are so bad we call them clep to crass sis. but that has never been america. that is not the america of the founding. tses not the america of ronald reagan. it is not the america that shiengs its light into the four corners of the world as an example to the rest of the wor world. that is not the america that we

are here to serve. we must be vigilant in protecting the ideals that make this country what it is. i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to heed president reagan's words and to support this legislation which will ensure that a favored segment of the highest-earning americans once again do something as simple as pay their fair share in taxes. let us show the american people that our nation really does stand apart as an exemplar of fairness and of equal opportunity and of equal responsibility under the law enforcement i thank the chair. irsee colleagues on the floorks and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, we stand here on tax day and we also stand here in the middle of the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. a time when economists across the spectrum agree there is an urgent need for us to take our tax code and make it more efficient, to reform our tax code to help grow our economy and add jobs. and instead of an administration or leadership in this body proposing serious tax reforms that will actually get people back to work, we're spending this week debating a political proposal that no one can credibly argue will create a single job. except maybe some tax accountants because it adds more

complexity to an already way too complex tax code. unfortunately, this has become tax gimmick week here in washington. it's particularly disappointing because as a nation, we are stuck in an historically weak recovery, with high unemployment, record long-term unemployment, and anemic economic growth. this recovery rate is different, sadly. we're still millions of jobs down from where we are at the start of the recession, which was about four years ago. interesting to compare it to recoveries. in 2001, the so-called jobless recovery at this point in the recovery, about four years after the recession, the nation had not only brought back all the jobs that were lost in the recession, but we had added hundreds of thousands of new jobs. even in 1981, considered the deepest recession in modern history before the most recent one, at this time, four years after the recession, we had

added six million new jobs to the economy. unfortunately, today as we stand here, we're still down 5.5 million jobs. so instead of adding six million jobs as we had during the reagan administration, after the 1981 deep recession, today as we stand here, we are still trying to find how to add back the jobs we lost in the recession, 5.5 million jobs, 5.5 million families across this country who continue to look for hope and opportunity. so in the midst of this weak recovery, the weakest since the great depression, i think it's reasonable to expect that the president of the united states and the united states congress would focus on real solutions to create jobs. in particular, real solutions to reform our inefficient, complex and outdated tax code, because there is a consensus out there we need to do that. to make the tax code more projobs, to encourage work and

savings and investment requires broad-based reform, and everybody knows it. and the president's own commission called the simpson-bowles commission recommended it. most recently the president's own jobs council recommended it. mr. president, we need a proposal taken up by this united states senate that's driven by good economics. and instead what we're getting this week is one that's driven by campaign rhetoric. my colleagues on this side of the aisle will soon bring to the floor president obama's proposed new tax targeting investment income. the buffet tax i imposes a minim tax on anyone earning above $1 million. this new tax will bring in less than .5% -- less than .5% of the

individual income tax that are paid. by the way, this will be enough to pay one week's interest on our $15 trillion national debt. that's it. it's certainly not about deficit reduction at a time of $1 trillion deficits. the president also says this new tax on investments on american businesses is necessary to, as he said, invest in the things that would help the economy grow. this apparently means this will result in more government spending. private enterprises that actually create jobs are not one of those things that will be making the investments. instead it will be investments through government spending. i just think the buffett rule is bad economics, i think it's bad fiscal policy, and i think it's a distraction from the broader bipartisan effort underway to achieve fundamental tax reform that is necessary to unleash a true economic recovery. the proposal is built, by the

way, on this notion that i heard from my colleague a moment ago that the tax code is not progressive. we can argue about what progressive means, but here are some statistics. according to the tax policy center, the top 1% of wage earners in this country, income earners, pay a 28% federal tax rate. by contrast, americans with incomes between $60,000 and $100,000 pay a 19% tax rate. another way to look at this is that the top 1% of taxpayers now pay 39% of all federal income taxes. the top 10% now pay 86% of all federal income taxes. and those below the 50% mark now pay 1% of federal income taxes. is that progressive or not? i would say that it is progressive. so to my colleagues who are

saying the income tax is not progressive, i don't think that's the concern here. i think the concern is we have an income tax code that has too many preferences, deductions, credits, exemptions. by the way, mostly taken advantage of by wealthier taxpayers. we ought to reform the tax code. but because the tax code is already so progressive as we talked about, this proposal from the president works primarily by increasing the tax a lot of wealthy people pay on investment income. primarily investment income, what's known as long-term capital gains. capital gains have historically been taxed in this country at a lower rate for individuals, and they're taxed at a lower rate for good reason. capital gains are the return on longer-term investments and enterprises that create jobs, and that's something we've always wanted to encourage in this country. a lower tax on capital gains drives job training investment, and according to the nonpartisan congressional committee on taxation, it increases wages

over the long run. by having a lower rate for capital investments, long-term investments in job creation, it will increase wages in the long run. by the way, that's why presidents kennedy, reagan, clinton and bush all backed capital gains rates cuts, as president kennedy said so well, "a rising tide lifts all boats." second, we should realize that raising the capital gains rate doesn't translate directly into higher revenues. why is that? it's because it's an elective tax. think about it. you only pay it when you choose to sell an asset, when you choose to realize what's called a gain, when you sell something. you don't have to incur this tax. common sense, experience teaches a higher economic gains rate causes some to hold assets rather than sell them just as a lower capital gains rate will

encourage more people to sell an asset because the rate will be lower. and this is what's happened. after every recent capital gains cut, rate cut, in 19 81, 1997 and 2003 capital gains revenue actually increased. you had a cut in the rate in 1981, 1987 and 2003 and what happened? the revenues actually increased. lower rate, higher revenues. how could that be? well, because with the lower rate, people sold more assets and created more economic activity. capital gains tax rates increased by between 37% and 114% over four years. and that's after inflation. by contrast, after a capital gains rate increase took effect in 1987, that was just talked about a moment ago, capital gains revenues actually dropped 55% over the next four years. so we can debate about what the

rate ought to be, but the fact is to say that there's going to be a direct correlation between raising that rate and more revenue simply is not borne out by historical experience or by common sense. third, unlike other types of income, capital gains are often double taxed. think about a typical capital investment, someone buying corporate stock. that's the most typical one. holding that stock for over a year -- you've got to hold it for over a year -- and then selling it for a profit. that gain has already been subject to the 35% rate at the corporate level. it's then followed by the capital gains rate now at 15% when the shareholder sells. for a combined 45% tax on that capital investment. by the way, with global competitors like canada, japan, united kingdom and others moving to cut their corporate tax rates in order to attract jobs, this new tax on capital investment would move the united states further backwards in terms of being competitive in the global

economy. our corporate tax rate is already higher than all of our major foreign competitors, as of april 1, japan lowered theirs making us number one in the world and something you don't want to be number one in, which is the highest corporate rate. we don't need new barriers to growth and job creation, and that's what will result. instead of an election-year gimmick that won't help the economy, it's time to focus on fundamental tax reform to make american businesses and workers more competitive. again, as the president's own simpson-bowles commission has recommended, as the president's own jobs council has recommended. i agree with what former clinton budget director alice rivlin said about the buffet tax, which is that the way to fix the tax code is to fix the tax code, not to add another complication at the margins. the buffett tax is an election year distraction. why not focus on the elephant in the room? an outdated and complex tax code

that is hurting our economy, weighing down our economy, making it harder for us to get out of the kind of doldrums we're in right now with this weak recovery. i believe there is a consensus among economists and serious thinkers across the spectrum, republicans, democrats, independents alike, that an increasingly competitive global economy, we'd have to reform our tax code to help us get out of this rut we're in, this historically weak recovery that leaves too many people vulnerable, too many parents wondering if the future is going to be brighter for their kids and grandkids as it was for them. i believe there's also a growing bipartisan consensus about how to do it, tkhas we ought to do -- which is we ought to do it by broadening the base, getting rid of growing credits and deductions i talked about earlier. lowering the marginal rates on american families and on our businesses to be able to create jobs. that will ensure that those who can afford to pay more will pay

their share, their fair share. and the economy will grow. rising tide lifting all boats. truly helping families who are worried, for good reason, about their economic future. mr. president, the american people don't deserve more gimmicks as we'll see this week in washington. they deserve real leadership. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, while we are waiting for the next senator to arrive and be recognized, i just wanted to respond to a couple of the statements that have been made recently on the floor. it's interesting that my republican colleagues tend to refer to this as a tax gimmick. it was referred to as tax gimmick week because we're considering having people

earning $250 million pay a rate equal to what a truck driver pays. that doesn't sound very gimmicky to me. that sounds like pretty main street fairness to me. the bottom line is there is a gimmick at stake. it's the gimmick in the tax code that allows for that to take place, that allows for a hedge fund billionaire to claim a lower rate than a truck driver. so if there's a gimmick here, it's the gimmick that we're trying to remove. it's not a gimmick that we're trying to pursue. it's been said that this is a tax on investment, a tax on job creation. it just isn't. it's a tax on income when it's declared as income. and if our purpose should be how to add back the jobs lost in the recession, we just passed a highway bill with 75 senators supporting it, only 22 opposed, which as we know around here in

this partisan environment, is a landslide. it came out of the environment and public works committee unanimously. it had 40 amendments accepted. and now three million jobs are bottled up on the other end of this hallway in the house of representatives because the republican speaker doesn't want to use democratic votes. if you want to do something about jobs, tell the republican speaker to pass the senate highway bill. it's as simple as that. three million jobs, bipartisan. so when we talk about jobs, i've got a really good recommendation. pass the big highway jobs bill that's being kept bottled up here. senator harkin, do you seek recognition now? the other point that i wanted to make on the question of whether the tax system is really progressive or not, the i.r.s. and the federal reserve point out that for the top 1% in america, the top 1% in terms of

wealth control 33.8% of the nation's wealth. the top 1% in taxes pay only 28.3% of the taxes, when all taxes are taken into consideration. the top 5% control 60% of the nation's wealth. but the top 5% in taxes only pay 44.7%. so if you want to take numbers sort of without context, you can make it look as if it's very progressive. but when you measure against the wealth and inequality in this country and income inekwult in this country -- equality in this country it is hard to say we're running a progressive tax system. that is why as reuters reported, about 65% of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million face a lower tax rate than the median tax rate for moderate income earners making $100,000 or, less

