mrs. burgess will join sins forced -- secretary mchugh center stage. the secretary will award mrs. burgess decoration for distinguished civilian service. the citation reads as follows. the declaration for distinguished civilian service is awarded to mrs. marta burgess for 30 years of distinguished service taking care of the united states military family and being consummate advocate for numerous quality of life related initiatives and programs on behalf of the uniformed service members in department of the army and the defense civilians. your care and compassion has significantly enhanced family support operations and reflected great credit on yourself and the department of the army.

[applause] [applause] >> mrs. burgess will receive the department of the army certificate of appreciation. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, lieutenant-general ronald burgess junior. [applause]

>> good morning. this morning i was doing my normal routine. in an earlier ceremony director clapper referred to me as a gym rag. i was working out this morning in the gym and a lot of folks were coming by kind of interrupting my normal routine. but i didn't mind the fact they were interrupting my normal routine. what i minded was nobody was referring to me as eye candy. one of my female employees came up to me and kind of hit it on the head when she said you are ending your army career the way

you began it, by doing pt. it struck me that she was right. i used to open my remarks everywhere all the time with it is a great day to be in the army. secretary panetta legal director clapper, general dempsey, congressman rogers john negr negroponti secretary baker's, general schwartz, general alexander who threw me under the bus by not wearing this uniform. distinguished guests, fellow flag and general officers, d.i.a. intelligence colleagues, friends, family members and most

importantly the men and women of d.i.a. thank you for joining us here today. each and every one of you honor myself, my family and professionals of this agency. secretary panetta who has departed honored as with his presence and i remain grateful and honored for the opportunity to have worked with and for secretary over the last few years. his lifetime of service truly reflects the best of this nation's highest ideals and the american people are most fortunate that he is leading the department during this challenging time in our history. as i told him earlier he sets a high bar for others to emulate as they look at circus, caring and compassion.

director clapper, men and women of d.i.a. and the intelligence community recognize and respect your lifetime in the intelligence profession. we also appreciate your intelligence experience and the expertise that you bring. thank you for your strong leadership and loyal friendship and your service to this nation and also d.i.a. has been fortunate to have your steadfast support over these many years. thank you, sir. you also honor us with your presence today. thank you for your stewardship and leadership of the army in this particular load time in our nation's history. general dempsey, we are honored by your presence and participation today. and of former joint chiefs of staff i have a firsthand appreciation for the demands on your time. supporting you and the joint chiefs of staff is one of this

agency's most important missions and we appreciate the standard you have set for the high quality intelligence you need as the chairman. thank you. general taylor, sir, as our war fighting boss thank you for taking time to be here today. we have supported our mission with the rest of the resources and guidance we have needed to support this department and combatant commanders in a time of the unrelenting demand. thank you and i have appreciated your friendship over the years. there are too many distinguished guests in this audience for me to recognize that there are a couple i am going to mention. congressman rodgers, i saw you sitting out there. thank you very much. as chairman of the house select committee on intelligence i have very much appreciated the way that you have let your committee

during your time as the chairman. you have always encouraged frank and honest discourse. you call them like you saw them. we haven't always agreed but that is a good thing about our system. thank you for your support and your friendship. general schwartz. i told you i was going to call you out. i first worked with you when you were deputy commander of special operations. that was a very short time period for you and i was joint special operations command. i was able to work with you later where we worked together on the joint chiefs of staff. you were the j 3 and i was jay 2 and was an honor and pleasure to work with you. and i felt good every day when i could introduce myself as a j 32. it has been a professional privilege to work with you over

these years. i also want to thank the former directors of defense intelligence agency with us today. i have been guided and inspired by your service and remain deeply grateful for the advice and counsel you have given me over the years and look forward to your collective wisdom as i take my position among director clapper as affectionately referred to as the ranks of geezerd geezerdom. special thanks to the advisory board. you brought special perspective and insight to our deliberations and i appreciate very much your willingness to serve. additionally each of you is a special friend both personal and professional and i have been a better director because of your advice and counsel. to the men and women of d.i.a. thank you for your high be professional service to the nation. serving as director of this

agency has been a great danner -- honor and profound personal privilege. with some of the nation's most important sensitive missions you rise to the daily challenge and demonstrate a high standard of selfless public service. to my family, my wife, marta and mike five children and their families, thank you for being here today and the extended members of the family did joined us today. thank all of you for your support over the last 38 years. all that i have done or achieved since my commissioning in 1974 i

wroowe to you. [applause] >> thank you for that spontaneous clapping moment. i owe everything to your love, your patience, tireless support and your strength. like all military families the world over you serve as well. in every step of the way i have been inspired by your faith in me and the value of our shared service. as you can tell, with the input i am getting from the side over there, i am filled with mixed emotions as i stand here today. just like all soldiers in their

