arming dangerous people. but right now, the sobering reality is that too many of the people that work in that building, to many of the people that have been elected to represent all of you, all of us are putting the agenda of the gun lobby ahead of the very lives of the people they have

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 pace 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 alhopresiding 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. 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. 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 usesiding e 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.