÷ year. according to the congressional research service. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: first i ask unanimous consent that maria werthin and andrea jarko of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, just before the previous easter recess, i came to the floor to talk about a truly remarkable american, a visionary, a dreamer, an adventurer, most importantly a young man who has

devoted himself to service to others far above and beyond the call of duty. the young man's name is matt rutherford. he is a 31-year-old, he just turned 31 about a week ago, an ohian and here is what he has done since last year. on june 13 of last year, this then-30-year-old young man got on board a 36-year-old, 27-foot-long alvan vega sailboat. 27-foot long, 36 years old, small sloop rig sailboat, and he set out on one of the most audacious adventures ever, ever contemplated by any sailor.

he set out to circumnavigate the americas solo and nonstop. so here is what he did. on june 13 of last year, he left annapolis on this small 27-foot sailboat. he sailed out of chesapeake bay. he sailed up around nova scotia, new foundland, labrador, all the way up by greenland, all by himself. and then sailed the northwest passage all the way through the northwest passage here. he has been certified -- i think if i remember right, he has been certified by the scott polar institute in cambridge, england, has recognized matt as the first person in recorded history to make it through the fabled

northwest passage alone and nonstop in such a small sailboat. so he came through the northwest passage, rounded alaska, went from alaska all the way down to cape horn. and again, if you know anything about the treacherous waters of cape horn, you know that someone in a small 27-foot boat probably doesn't have much chance of making it, but he did it. went around cape horn, all the way up the coast of south america, up to the caribbean, and today as i stand here and speak, he is just outside of the mouth of chesapeake bay off the coast of virginia, the north carolina-virginia border, and is going to make landfall this saturday in annapolis. 313 days after he started. solo, nonstop, never touched

land. this is one of the most historic adventures ever, ever undertaken by a human being. solo, nonstop around the americas, 313 days. in treacherous, treacherous waters. he has not set foot on dry land for the entire journey. he has not stopped. i have had the privilege of talking to matt. i have never met the young man, not yet, but i had the privilege of talking with him on his satellite phone a couple of times just last week when he said to me that it would probably be the last phone call he would make because he -- all of his equipment has now started to fail. he said it's like the boat is talking to me and it knows the journey's almost over. his solar panels have died, his wind generator has gone, his engine doesn't work, he is out of power, he is only under sail. he has no engine any longer.

he says when big waves hit, the boat creeks and groans. he says he is just about to make it into the mouth of the chesapeake bay. what a tremendous, tremendous adventure. right now, he is about 15 miles off of kittyhawk, north carolina. and so 313 days after he began, he will make landfall this saturday at the national sailing hall of fame dock in annapolis, maryland. the first time he set foot on dry land in 313 days. so, mr. president, i am in awe of matt's courage, his character, his audacity to do this. he is in a class, in a class with a tiny, tiny group of explorers and adventurers, path breakers who defied odds to accomplish great things. i think of joshua slocum, the

first person to sail single-handedly around the world. it took him three years. he covered 46,000 miles. he made many stops, but he did it between 1895-1898. the first known solo circumnavigation of the globe. i think of sir francis tree chester who sailed from plymouth, england, in 1966, the first person to achieve a true circumnavigation of the world solo from west to east via the great cape. he did so in 26 days with one stop in australia. i think of dick routon and jenna yaeger and their voyager aircraft which is now hanging in the smithsonian, in 1986, the first to fly around the world nonstop without refueling. i think of the extraordinary feats of physical endurance and courage of robert perry in 1909,

the first person to reach the north pole, raul ahmedson, the first person to reach the south pole, sir edmund hillary, the first person to climb mount everest. matt rutherford now finds himself in this exclusive company and club of audacious adventurers. however, i would say that matt rutherford has in important ways surpassed the feats of, say, slocum and treechester because the others made stops during their voyages. matt is accomplishing this solo, nonstop on a small 36-year-old boat, 27-feet long, best suited for weekend sailors who don't want to venture outside of chesapeake bay. as i said, the scott polar institute in england has already recognized him as the first person in recorded history to

solo make this sail through the northwest passage in a small sailboat. but here, again, is where matt is in a class by himself. why is he doing it? yes, he's going to set a very fantastic record. it's never been done before. but he is doing it to raise money for the chesapeake region accessible boating, crab for short. it's an annapolis-based organization to provide sailing opportunities for physically or developmentally disabled persons. well, you can see now why i am so interested in this. as the lead sponsor of the americans with disabilities act. i am deeply impressed by the fact that matt has undertaken this historic voyage and a cause larger than himself to make it possible for more people with disabilities to have the opportunity to experience and enjoy boating and sailing.

one of the fundamental goals of the americans with disabilities act is that people with disabilities should be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, and that includes recreational opportunities like sailing, which can be exhilarating and empowering for children and adults with a wide range of disabilities. so, mr. president, i salute matt for his courage. he's almost home. he will be here this saturday. here is the young man sitting on his boat. i assume that picture was taken when he was up in the northwest passage because he looks pretty cold. but a young man with extreme courage. what an audacious undertaking. people advised him no, that he could never do it, that the odds of him surviving were very small through all these treacherous

waters, but he decided to do it nonetheless and is setting a tremendous record. so i salute him for wanting to share his love of sailing with the disability community, for using his adventure to raise awareness and expand access to sailing for americans with disabilities. i say to all, if you want to learn more about matt and the mission, you can go to his web site. it's very easy to remember. it's just solotheamericas.org. you can go back and follow him through this entire journey around the americas. solotheamericas.org. so i applaud matt rutherford for his vision and spirit. i wish him safe passage during this final leg of his epic journey. i hope to have the honor of meeting and thanking him upon

his return. matt rutherford is one of those remarkable human beings who dream big, are driven by big challenges, who refuse to accept the limits and boundaries that so-called reasonable people readily acknowledge, who puts aside fear in order to accomplish great and good things, not just for himself but for others. that is matt rutherford. i again applaud him for his courage and for just sticking with it through all of that. it is one of the great feats of ocean sailing that has taken place in the entire history of -- of sailing the great oceans. so he will be back this saturday. as i said, we hope that he has fair winds and a following sea

for the next four or five days. mr. president, with that, i will yield the floor in a minute, but, mr. president, i ask to put a statement in the record on arts advocacy day, which is april 16 of this year. we are -- our "help" committee recently had a hearing on education and the economy, and quite frankly one of the things that came out was that we need to produce more graduates who are creative and collaborative, and that means we need to value the arts in our society and teach it in our schools. so today is arts advocacy day. advocates for the arts have come to washington to remind our elected officials about the importance of federal investments in the arts. so, mr. president, i would ask the remainder of my statement be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota.

mr. thune: mr. president, very soon, the senate is going to be voting on whether or not to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the paying a fair share act of 2012 which would enact the so-called buffett rule. now, it's ironic that we would be debating that subject right now because there are so many other things that we ought to be doing that would actually address the fundamental problems that our economy is facing right now. if you look at the president's focus on this particular issue and you look at the fact that since he has become president, what his economic record consists of, here's what we're looking at. gas prices are up 111% since president obama took office. there are now 38 months in a row where we have had unemployment that exceeded 8%. we have seen college tuition go up by 25%. we have seen health care costs go up by 23%. the number of people on food stamps in this country is up by 45%. the federal debt that we are

handing off to our children and grandchildren is up by 47%. mr. president, that is this president's economic record. so it is ironic that we are here today talking about something that even the white house admits is a gimmick that would do nothing to reduce the federal debt, strengthen the economy or move us towards the fundamental tax reform that is sorely needed for this country. on april 1, just over two weeks ago, america claimed the dubious distinction of having the highest combined corporate tax rate among advanced economies when japan implemented its corporate tax rate reduction. rather than debating how best to reform our tax code to help american companies compete in a global economy, we aric instead spending our time object a politically motivated measure that everyone knows is not going to become law. before we consider why the buffett rule is bad tax policy let me start by acknowledging

how inconsequential this change in law would be. according to the joint committee on taxation, senator whitehouse's bill would raise tax revenue by $47 billion over the next ten years. this means that if the legislation if enacted would raise each year about half of what the federal government spends every single day. i want you to think about that for just a moment, mr. president. president obama has been flying around the country touting the importance of a proposal that if enacted would raise about half of one day's worth of federal spending. so between now and this time tomorrow, we will actually spend more federal tax dollars than what this would bring in in an entire year. in an entire year. put another way, the revenue this legislation would generate each year amounts to .003% of the national debt. .003% of the federal debt.

this bill would raise less than 1% of the $1.4 trillion in deficits projected under the obama administration's budget. it's not about deficit reduction or taking meaningful action to get our fiscal house in order. what then is this legislation about? the president and men and women democrat members of congress stated they believe the buffett rule is about quote tax fairness end quote. this view is wealthy americans are not paying -- quote -- "their fair share. ." the facts simply don't support that view. according to the organization for economic cooperation and development, the united states already has the most progressive income tax system among its 34 member nations. in fact, in 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers by adjusted gross income paid 37% of all income taxes even though accounted for 17% of all income.