last day in uniform, even as it goes off to the museum. i am proud to have won this uniform in service to my nation. i remain deeply humbled by the trust placed in me over the years by the army, department of defense and the intelligence community. at the same time, i am amazed by time's passage. how quickly almost four decades have passed. for those of us of a certain age time has a different quality. from my commission at auburn university to to date it is like the blink of an i. sins 1974 the army has provided me -- since 1974 the army has provided a lifetime of opportunities. the army i leave today is not

the same army some of us joined in 1974. it has been a long journey severely challenged after vietnam and rebuilt in the latter half of the cold war, victorious in desert storm and never has it shown more strength than during the long flight since the terrorist attacks of 2001. 1974 was a good year. i am joined by others who began their career that year. director david petraeus and 74 grads and mentioned keith alexander, jeff kamins is somewhere in the audience leaders 1974. we named our cells but three amigos. wethe three

amigos. we did that to work together to make intelligence relevant. we tried to do what several in this audience did. former d.i.a. directors. others will have to judge whether we were successful in advancing that. since 1997 i have had the opportunity to serve exclusively in the joint world at u.s. southern command, special operations command. office of the director of national intelligence and now here at d.i.a.. no matter the agency the officer of command i have had the ability to sees the powerful advantage of joining us and integration provide to the

nation. strong affirmation and legacy of the act of 1986. and along came irtpa. intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. i soon found myself among a team of intelligence leaders, uniformed and civilians, charged with building an intelligence organization based on that wall. it was an interesting time for guy who went to the air war college to be close to football. i learned a lot about the capabilities and limitations of this entity we call an intelligence community. under outstanding leadership of mcconnell, blair and clapper more progress and reforms have been made than many thought possible. i've particularly owe a debt of

gratitude from director negroponte and mcconnell. i served as deputy director for period longer than some would care to remember. to both of you, thank you for allowing me to serve. thank you for giving me the freedom to do what we thought was right and thank you for the example of selfless service that each of you exemplified over your many years of service to this great nation. it always looks easy after the fact but when you are up to your neck day today all you see is the difficulty and the ambiguity but we have kept at it and we continue to make progress one day at a time whether it is goldwater/nichols or intelligence reform. and marathon as we say, not a sprint. that is the nature of public service. whether you wear the green uniform or whether you where a

business suit. what's great premium of clarity on clarity, commitment and integrity and that brings me to the final point of the talk. in the intelligence business, integrity is everything. applies during peacetime and work at all let echelons all the way to the oval office. good intelligence makes a difference. sometimes it is the difference. the majority of us here today have seen that happen. but unfortunately some have also seen intelligence fall short. no matter the circumstances and rain or position one value matters most to the intelligence business. we must always tell our leaders at all echelons what they need to know. not what they want to hear. as our nation's intelligence professionals we have a non

negotiable obligation to the american people to call it the way we see it. i think ronald reagan said it best in his words chiseled in stone out by the front of the building when he said, quote, it is not enough simply to collect information. thoughtful analysis is vital to sound decisionmaking. the goal of our intelligence analysts can be nothing short of the truth even when the truth is unpleasant or unpopular. it won't always be easy but it is the right thing to do. i believe the men and women of the defense intelligence agency know that and it guides them in their service and decisions. what guides this agency and professionals every day is the understanding that much of what we do is secret but our work is and forever shall be a public trust. a trust that we must turn of new

every day. i have seen that over the last three years. that is why on this day there is no place i would rather conclude my service and here at this agency. i could not be more proud than to have served here and contributed to this agency's critical worldwide mission. during bertozzi -- during d.i.a. at sixty-fifth anniversary which was a moment of self reflection not self congratulations i was pleased to join others in recognizing this agency's performance since 9/11 as its finest hour. led by veteran intelligence professionals we have seen a new intelligence professional over the last decade make back-to-back deployments to war zones and conduct analysis and collection against highly capable and adaptive adversaries. never before has d.i.a. contributed that caliber of intelligence to military

commanders and policymakers that the defense and national will levels. in a signal of the agency's positive direction and even more can be done and will be done to take this agency to greater heights. like any old soldier i leave this agency thinking about its future. however i take great comfort in find reassurance in handing the directorship to director general michael flynn 11. mike has proven himself capable of any challenge put before him both in peace and in war. well-prepared based on many years of service to be this agency forward. marta and i wish you the best as you embark on this latest endeavor and adventure together. got speed. over the past week or so as i have gathered my thoughts about this agency and my own career i've focused on the things that mattered most to me over my 38

year career. service, friends, family and my faith. so i end my career deeply humbled and with so much to be grateful for. grateful for the friendship and support from so many in this room today. grateful to have learned from so many great leaders that represented here today and to have had the opportunity to lead some of this nation's best troops and intelligence professionals. grateful to have been granted the opportunity to wear the uniform of the united states army and to serve this great nation but above all else i remain grateful for family and friends. that have and will continue to love me, for a for me and

support me in spite of myself. thank you each for being here today. thank you for taking time out of your schedule to spend time with us. may god continue to bless our nation and continue to bless those who serve in harm's way. [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

remain standing as mrs. morton single god bless america and remain standing for the armed forces medley and departure of the armed forces party. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause]