the top 5% of taxpayers paid nearly 60% of all income taxes even though they only accounted for about 32% of all income. in 2009, taxpayers with over a million dollars in adjusted gross income accounted for 10% of income reported but paid 20% of income taxes. in terms of effective income taxes rates congressional research service recently reported that the effective tax rate among among millionaires is already 30%. it's true some millionaires like warren buffett pay a lower rate because they get a large percentage of their income from education and dividends. it isn't a tax loophole. it's the result of a deliberate policy by congress and past presidents to encourage new investments in our economy. had, in fact, if 1997 a democrat president bill clinton signed inta lou law a reduction in the capital gains doubled

over the next three years. unemployment fell below 4%. in the increased federal revenue from capital gains helped chief a federal budget surplus. rather than learning a less than that loarlg it, the buffett tax would take us in the opposite direction. the buffett tax is nothing more than more than a back door tax on the capital gains that is earned by upper-income taxpayers. we can debate about how best to encourage new investments and in clean energy and high technology or other important sectors of our economy. but i hope we can all agree that raising taxes on these investments is not the best way to encourage them. we should bear in mind that the current integrated tax rate is 58%, the fourth highest among

oecd nations. it's bad enough america has the highest combined tax rate among developed economies. some supporters of the buffett tax would like us to have the highest tax on investment income as well. simply put, the buffett tax is a solution in search of a problem. wealthy americans are already paying a huge share of income taxes. for that small minority of wealthier americans such as warren buffett who feel compelled to pay higher taxes i propose we make it easier to do so. last october i introduced the buffett rule act of 2010 which currently has 40 cosponsors here in the united states senate. my legislation would create a box on the federal tax form that individuals are businesses could check if they wished to donate additional dollars to the federal government for debt reduction. we should make it as easy as possible for those who want to

pay higher taxes to voluntarily make those payments but let's not impose a new tax on entrepreneurs around small business owners who believe they can spend their own dollars better than washington can. some attempted to characterize this bill as a step towards comprehensive tax reform. i say this bill, i'm talking about the bill that we're going to be voting on later. unfortunately, it is exactly the opposite. comprehensive tax reform is needed for many roars but one reason is because we desperately need to sixify our tax system. how is about a bill that adds a new layer of complexity to our tax code a step towards comprehensive tax reform? it's bad enough that we already have an alfern tiff -- alternative minimum tax that snares millions of american families. the buffett tax would become an alternative minimum tax alternative. it would be a new layer of unnecessary complexity on top of an already existing layer of unnecessary complexity. we should not forget that the

alternative minimum tax was originally plut putt in place back in 1970 to ensure that 155 wealthy americans paid a higher rate of tax. yet this year over four million americans are going to be hit by the alternative minimum tax. in fact, if congress does not act to enact an a.m.t. patch for temporary 2012, the congressional budget office projected more than 30 million americans will be subject to higher taxes due to the alternative minimum tax. clearly, mr. president, congress' record of targeting tax increases at only the wealthy is not very good. the obama administration has taitd stated its intent is for the buffett rule to replace the existing alternative minimum tax. according to an analysis, replacing the existing a.m.t. with the buffett tax would add nearly $800 billion to the des over the next ten years. it is time for the gimmicks to

stop. and time for the senate to get serious about the real tax issues that are facing us. the reality is that would is a $5 trillion tax increase over the next ten years, the largest in history, staring us in the face come next year. if we don't act to extend the lower individual tax rates, the lower rates on capital gains and dividends and other expiring provisions our economy will face a tax increase of over $400 billion just in 2013. allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax rates to expire would be an enormous tax increase on our economy equal to roughly 2.5% of our g.d.p. according to the congressional budget office allowing this tax increase to go into effect would slow g.d.p. growth between .3% and 2.9%. that would mean the loss of at least 300 jobs and would mean

the loss of as as many as 2.9 million jobs. this tax increase could be the difference between a sustained economic recovery and falling back into recession. here we are today discussing a bill that would not extend tax relief for hard-working americans. it would not forestall a massive tax increase on our economy. the bill before us would do one thing and one thing only, and that is target higher taxes on a small subset of our population in order to serve a political purpose. it is time to end the class warfare of pitting one group of americans against another and instead move forward with ensuring that tax relief is there for all americans. i hope that once the cloture motion fails later today, we can pivot to what most american people want to us do, to enact measures that grow the pie, to expand our shared prosperity rather than the politics of envy

and wealth redistribution. the opportunity cost of all these tax the rich proposals offered by our democrat colleagues, whether the millionaire surtax or the buffett tax is they distract us from what should be our focus and that is fundamental tax reform. the former director of the c.b.o., doug holtz-eakin released a study in which he estimated the comprehensive tax reform could raise g.d.p. by .3% tanl anlly. this faster rarity of g.d.p. growth would result in increased federal incomes each year, much more than the buffett tax is projected to raise. so i would say to my democratic colleagues if you want tax policy that raises more federal government revenue, broad-based comprehensive tax reform is the way to get there. but of course tax reform is going to be difficult and it's going to retire presidential leadership much as it required

presidential leadership back in 1986. it is much easier to promote measures like the buffett tax that do nothing to proix our tax code or our economy and make for a good 30-second political ad. i understand why some of my colleagues want us to have this political debate today. but i hope we can quickly move to real pro-growth tax reforms. that would be the best means, mr. president, by which to promote real tax fairness for all americans. i believe all americans want to see this congress working in a way that expands the pie, not redistributes it. we should be looking at ways we can grow the economy and make -- create more jobs for more americans, raise the standard of living, the quality of life that americans enjoy in this country, and it's clear, mr. president, the one way not to do that is to raise taxes on the people who invest and create jobs in this country. that is precisely what this particular tax would do. it is the wrong approach. it is clearly motivated by

political purposes, nothing more than to create a good 30-second political ad in an election year. but if the american people she sea you there threw this, mr. president, they understand what plagues washington, d.c. is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. for those who want to pay more, we have a way of doing that. let's enact legislation that allows people in this country who have those kinds of incomes that they choose to to check a box and contribute more in tax revenue toward deficit reduction but let's don't impose and require and mandate these taxes on the people of this country who are creating the jobs and and 40 have an opportunity to help us grow this economy and put more people back to work. that after all is what the american people want us to be focused on. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: tomorrow 145 montana

guardsmen will kiss their husbands and wives, hug their children, say goodbye to their friends, and get on a plane from billings, montana headed for afghanistan. two weeks from today, 95 more montanans will do the same. together these 240 montana guardsmen are the latest in a long line of thousands of montanans to deploy overseas since noinch. -- 9/11. more montanans signed up for service after 9/11 than any other state in the country per capita. since then, 606,689 montana guardsmen have deployed. montana's guard has deployed at among the highest rates in doesn't country. each deployment requires enormous sacrifices from the guardsmen, their families, their employers, and entire communities. they make these sacrifices quietly. they perform their missions with excellence, professionalism, without bragging. so i want to do a little

bragging on their behalf and salute each and every one as they prepare for combat. the 484th military police company leaving tomorrow is based in malta and gas go and billings. their mission will be to help train the afghan national police. they will be impercented -- immersed in the afghan culture working hand in hand with local officers in city precincts. what an incredibly important and challenging task and they are ready. they have been training had for this job. they bring invaluable experience in law enforcement that will be critical. the 260th engineering support company will leave montana april 30 for a year long tour in afghanistan. it is from cull culberson and s. they'll form the dangerous mission of clearing explosives off roads and protecting u.s. convoys from taliban attack. the 95 members of this unit have

received spoationized explosive training and they're ready to go. this past february, 60 members of bravo company first of the 189th aviation brigade left medicalman for -- hellman for a tour of afghanistan. they maintain chinooks, maintain ammunition and food and water to our troops. they help get get our troops where they need to go to accomplish their missions quickly and safely. last march, 12 montana guardsmen returned home from duty in iraq and kuwait, they flew c-112's getting troops where they had top missions n.2011, troops again deployed to iraq. they were among the last combat troops on the ground. they provided medevak support for the famous last tactical road march that brought our troops out of iraq from camp adar near nasuriea near the

calbari border crossing into kuwait. in 2010, more than 600 montana guard troops served in iraq and thousands more had deployed there in previous years. our air guard has been busy. in 2010, 99 members of the red horse squadron, an engineer unit, would spend a year working in afghanistan. they built just about every kind of structure you could imagine to support the mission on the ground, from fixing airfield so our troops can land and take off safely, to constructing observation towers, vital to intelligence on the ground, to drilling wells to bring water to some of our most -- most of the dangerous parts of the country. at the same time, dozens of montana airmen have deployed to support the air sovereignty alert in the pacific. they're our first line of defense in the pacific, on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. on top of all this, 53 montana airmen deployed individually to

support missions over the course of the past year in bahrain, cuba, djibouti, kuwait, can engineer stan and a number of other locations around the world. and the guard has a mission at home as well. when flooding hit montana last spring, montana gnarl guard troops were some of the -- national guard troops were some of the first folks to respond with a helping hand. when highway 12 was washed out, the tidal roundup basically became an island and the monday machine guard was their bridge, carrying supplies back and forth. so it's an understatement to say these guys are busy. they're volunteers and they're balancing their military service with their civilian careers at home. we can't thank them enough for what they're doing. it's hard to really capture the nature of the service unless you've seen it firsthand. during my visit to afghanistan, i was so impressed by the service and the professionalism of our troops serving there, they were just remarkable. one brief story from a guardsman serving in iraq in 2011 captures this spirit of those men and

women who serve. montana specialist civilek was serving as a medic in a convoy near balat. his convoy hit an i.e.d. which cut s.b.c.'s civilek's arm with shrapnel, cut his ears up too. instead of tending to his own wounds, the specialist immediately sprang into action, providing medical care to his fellow soldiers. that's remarkable but it's not uncommon. that's exactly the kind of spirit that these troops have. our nation has been at war now for more than ten years. these men and women represent 1% of our country serving in the military that are bearing a heavier load than the rest of us. mr. president, i have a lot more to say on this subject. i know a lot of senators here on the floor wish to speak. i'd go on and on and on about the valor, about the courage and the dedication of these wonderful men and women. but in the spirit of cooperation and compromise here this afternoon, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i've risen many times over the past three years to talk about the bad policy choices of the obama administration and the harmful effects of these policies on our economy and on the american people. in many ways, the president's decision has made things worse in our country. the bill before us today would impose what's being called the buffett tax. it's just one more example, mr. president, of a policy that will hurt our economy, not help it. this tax will take money from the pockets of small businesses that they would use to create jobs. more than a third of all business income reported on individual returns would be hit by this tax increase. back in september, president obama said that this tax hike on american families would raise enough money -- this is the president said this -- he said it would raise enough money not only to pay for his increased

spending but he said -- quote -- "to stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade." he said back then, he said, "this is not politics." he said -- quote -- "this is math." well, of course we now know that the buffett tax is about only one thing -- politics. the increased tax revenue would amount to about $5 billion this year, which is about the same amount of money that washington will borrow over the next day and a half. the president would have to collect his so-called buffett tax for more than 200 years just to cover the obama deficit from last year alone. that's not just my math. that's the math from the joint committee on taxation. the buffett tax won't fix washington's debt because washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. even one of president obama's top economic advisors finally admits that the buffett tax will not -- quote -- "bring the

deficit down and the debt under control." based on his record, it is clear that the president would not put a single dollar raised by his new tax toward the debt. he will just spend it. so the president has now changed his story once again. now he says that this is no longer a way to pay down the deficit. now he says it's just a matter of fairness. well, president obama has been using the word "fair" in quite a few of his campaign speeches lately. it's a word of great appeal to most people. just like hope and change, the buzz words of the 2008 presidential campaign, people can interpret it to fit their own meaning. president obama's idea of fairness doesn't match up with the american people's idea of fairness. and senator mcconnell made reference to this today in an editorial that i've written in "investors business daily." president obama thinks it's fair that our children and

grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of washington's reckless spending, like borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends so far this year. president obama thinks it's fair to pile another $40,000 of debt on to every household in the united states over the last three years. president obama thinks it's fair to use college students as props for his campaign-style rallies without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in debt. president obama thinks it's fair to force hardworking taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car because it fits into his idea for american energy. president obama thinks it's fair to hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to politically connected solar energy companies that then go bankrupt. president obama thinks it's fair to tell thousands of workers that they won't have jobs because he's blocked the keystone x.l. pipeline.

why? to solidify his support of a -- with a few far left environmentalists. president obama thinks it's fair that more than half of his biggest fund-raisers won jobs in his administration. that's right, more than half. that's been reported in "the washington post." president obama thinks it's fair to give important jobs to people who fail to pay their own taxes, like his own treasury secretary. and apparently president obama thinks it's fair that three years of the obama economy have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment. there are many ways in which the american people's understanding of fairness differs from the way that president obama has been using the word. to the vast majority of americans, fair means an equal opportunity to succeed. to president obama, fair requires nothing less than a

totally equal outcome, regardless of effort. to most americans, fairness allows for the pursuit of their own dreams. it also recognizes that no man and no government can provide a guarantee of success. the waves of immigrants who've come to our shores over generations did so for freedom and for a chance to succeed. they did not come to be taken care of and to have every decision made for them by the government. that's what many of them were leaving behind. when president obama pushes for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity, he is trying to pit one american against another. he is telling people that it is not fair that someone else has something that they don't have. well, that may be a clever campaign tactic but it is not true and it is bad for our country. one person getting more does not mean someone else has to get

less. in america, it's possible for all of us to prosper. that's what made america different from the very beginning. the prospect that all of us can do better, not at the expense of our neighbors but by our own effort. there's something that threatens to keep all of us from success. it is the thing that threatens to keep us all from passing on to our children the hope for their own prosperity. it is the crushing debt, the debt that this administration has been forcing on to the backs of american workers. it is the mountain of bureaucracy that stifles american opportunity. the old maxim says that a rising tide lifts all boats. president obama seems to think it's better to put holes in all of the boats as long as that means that they're all equal in the end. that's what he seemed to be saying in 2008 during one of the democrat presidential debates.

moderator charles gibson asked then-senator obama why he favored raising taxes on capital gains. our history clearly showed that when the tax rate has gone up, government revenues actually went down. senator obama said that he wanted to raise taxes anyway, he said -- quote -- "for purposes of fairness." in the name of achieving what he considers to be fair, the president was willing to hurt millions of hardworking families who already paid taxes on their income, families who invested some of that income and now would have to pay higher taxes again when they decide to sell some of those investments. the president didn't even care if washington ended up with less money as a result of his efforts to punish success. the only important thing was that he thought it would be more fair. now, that's a pretty extreme definition of what "fair" means and it's not one that the american people share.

in any fair society, doing better should be a consequence of one's efforts. to president obama, fairness means getting something for nothing. the american dream is about people using ingenuity, ambition and hard work. it's about overcoming obstacles. americans admire the inventor who works long hours in the garage building and failing and trying again and again until this inventor succeeds. americans speak with pride about having worked their way through college washing dishes, pouring concrete, flipping hamburgers, whatever it took for them to reach their goal. most americans don't speak with pride about being bailed out by washington or cashing a government check. the idea of people earning their success has been a vital part of our nation's character since our founding. it does not come from government , it cannot be redistributed. the more government tries to redistribute success, the more

strings it attaches. because a handout from washington always comes with strings attached. the president's health care law is a perfect example. it's built on shifting millions of people on to medicaid, a program designed to take care of low-income americans. putting more people on medicaid is not the same as giving them access to the medical care that they need. giving people unemployment benefits and funding short-term stimulus jobs is not the same as freeing up employers to hire more workers and provide long-term jobs and actual careers. handing out benefits from washington may provide a safety net in the short run, when the short run turns permanent, it robs people of the tools and incentives they need to succeed. it does even greater damage to our economy when president obama pays for it by piling more debt on the backs of american taxpayers. we all recognize the value of this social safety net. none of us -- i repeat, none of

us -- want to eliminate that protection. to be true to this country's greatest traditions, it must be a real safety net to catch people from falling. it must never become a net to ng tangle those -- entangle those so that they cannot rise, nor a comfortable hammock on which they news to -- they choose to recline. somewhere along the way, washington twisted the honorable american impulse to care for the least fortunate among us. that shift now threatens to produce a culture of dependency, a culture that weakens our society and hurts the people it was meant to help. a half century ago, john f. kennedy appealed to the great spirit of america when he said, "ask not what your country can do for you." he said, "ask what you can do for your country." today the obama administration is trying to make washington irreplaceable in the lives of americans. the great irony, the great tragedy is that no one is more trapped by this failed redistribution than the poorest.

the people that the president so often claims to be trying to help. that's part of the downside to the culture of dependency. it's why washington company never provide for people as well as people could and should provide for themselves. president obama is focusing on fixing all the faults he sees in the american people. republicans are focusing on giving the american people the opportunity to succeed using their talents and their hard work. when washington tells people, don't worry, your government will take care of all your needs, it does them no service. it only deprives people of their freedoms, their freedoms to make their own choices, to stand on their own two feet and to earn their success. the american people don't want washington to pick winners and losers, they want a fair chance to win on their own. that's why asking for a clear and a limited set of rules and the assurance that those rules apply to all of us, even those who donate to president obama's

reelection campaign. they're asking that the rules not change on the whims of some unelected bureaucrat in washington. they want to know that they will have the right to control people's own choices. president obama says it's fair for washington to make the decisions so that everyone is equal in the end. he says it's fair to take more money from hardworking families and small businesses through the so-called buffett tax that we're debating today. mr. president, tax increases won't help our fragile economy, and they won't put the brakes on washington's out-of-control spending. republicans want to promote economic growth for everyone, not equality of outcome at everyone's expense. despite what president obama may believe, america is not an unfair place. true fairness requires equal opportunity so that all may pursuearpursue their american d.

that is the philosophy that must be allowed to lead to us a more prosperous future for all. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to speak on the buffett rule. mr. president, how much time is allocated to me? the presiding officer: there are 18 minutes remaining on your side of the aisle. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i'll take five minutes, no more than five minutes. mr. president, i support the buffett rule because i do believe in fundamental fairness that if you live in the united states of america, that you benefit from the united states of america, both its national security and its public institutions and the public progress, because of that, like

public education, land-grant colleges, that you need to pay your fair share. this is what america is all about: fairness and that we're all in it together. now, let's talk -- i've heard all afternoon about oh, this hardworking entrepreneur and oh, this hardworking small business. mr. president, nobody gets to be that hardworking entrepreneur without the united states of america. they've gone to public schools, they've enjoyed public transportation, i could go through a variety of public institutions, safety in our dam, now cybersecurity, wars that are fought by our military four forh they won't go or will never go. so, mr. president, we need to have a way of paying our bills.

when we hear the great president john f. kennedy quoted, saying "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," it's called pay your share. now, let's talk about what the buffett rule actually is and what the gentleman from rievme e island is advocating, and i salute him for offering it. this would ensure that high-earning americans who make more than $1 million a year pay at least 30% income tax on their effective rate on their second million. let me repeat what this is. your first million you keep at the same tax rate that it is right this afternoon. what we're talking about is changing the tax rate not on your first million but on your second million.

now, i don't think that stifles enpreen neuroship --en entrepreneurship. i don't think it breaks the neck of small business. what the small business needs is not more tax breaks; they need more customers, which is about more jobs. noso, mr. president, i think ths bill really talks about this fairness. it would phase in additional tax liability for taxpayers earning between $1 million and $2 billion to avoid a tax cliff. and they're saying, oh, well, let us keep our money so we can give it to charity. this preserves the incentive for charitable giving and, quite frankly, from what we're told, the highest-earning 400 americans make about $270 million each. they're the ones that paid an effective tax rate of 18%.

now, just think. you make $270 million. that's not exactly the entrepreneur in a garage. that's not exactly that small business person, a florist or, like my grandmother running this polish bakery or like my father with his little grocery store. $270 million each. they pay 18%. so here it is, april 16, they pay 18%. and that, by the way, is the rules. all we're saying is, you can pay that 18% on your first million, but on that second million, you got to get into the game and start to pay 30%. i think that this is a great idea, and i want my colleagues to be able to -- i want my colleagues when we vote for cloture to be able to do this. the buffett rule supports fairness in the tax code so executives don't pay a lower rate than the people who work in

the mailroom or in the fedex trucks delivering their products. it doesn't kick in until your second million and then it is phased in slowly. now, a lot has been said, we don't want these handouts from maryland -- from the federal government. it wrecks our entrepreneurship, our get up and go. i don't believe that. i don't believe that at all. because if that were true, then why is it with these handouts -- who et goes the big of the handouts in our country? those who get tax earmarks -- we eliminated them in the appropriations committee. but we're yet to eliminate them in the tax code. look how hard it was to get rid of the ethanol subsidy. oh, my gosh, when we wanted to

get rid of the oil and gas subsidy, you would think that we were darth vader on the senate floor. so every time we want to take away a lavish tax break that only happens a few get more, we're stymied or stifled because actually, if they employed as many people in their businesses as they employ lobbyists in washington, we would be able to lower the unemployment rate. so the other party is willing to bring us often to the brink of what our -- of default. remember when we were dealing with detect ceiling rather than -- with debt ceiling rather than taxing billionaires. and we continue now have that same fight. mr. president, this legislation that we would pass is a modest down payment on reforming the tax code. we do have to make it fairer. this is a firm way to be able to do it. sure, we've got to look at the corporate tax code. we've got to look at how to

bring expatriot money oversize and -- overseas and bring it home. we have to acknowledge entrepreneurship and reward the special challenges. but that's long-range and under the arcane refusals our senate, we are now so stymied in bringing up this legislation, we could at least take one giant step forward to make our tax code fairer by passing the legislation called the buffett rule, named after warren buffett, one of our great american people, a guy who really gives capitalism real meaning in our country. but he says, let me pay and people like me pay the same rate of taxes as my administrative assistant in the front office. i think buffett had a goods idea. -- had a good idea. let's codify it. let's pass it in the senate today. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the snoer from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, let's ask ourselves a question. what's the purpose of taxes? do we tax people to punish them for their success or do we do it to raise revenue for the government? well, the answer of course is that at least up to now the purpose of taxes is to raise the revenue that the government needs to perform its duties. and to do that in the least harmful way possible. president obama, however, has a different idea about the purpose of taxes. he thinks the government should take more from some people just because they're rich. even if the tax increases hurt the economy. so this week the senate will vote on what's called the pay a

fair share act, or as described by president obama, the buffett tax. this legislation would create a new 30% alternative minimum tax for filers who make $1 million or more, which would include many successful small businesses. unfortunately, the legislation would hurt small businesses more than it would raise revenue for the government. today i want to talk about why this legislation is fundamentally misguided and why it would be harmful to businesses, workers, and the economy. the buffett tax may make for good politics for president obama on the campaign trail but it's bad policy. it is deeply flawed. first, let's start with its premise. there is a key misconception about warren buffett's tax rate. the notion that plr buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the tax code. mr. buffett, and i would add many older americans, be atains

most of his income from investments. that income is taxed at the capital gains rate. mr. buffett and president obama would have us believe that capital gains income gets preferential treatment in the tax code. but that doesn't tell the real story. capital income is actually taxed twice. first its taxed at the 35% rate that corporations pay on their income. it's taxed, money is paid to the government. and then it's taxed again when the distribution of capital gains or dividends is made to the investors, when it's passed on to shareholders as dividends or capital gains. that means the tax rate is already far higher than 30%. it is actually not 30% plus 15%, but it is higher than 30%, and it's closer to 45%. president obama ignores these

facts when he says mr. buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. you have to count it twice, not just the second time. and that leads me to my second point. the fairness of the current tax code: does it really favor the wealthy at the expense of oh, as president obama argues? -- at the expense of others, as president obama argues? perhaps one could cherry-pick some statistics to show that pun person or another pays more or less. but the actual tax numbers show the real progressivity of the american internal revenue code, and interestingly enough, among all the industrialized countries in the world, ours is the most progressive. in other words, the u.s. tax -- income tax code has the wealthier people paying a far higher percentage of income taxes than any other country in the industrialized world. yes, even more than sweden and

even more than france and even more than the other countries in europe. according to congressional budget office data, the average tax rate paid by middle-income earns is 14.2%. in contrast, the average tax rate paid by a high-income american is 351.2% -- is 31.2%, more than twice as much. so the average tax that the secretary or somebody else like that might make, 14.2%. the average tax paid by high-income americans, 31.2%. incidentally, president obama's effective tax rate this wreer is 20.-- this year is 20.5%. should he be paying more? or is that enough? he's golt i don't think a toug. here's some other interesting tax facts. the top 1% of taxpayers pays 38% of total income taxes, actually i think these numbers are dated.

it is now closer to 40%. and that top 1% of taxpayers only earns 20% of the total income. so here's the question of fairness: you've got the top 1%, now, they are the top 1% because they earn the top 20% of all income, the top fifth. but they pay almost twice as much in taxes. 38% in total income taxes. how about the top 2%? well, they pay 48.68%, nearly 50%, in other words, of income taxes. and they earn 27.95% of total income. so you got the top 2% paying almost half of all income taxes. is that fair? the top 5% pays 58.7%, earns 34.7. the top 10% pays 69.9, let's say 70%. you've got the top 10% of

taxpayers paying 70% of all the taxes, earning 45% of the income. those are certainly the wealthy, and they're certainly paying a big share. how about less wealthy? the bottom 95% -- in other words, everybody but the top 5% -- pays 41.3% of income taxes, earns 65% of the money, of the income. is this fair? maybe it's not fair that the top 2% pay almost half of all the income taxes. how much would be fair? should they pay 90%? 95%? how about 50% of households that pay no taxes and yet receive the same or greater benefits than those who do? is that fair? the joint committee on taxation estimates that 51% of all

households which includes both filers and nonfilers had either zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. people who do not share in the sacrifice of paying taxes have little direct incentive to care whether the government is spending and taxing too much. maybe that's why the president has no problem with even more americans getting a free ride. here are a few more statistics. the highest 1% of income earners has not seen the share of the income tax burden decline. in fact, their share of income is essentially the same as it was in 2000, but their share of taxes paid is higher. collectively only taxpayers with incomes greater than $100,000 a year pay a share of taxes that is greater than their share of income. actually, mr. president, i think it's hard to argue that our current tax code that taxes the wealthy to such a high degree is unfair. while the president says it is not fair, i find it interesting

that his own treasury secretary seems to agree that the current system is fair. let me read a portion of the transcript from a finance committee hearing with secretary geithner earlier this year. i asked him, "do you think it's fair that the top 1% of earners in the united states pay just about 40% of income taxes?" secretary geithner's response: "i do because i don't see how the alternatives are more fair." next i asked him if he thought it was fair that the top 3% pay as much as the other 97% of taxpayers in income tax, and secretary geithner responded again, "i do." so, mr. president, if we want an income tax system that's fair, according to the obama administration's own standards, we already have it. the argument the top tier earners aren't doing enough just doesn't hold water. the third problem with the

buffett tax is that it would harm many small businesses. according to the most recent treasury department data, 392,000 tax returns reported income of $million or more. of those, 331,000 reported business income and 311,000 met the treasury's did he definitiof business owner. this is a tax that would disproportionately affect smalll businesses and other job creators. four out of five tax filers that would be affected by the buffett tax are the very businesses we are counting on to lead us back to an economic recovery. if enacted, these tax increases would have real negative effect on employers trying to create jobs. and this isn't just my opinion. take, for example, the international franchise association which recently said this: franchise business owners could be significantly challenged to grow and create new jobs as a result of the buffett rule. a tax increase on individuals

and small business owners. it continued -- quote -- "taxing job creators will seriously impede the built of franchise businesses to expand their operations and create new jobs, particularly multiunit franchise operators and the majority of franchise businesses who file their business income on their own personal tax return." so these are the very folks the treasury department identified as paying taxes as individuals but who are in fact business owners. under current law, a massive tax increase on income capital gains and dividends is already set to occur on january 1 of next year. in addition, under obamacare, some americans will be hit with a 3.8% investment surcharge beginning next year. imagine what all of these taxes will do to small businesses and start-up companies. but that's not enough new taxing for president obama in his war against investments and success.

according to economist steven enton, tax increase on capital are some of the most destructive to the economy. he estimates tax hikes on capital gains, dividends and the top two individual tax rates which are already scheduled to occur in 2013 will shrink the economy by 6%, will lower wages by 5%, will decrease capital stock by almost 16%, and will lose the federal government almost $100 billion in tax revenue. adding an additional buffett tax on capital will only decrease wages and economic growth even further. why is this? because high taxes on income, particularly investment income, depress capital formation. there are fewer investments which damages the abilities of business to grow, to create jobs, or to pay higher wages. i challenge my colleagues to ask a room full of economists this question: does increasing the cost of capital lead to higher

or lower economic growth and job creation? well, the answer is obvious. as president kennedy said when he endorsed a capital gains tax cut -- quote -- "the tax on capital gains tkprebgtly affects investment decisions, the ability and risk flow of capital as well as the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy." end of quote. it's also important to remember that we're not making tax policy in a vacuum here. we're competing for capital and investments with every other nation on earth. the president has conceded that our high corporate tax rate harms our international competitiveness and has expressed tepid support for lowering it but those benefits would be erased if capital gains taxes are increased dramatically. as the "wall street journal" points out, -- and i quote -- "lowering the corporate tax rate makes the u.s. more competitive, but the tax change itself defeating if it's combined with

an even larger rise in the investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends." end of quote. according to a recent ernst & young study, the independent rate on capital gains is already over 50%, 50.8%, more than twice the rate in china, for example. if congress does nothing, capital gains rates will rise again to 56.7% next year. that's the second-highest in the world. if the buffett tax increase is layered on top, taxes will consume almost two-thirds of capital gains and will have the highest integrated rate by far of any of our international competitors. we have to remember in a mobile world economy, capital is highly mobile. does anyone believe that such a confiscatory capital gains rate imposed by the buffett tax wouldn't lead to less investment in the united states and more in

other countries? somebody said this isn't just shooting ourselves in the foot. it's shooting ourselves in the head. fourth, let me address president obama's suggestions that it constitutes tax reform and president reagan would have supported it. i think i could imagine president reagan responding there you go again. "the washington post" has a fact checker op-ed. here's how they set the record straight on president obama's claim that he was pushing the same concept. his words as president reagan, quote, "washington post." "contrary to obama's suggestion that president reagan was specifically arguing for a new tax provision aimed at the super wealthy, reagan was barn storming the country in an effort to reduce taxes for all americans, mainly by cutting rates, simplifying the tax system and eliminating tax shelters that allows some people to avoid paying any taxes at all. in other words, reagan was

pushing for a tax cut for everyone, not just an increase on a few. obama and reagan did use similar an -- antidotes. it should never be confused with a gimmick like the buffett tax. i'd thraoeubg show how higher capital gains taxes have a negative effect on revenue. ever since the bipartisan capital gains cut in 1978, a pattern has repeated itself over and over again. raising the capital gains rate reduces revenues. lowering it has led to revenue increases. that's partly because capital gains taxes are an elective tax. the tax is only paid when investors sell their assets and

frequently they wait to sell their assets for the rates to go down when it will cost them less to sell those assets. the "wall street journal" recently produced a chart to this effected, and i'm going to summarize it. in 1978, president carter signed an amendment into law which cut the capital gains rate from 40% to 28%. what was the result? less revenue? no. revenue from capital gains increased by nearly $3 billion. yet, the rate was reduced. congress cut the capital gains rate again to 20% in 1981 as part of the reagan tax cuts, as the journal notes, revenue did not fall in 1982. by 1983, capital gains revenue soared to 18.7 billion dollars. the lower rate, higher revenue. in 1986 the capital gains tax rate was returned to 28% as part of the tax reform package, and guess what? revenues soared as investors cashed in their gains before the

tax increase hit. and then plunged in 1987. the point is investors get to play. they get to decide. when the rate goes down, they can sell their property with less cost. when the rate goes up, they hang on to their property. they don't sell it because they'll have to pay more when they do. in 1997, president clinton and congressional republicans cut the rate back to 20% and revenues from capital gains doubled by the year 2000 to $127.63 billion. as the journal notes -- and i quote -- "congress shouldn't be fooled by government forecasters who predict a revenue boom from a higher capital gains rate. they've blown this call every time." end of quote. my last point addresses what the buffett tax would do for the federal debt. the answer is next to nothing. let's examine the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation's estimate of the revenue that would be raised from the buffett

tax. bear in mind that these estimates do not include the effect on economic growth which could dramatically reduce rather than raise federal revenues as history has shown. let's take the score at face value. even without counting the negative impact on the economy, the buffett tax would raise a mere pittance in the scope of federal budgets. when president obama first proposed the tax, he declared that it could raise enough money -- could raise enough money to stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. he said "this is not politics. it's math." well, let's look at the math. the joint committee on taxation estimate shows that the buffett tax would raise only about $1 billion this year. so instead of a deficit this year of $1,079,000,000,000, we'd have a deficit of $1,078000,000,000 that.

doesn't exactly raise enough money to stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade, as the president said. over the first five years, the joint tax committee shows that the buffett tax would collect about $14.7 billion. to put it into perspective, that would amount to less than.08% of the projected national debt in five years. in the year 2014, the proposal is estimated to actually lose over $6 billion in revenue. why is this? again, because capital gains taxes are largely voluntary. the investors targeted by the buffett tax are generally able to decide when to sell an asset. they can manipulate their sale to stay below the triggering threshold of $1 million in the bill. this produces a lock-in effect on capital as investments stay stagnant. so what's the end result? little, if any, revenue is actually raised. business investments decline. in turn, wages and hiring

decline. again, if the purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue rather than punish people, this bill completely flunks the test. so while this proposed tax increase might make some people feel good, it won't solve any of our budget problems. it will likely destroy jobs and growth. and as history has shown, depressed economic growth from a tax increase will likely make our budget problems even worse than they are now. so in conclusion, mr. president, the economy as we know is limping along at an anemic growth rate. gas is $4 a gallon or more and 20 million americans are unemployed or underemployed. the economic downturn has taken a huge toll on american families. they want washington to focus on legislation that will have an impact on jobs and gas prices. instead, we're debating a show bill that has no chance of passing, wouldn't create a

single american job. what happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? remember that three-letter word, jobs? the president claims to be focused like a laser on the economy. instead, it appears that there is only one job that he is focused on with this political proposal. i submit that here in the senate, mr. president, we should be focused on jobs and energy legislation that can pass, not tax hikes through showboats that are designed to fail. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. and i rise in strong support of the paying a fair share act, and i commend senator whitehouse for introducing this important legislation. mr. president, it is absurd that at a time when our country has a

$15 trillion national debt and enormous unmet needs, the wealthiest people in this country have an effective tax rate that is lower than many middle-class workers. it makes no sense that the richest 400 people in our country who earned an average of more than $270 million each in 2008 pay an effective tax rate of just 18%, which is less than many small business men, nurses, teachers, police officers, et cetera. that is wrong from a moral perspective. it is also very bad economic policy. but, mr. president, the issue we are debating today really speaks to a much larger crisis that is

taking place in america, and that is that in many important ways, the united states is departing from its democratic tradition which has always included a strong and growing middle class and is moving rapidly into an oligarchic form of government in which almost all wealth and power reside in the hands of the very richest people in our society, the top 1%. that, mr. president, is not what america is supposed to be about. let me mention to you a recent study which shows not only why we should pass this buffett rule, but why we should go, in fact, much further. an economist at the university of california, professor emmanuel sayez, studying tax

returns, found that in 2010, 93% of all new income generated during that year went to the top 1%. let me repeat that. between 2009 and 2010, the last year we have statistics on this issue, 93% of all new income went to the top 1%. while the rest of the people, the bottom 99% were able to receive 7%. even more incredible is the fact that 37% of that new income went to the top .01%. in other words, of the

$309 billion in new income gained in 2010, $288 billion went to the top 1%. only $21 billion in new income went to the bottom 99%. mr. president, today the top 1% earns over 20% of all income in this country, which has more -- is more than the bottom 50%. in terms of distribution of wealth, accumulated income, as hard as it may be for us to believe as a country which believes in mobility, in a country which believes in equality, today we have a situation where the 400 wealthiest people in america now own more wealth than the bottom half of america, 150 million

people. 400 people here own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans, and that gap between the very rich and everybody else is now wider than it has been in this country since the late 1920's, and we have by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. so that is where we are today as a nation, and it is not a good place to be. the richest people and largest corporations are doing phenomenally well, while the middle class is collapsing and poverty increases. this is not what democracy looks like. this is what oligarchy and pliew stock -- plutocracy look like. to compound this extremely

unfair situation, when millionaires and billionaires are paying the lowest effective tax rate for the rich in decades, our deficit problems only grow worse. in other words, not only are the real and effective tax rates for the rich lower than many middle-class workers, their low effective tax rates are having a very negative impact on our deficit. in fact, today, as a result of the tax breaks given to the wealthy and large corporations, revenue as a percentage of g.d.p. is at 14.8%, the lowest in more than 50 years. so, mr. president, let us pass the buffett rule today, but let us do much more in the future. instead of cutting social

security, medicare, medicaid, education and other programs of vital importance to middle-class and working families in this country, as many of my republican colleagues would like to do, let us develop a personal and corporate tax policies which are fair and which protect the best interests of our country. nobody should be talking about maintaining huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and in the same breath talk about cutting social security, medicare, medicaid, the needs of our children and the needs of the most vulnerable people in our country. that is wrong and that is not what america is about. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: how much time remains? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island has three minutes. mr. whitehouse: and on the republican side? the presiding officer: and the republicans have four minutes. mr. whitehouse: it's my understanding, mr. president, that there are no further speakers on the republican side, so if somebody does come, i will, of course, yield the four minutes, but the latest report is that there are no further speakers until we move on to the judicial nomination. i just wanted to use the time that remains to respond to two of the points that have been made. before i do that, let me just say that, as i have kept track during the debate, the minority party has discussed debt,

bureaucracy, presidential appointments, punishment of success, obamacare, jobs, fuel prices, picking winners and losers, campaign contributions, out-of-control spending, equal opportunity and massive new tax increases. the subject at hand is actually much smaller than this, and that is the undisputed and indisputable fact that at the very, very high end of the american income spectrum, people are paying lower tax rates than regular american families. whether it's warren buffett's self-proclaimed example of paying only 11% in total taxes or the average of all the 400 highest income earners in the country being only 18.2%. these are people earning, in the case of the 400, over a quarter of a billion dollars each in one year, and paying the rate equivalent to what a single

rhode island truck driver pays. that's the issue. we should have a progressive tax code. now, one of the speakers has said that we do have a progressive tax code, that the income tax generates 31.2% of the total income tax revenue from high-income folks versus 14.2% from the middle as their rate. but it's worth focusing on the fact that when my republican colleagues talk about taxes and they focus on income taxes, they leave out the payroll taxes that virtually every american pays, that a great number of americans pay. more pay payroll taxes than pay an income tax, i believe. and if you look at all of those taxes and you put them together, you find that the top 1% of

americans do indeed pay 28.3% of the taxes. 1% pays 28.3% of the taxes, and that sounds pretty progressive until you realize that the top 1% in america controls more than a third of the nation's wealth. the top 1% holds more than a third of the nation's wealth but pays only 28% of the taxes. that's not progressive if you're measuring in what you're usually taxing, which is income and wealth, not just the existence of a human being on the planet. if you go to 5%, then the top 5% pay 44.7% of all of our taxes, which, again, is a lot and is progressive, but not when you consider that that 5% owns or controls more than 60% of the nation's wealth. we are a country in which more than half of the wealth of the country, more than 60% of the

wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of 1/20 of the population, the top 5%. and so for them to pay a higher rate makes a lot of logical sense, and what you find is that they actually pay a lower rate all too often. the other point that i'd like to address is the argument that this will take money from the pockets of small businesses. if you look at the office of taxation and the treasury's definition of what a small business is and look at how many would be affected by this bill, it would be 3.3%. nearly 97% of small businesses would have zero effect from this bill. and of the 3.3% that would be affected, it's hard to know how many of those are simply

high-income individuals who have incorporated themselves for tax purposes but don't fit the ordinary definition of a small business. when you look at the fact that americans across this country have spent the last week sitting down, going through their receipts, filing their tax returns, sitting at the kitchen table, trying to make sense of it all and trying to get it filed on time, for a great number of those folks, what they know from warren buffett and from others is that the people making a quarter of a billion dollars a year are paying lower rates than they do, and that's not right. it's not just me saying that that's not right. it's ronald reagan saying that that's not right. ronald reagan said that it was crazy, to use his words, crazy that a millionaire should pay a

lower tax rate than a bus driver pays. and it's equally crazy that a truck driver should pay a lower rate -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island has exhausted his time. the senator from tennessee is here to speak. mr. whitehouse: very well. i will yield the floor to the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: how much time am i acquiring? the presiding officer: one minute. mr. corker: i will speak very briefly. this last march, 64 senators, 32 on each side, wrote a letter to the president asking for real tax reform and real entitlement reform. i think most of us know that today's exercise is a political exercise. it's not intended to deal with deficits. it's intended to divide. i heard the president speaking to a college in florida last week about the buffett tax.

and in that speech he was talking about spending all of that money on things that they were interested in. in other words, this money is not being used per the president's speech in any way to reduce deficits. i would just encourage all of those on both sides of the aisle, 32 senators on each side, that have spoken earnestly and sincerely about pro-growth tax reform and entitlement reform to not follow this folly of division but but to hold together as we need to to do something that is great for our country, and it's my hope that by later this year, possibly lame duck, although i hope that something happens sooner than that, all of us who really care about solving problems, not about scoring political points, which this bill is about, will come together and do something great for our country. mr. president, i yield the time. thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will

proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, stephanie dawn thacker of west virginia to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i understand -- let me make sure i understand. time is divided for an hour until the vote? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. leahy: thank you. i thank the distinguished presiding officer and i welcome him back after the break and all senators on both sides of the

aisle. the senate is going to consider the nomination of stephanie dawn thacker of west virginia to gill a judicial vacancy in the fourth circuit court of appeals. i know that our distinguished senator from west virginia, senator manchin will be coming to speak in a few moments. i would note that this is a judicial -- a judicial vacancy in which the senate judiciary committee voted unanimously as the distinguished presiding officer will recall, in favor of this nomination more than five months ago. after thorough debate and background and we voted for her unanimously, five months. she should not have had to wait this long. when she is confirmed she'll be the first woman from west virginia to serve in the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit.

she's been forced to wait five and a half months for senate consideration with no good reason. and i thank the majority leader, senator reid, for scheduling this vote. sheaf justice roberts and the attorney general both have spoken about the serious problems created by these persistent judicial vacancies. more than 160 million americans live in districts or circuits with a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if senate republicans would just agree to vote on the nominations that are pending. these are not new nominations. these are nominations pending that have gone through the senate judiciary committee. and we should act to bring an end to the harm caused by delays and overburdened courts and i ask unanimous consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, speaking of the senate judiciary committee, i want to say as we

begin to work now after the easter-passover recess, i want to thank all the senators who have come to the floor sho to express intiernt for the violence against women act. it family sizes the need for the senate to take up and reauthorize this landmark legislation. for almost 18 years, the violence against women act, called vaw awe, has been -- vawa, has been the centerpiece to combat dating violence and stalking. the impact of this law has been remarkable. it has provided life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of men, women, children, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has drobd dropped by 50% since the act was passed. support for the violence against women act has always been bipartisan. and i appreciate the bipartisan

support this reauthorization bill has already received. senator crapo and i introduced the reauthorization of the violence against women act in november. with senators heller and ayotte joining as cosponsors in march, we now have 61 cosponsors in the senate from both sides of the aisle. and i hope the senate will take up and pass this bill soon. the violence against women act is about responding to domestic and sexual violence. programs that are vitally important and our legislation has looked and and learned from the experiences and needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence from all around the country. we've also had the recommendations of the tireless professionals who work every single day, i might say virtually every single night, to serve them. the builds on the progress that has been made in reducing domestic violence. it makes vital improvements to

respond to unmet needs as we have each time we've reauthorized the violence against women act. the provision that the minority on the judiciary committee have labeled controversial are in fact modest changes. they meet the genuine, unmet needs that service providers tell us they see every day when they work with victims over the country. this is what we've done on every single vawa reauthorization. we've looked at what we've learned since the last one, and then we take steps to recognize those victims whose needs are not being met and we find new ways to meet them. that's nothing new or different. it's what we've always done and because we have improvedded it each time is one of the reasons why domestic violence has dropped. should not be a basis for a partisan division or delay. the legislation also includes

important legislation to respond to current economic reamounts. we all know that -- realities. while the economy is now improving, there remain difficult economic times and we have to be responsible in how we spend the taxpayers' money. that's why in our bill we consolidate 13 programs into four. remove duplication and bureaucratic barriers, another one of those things you do each time reauthorization, you try to make it better. it would cut the authorization level for vawa by more than 135 millions a year. that's a decrease of nearly 20% from the last reauthorization. it's also significant accountability provisions, audit requirements and enforcement mechanisms and restrictions on grantees and costs. again, saying we want to do the right thing in the violence against women act but we also want to protect the taxpayers' dollar.

that's why it's a bipartisan bill, it's a product of careful consideration, and that's why it has widespread support. there's really no reason we should not take it up and debate it and pass it. the judiciary committee passed this bill after we considered a number of amendments including a substitute offered by the minority. i've reached out to the distinguished ranking member, senator grassley, to ask about possible amendments and time agreements for consideration. we should do what we've always done ever since the first vawa act years ago. pass it with strong bipartisan support. these problems are too serious for us to delay. any one of us who served in law enforcement have gone to the scene where somebody's been severely battered, sometimes killed. i know when i've gone to those scenes i never heard a police officer say, well, is this a

republican or a democrat. they say had is a victim, what do we do to help them. that's what this is. it's not a republican or democratic bill. it's a sensible bill to help the victims of violence. it's crucial, commonsense legislation. it's been endorsed by more than 700 state and national organizations. numerous religious and faith-based organizations, as well as, of course, as our law enforcement partners. they've endorsed this bill. the last two times the violence against women act was reauthorized it was unanimously approved by the senate. it seems sometimes bipartisan gridlock becomes the default in the senate in recent years. we're better than that here in the u.s. senate. we should rise above gridlock. there's no reason why we should delay considering this bill. it has the support of 61 cosponsors across the aisle.

let's pass it. as i said before, domestic and sexual violence know no political party. violence happens to too many people in this country. its victims are republicans and democrats, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, straight and gay. nobody falls into a category where they are immune from this kind of violence. so let's work together. let's pass strong vawa reauthorization legislation. let's do it without delay. it is a law that has saved countless lives and for my fellow senators, i'd say it's an example of what we in the united states senate can accomplish if we work together. and lastly, mr. president, i know before i came to the floor

i heard the strong support of the paying a fair share act, it's been called i believe the buffett rule. the bowfort rule is a commonsense bill that ensures taxpayers at the top of the economic ladder pay at least the same tax rate paid by hard-working middle-class families in my state of vermont or all other states. no longer should handsomely compensated c.e.o.'s or those who live off trust funds pay a lower effective tax rate than the people who work for them. in fact, it's remarkable and regrettable such a principle of tax fairness should evoke controversy. it's more regrettable still that opponents have erected a supermajority barrier in an effort to prevent even debate on this straightforward principle. the debate, to say the wealthiest will pay at least the

same rate of taxes as hard-working middle america, vote for it or vote against it. if you want to say you want to vote to protect the wealthiest americans, fine, stand up and vote that way or vote to protect hard-working american families. but when you try to filibuster what you're doing, you're voting maybe. you're voting maybe. let's have the courage. vote for the millionaires, and protect them from any kind of a tax like an ordinary americans pay or vote for ordinary americans and say that everybody pay the same kind of tax. vote one way or the other. but don't duck it by having a filibuster where you can say i looked at it and i voted maybe. we're not elected to vote maybe. we really aren't. i'm pleased to join senator whitehouse and others as a

cosponsor of the bill. calls for a minimum 30% income tax rate for tears taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above a million dollars. pay at least the tax rate paid by middle-class families. also reduce the deficit by $47 billion over the next decade. now, hard-working vermont families and small businesses are struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy. but tax fairness has continued to erode benefiting the wealthiest 1%, at the expense of the rest of the country. by now a very large proportion of millionaires pay a small percentage -- smaller percentage of income than do a larger share of moderate-income taxpayers. warren boifort one of the wealthiest people in the world noted last year he paid taxes only 17.4% of his taxable

income. a lower percentage paid by any of his 20 employees. they paid from 33% to 41% of their income. the nonpartisan congressional research service studied these claims and confirm mr. buffett's assertion, a large pours of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income than average working americans and vermonters do. let's end the loopholes. tax day is upon us. let's hend the loopholes --, end the loopholes, allow some of the wealthiest to pay less than hard-working americans. so, mr. president, it's simply a matter of fairness. but, again, let's vote yes or no. if you want to vote to protect the millionaires, fine, vote no. if you want to say having it

fair, vet yes, but vote. having a filibuster means you vote maybe. none of us got elected or paid to vote maybe. and i ask, mr. president, my statements on vawa and on the buffett rule appear in the record as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i see the distinguished senior senator from west virginia on the floor and i see his distinguished colleague and i believe we're still in the time reserved -- no. okay. mr. president, i'm sorry. i see the senator from pennsylvania. before i yield the floor, i would ask if there are quorum calls during this hour the time be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: 34r-79s i ask when time comes back to this side first the distinguished senator from west virginia be recognized, then the distinguished senator from west

virginia, senator manchin, be recognized, both to speak for for -- how long -- that the time -- that the time remaining to the senator from vermont be divided between the two senators from west virginia. i ask consent when time is yielded back to me, time remaining to the senator from environment which will be approximately 15 minutes be divided between the two senators from west virginia. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, the senator from pennsylvania has patiently waited and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to speak against this so-called buffett rule. mr. president, this is a gimmick. it's a political gimmick. this is not a serious effort to deal with a ridiculously broken

tax code. this is not a serious effort to deal with a completely broken budget. and frankly it's very disappointing to me we're wasting toimgtime on this instead of dealing with both of those things. we -- we have a tax dead that's ridiculous. it is impossible to understand, counter to economic growth. badly needs a complete overhaul that would simplify this code, get rid of unfairness, broaden the base and encourage economic growth. instead we've got this the gm i can because we don't have the political leadership to deal with the underlying real problem of a badly flawed tax code. likewise on budget policy, this does nothing meaningful for our massive budget deficits that we've been running. in fact, this body chooses again for the third consecutive year not to even have a budget. it's unbelievable. instead, we're going to waste time arguing about this political stunt.

the president proposed a budget at least. unfortunately, it was not a serious budget, not a serious attempt to deal with the massive deficits we're running. it's the fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits. and instead of dealing with that, we have this -- this gimmick. so let's be clear, this is not a serious attempt to deal with tax reform or the budget. this so-called buffett rule, this tax increase would raise less than $5 billion a year. that amounts to about half of 1% of the trillion-dollar deficit that the president has proposed that we run. in fact, it would cover about two days worth of the deficits that we're running for 2013. here's a chart that illustrates the deficit that we'll have under the president's policies without the buffett tax. here's the deficit we'll have if we pass the buffett tax. if you can't tell the difference, it's because there is no meaningful difference.

folks, we ought to be dealing with the real tax reform that we need to encourage economic growth and help reduce this deficit. instead, we're wasting time with this. so since we're not doing what we ought to do, why -- why are we having this argument? unfortunately, it looks like it's an effort on two fronts. one is to simply engage in class warfare, generate envy and resentment and try to use that for political gain. and, secondly, it's an effort to distract from the underlying mismanagement of economic policy and fiscal policy that we have seen from this administration. now, i know what the claim is from the other side. we hear that this is all about making sure that the rich pay their fair share. i have to say, i have a little bit of trouble taking lectures on fairness from folks who think that taxpayers ought to be made to put $500 million into a solar energy company that does not have a competitive product, which drives it into bankruptcy at the cost to the taxpayers,

from the same folks that want to force taxpayers to continue subsidizing plug-in cars that people don't want to buy. that kind of crony capitalism and distorting of our economy at the expense of taxpayers doesn't strike me as fairness, so i have a hard time taking a lecture on fairness from people who add indicate those things -- advocate those things. but let's look at this tax code. if we want to talk about fairness, that's fine. how about the fact that, according to the joint committee on taxation, almost half of all americans today pay no income tax at all or actually receive money through the income tax code? the other half pay all of the taxes, and we're hearing from our friends that that's not enough, they need to pay still more. according to the c.b.o. -- and my second chart will illustrate this point -- according to the c.b.o., if we look at all federal taxes, the middle quintile, the middle 20% of wage earners in america pay about 14%

as an average tax when you combine all the kinds of federal taxes that are paid. top 1% pay 30%. so more than -- more than twice as high, 29.5% actually. if we look at just the income tax, the disparity is even bigger. if we look at the income tax alone, the middle quintile, the middle class, the middle 20% when it comes to income tax alone, on average pay about 3.3% as an effective average income tax rate. the top 1% pay 19%. so on average, almost six times as high. the fact is, we have a very progressive tax system. not just by the historical measures of our own previous tax systems, but look everywhere else in the world. in fact, the united states, according to the oecd, the u.s. has the most progressive tax system in the industrialized world. turn this one on its side.

this is a chart that measures progressiveity. greater prossivity is in this -- great prossiveity is in this direction. this ranks all the countries in the oecd, all the countries in the world that have less progressivity than the united states does, which means that higher-income americans pay a greater share of income taxes and taxes generally than in any other country in the world. but again we're told this is not enough. clearly, there's something else going on here. here's what concerns me the most. the real consequences of this so-called buffett rule, this tax increase, is that it is meant to be a tax on investment returns. it's a tax on capital gains and dividends. it's a tax that would upend decades of established law with respect to the differentiation that we have put in place with respect to dividend income versus wage income. and it disregards the very sound

reasons why we have created that distinction, one of which is that investment returns are taxed multiple times. we don't hear so much about that during this debate from my friends who are advocates for this new tax, this tax increase. but the fact is, first of all, it's only after-tax income that can be invested in the first place. so someone had to pay taxes on their earnings. and then after they've spent what they need to for their -- for their cost of living and if they've managed to save something which they then invest, they've already paid tax on that. so now the investment that they've made -- and let's say this is investment in a corporate stock -- let's keep in mind that that corporation has to pay tax. before they have an opportunity to return to provide a return on the investment that's made. and as it happens in the united states, our corporations pay the highest corporate tax in the entire industrialized world, 35% we've got a terrible corporate

tax code, needs to be reformed in many ways. one of them is to lower this top marginal rate, but right now it's 35%. and what the proponents of this rule are saying is that after that corporation pays that 35% tax on whatever income they can earn, and when they then choose to dividend some of that remaining after-tax income to the people who own that company, they want those owners to pay yet another tax that is even higher than what we pay now. we've got a chart here that illustrates what the net effect of this is. given that we have a 35% top corporate tax rate and if we were to adopt this proposal to impose this 30% minimum tax, for an individual who has dividend income, first the company in which they invest pays a tax. not all companies pay at the 35% rate but that is the top rate and it is in effect on many companies. well, if the company has to pay 35% of a given hundred dollars of income, they're left with 65

65 -- $65 in after-tax corporate income. and if the company decides the people who own it ought to get a dividend reflecting their ownership on that $65 that is available to be paid out as a dividend to investors, the proponents of the buffett rule would have those investors pay another 30%. well, that's $19.50, leaving the investors with $4.50 out of the -- $45.50 out of the $100 of investment income. in other words, the government takes the lion's share of the income from this investment. the net effect of that, of course, is it diminishes the incentive to make these investments in the first place. it makes other countries more attractive places to invest capital, to invest in a business to try to generate a return. there's another aspect that's disturbing about this, which is, if you ask me, it's very reminiscent of the alternative minimum tax. right? we tried that once. in 1969, congress decided that

there was some people that just weren't paying enough in tax and they said, we're just going to target just a handful. literally there was 155 people who were -- that's it. not 155,000. 155 people who were subject to the alternative minimum tax, which was this confession of the absurdity of the tax code in the first place, right? junk the entire existing tax code and have yet a second parallel code that will apply to just those rich 155 people. well, guess what? today that applies to tens of millions of americans, and every year congress has to do a temporary fix because it wasn't intended to do that. well, mr. president, i would suggest, if we go down this road, we're going to find that this tax, which we're told today would only apply to millionaires and billionaires, well, pretty soon the hard, cold reality of the fact that it doesn't generate any revenue to speak of if you apply it just to millionaires and billionaires, means it's going to be expanded to the middle class and far more

people, very much to our detriment. finally, let me say that it's just a bad idea to confiscate the capital which is the lifeblood of an economy. this next chart illustrates the critical role that investment plays in economic growth and in job creation. a couple of squiggly lines but one thing you notice if you just sort of take a quick look, there's an inverse relationship here, right? when the black line goes up, the red line's going down. the black line is investment as a percentage of our economy. and when investment climbs, the red line is unemployment. you see unemployment goes down. this is very, very well understood. it's capital invested in the economy that creates growth, creates jobs. and what this rule would do, it would impose a new layer of additionally higher taxes on that very lifeblood of our economy. it's capital also that drives

wages higher. we should never forget that fact it's capital that allows the hunter-gatherer to have a hoe and become a farmer. it's capital that allows the farmer with a hoe to cast aside the hoe and drive a tractor and become far more productive. it's capital that allows the laborer who's digging with a shovel to put aside the shovel and drive a backhoe. and as i think everybody understands, or should understand, the farmer who's using a tractor is producing more and has a higher income than the poor guy who's using a hoe. and the guy who's operating a backhoe has far more income and is far more productive than the guy who's using a shovel. it's capital that makes that possible. there's a -- a metaphor that i like about this, and i'm not sure who to credit it to but certainly i didn't invent it, and i may not do it justice. but the gist of it is this. it's -- the comparison to the economy is that of a fruit tree.

a farmer who has a fruit tree cultivates that tree so that it will produce fruit. and the fruit is the income that the farmer earns from the work he puts in to cultivating the tree. if the government comes along and takes some of the fruit as a tax, as long as it doesn't take too much, it still makes sense for the farmer to cultivate that tree so that he can have that