>> done this wednesday morning a look at the u. s. capital where the senate will gavel in in a few minutes at 9:30 eastern. this afternoon the chamber is scheduled to vote on whether to proceed to the democratic tax proposals that would extend the expiring george bush era tax cuts for one year for families making $250,000. yesterday we spoke with a reporter for more on the vote and the democrats' tax proposal. >> brett ferguson, what can you tell us about the senate democrats' tax proposal coming up for a vote? >> it is very much like the obama campaign of 2008. it would extend the existing tax cuts. 98% of the population. it would allow tax rates to go back to clinton era levels for

households that make more than $250,000. >> why do senate democrats say their proposal is better than what republicans are offering and what the president has said? >> there making a big case for trying to improve fairness and trying to give an impression of increasing opportunity for the middle class and they see this as a big issue not only for the campaign that productivity in the tax code. a point to things like middle-class is losing income at the same time as people with 1% seeing incomes increase in the last decade or so and these changes something that you heard of, fundamental tax reform and they want to start now as the way they train to get the deficit under control as well.

the changes immediately rather than waiting year or so like republicans propose. >> what about senate republican proposal? what is it and when will it get a vote? >> it will not get a vote. the same proposal as the house is voting on next week as well. the house will vote on it. they don't get a chance this time. the key difference is senate proposal does go ahead and increase what you see now in current tax policy. all rates will be the existing tax rates in a transitional year. a couple smaller items democrats have been happy to point out. things like the earned income tax credit and child tax credit that predominantly affect lower income folks that were not included in that bill. those were not part of the original 2001-2003 tax cuts.

those were added later with president obama. those are the big changes. also an estate tax provision in the republican bill the democratic bill does not include. democrats and the estate tax portion focusing on the middle class from this one. the republicans come back as a lot of middle income people out there or affect the estate tax as well like family farmers or small business and could face a big tax increase on those inheritance taxes. >> looking at the vote where do you see votes falling? anybody going to break from party ranks? >> not on this vote. i don't want to predict too much but there is no expectation that there is going to be a major breakthrough in this bill.

this is mostly seen as sort of a pregame show. they are going to put this out with proposals on and it will be along party lines with the expectation and really serious later on likely after the election and find a way to figure out these hard issues and what to do with top income people and the estate tax. whether you should have things like earned income tax or child tax credit extended and those are the big items expected to try to solve in the lame-duck session. >> brett ferguson is reporter for bloomberg. thank you for the update. >> the senate is gaveling in with a vote on democrat tax-cut proposal scheduled this afternoon for 2:15 eastern. live coverage on c-span2. in the house today members are

in legislative work starting at noon eastern with work on several oil and gas drilling measures limiting the authority of federal agencies to issue new regulations. now live to the u.s. senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, our god, ever living and ever giving, strengthen us to enter into your purpose and to bring blessings to our world. kindle such flames of sacred love within the hearts of our senators that they will be motivated by their passion to please you.

amid all that is transient and temporal, keep them loyal to the transcendent and eternal. may they test their actions by their conscience and by the wisdom or your word and spirit. lord, strengthen them in every endeavor empowering them in all that pertains to that righteousness which exalts a nation. bind them together in the oneness of a shared commitment to you. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 25, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number number 467, the middle-class tax cut of 2012. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: moped -- motion to proceed to proceed to the bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide tax

relief to middle-class families. mr. reid: we're in the middle of another filibuster, so the time until 2:15 today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the second 30 minutes. at 2:15 there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the middle-class tax cut that was just outlined by the clerk. s. 3429 is at the desk and due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3429, a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to establish a veterans job corps, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: madam president, for the third time in as many weeks republicans are poised to kill a tax cut without ever debating it on the senate floor. two weeks ago republicans filibustered legislation to cut

taxes for small businesses. last week they filibustered a bill to end tax breaks for corporations to ship jobs overseas and to cut taxes in our companies and move jobs back to america. now they're filibustering our plan to cut taxes for 114 million middle-class families. not one of these bills has gotten a debate on the senate floor, so let's look at what led to this latest republican filibuster. two weeks ago senator mcconnell came to the senate floor to ask for two votes, one on the democratic plan to cut taxes for 98% of american families and reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion. the other vote he wanted was the one on the republican plan to raise taxes by $1,000 each for 25 million middle-class families while handing out tax breaks to millionaires of $160,000 each. that afternoon i told the majority leader the democrats were willing to give republicans

what they wanted, those two votes. although it had been only a few short hours since senator mcconnell asked for those two votes, my offer was refused. he said he had to see our proposal first. it seemed like a thin excuse at the time, he hadn't seen our proposal when he asked for the votes in the first place. but others within his caucus and staff had seen it of course. but i took the minority leader at his word. so democrats produced legislation in legislative form. offered once again to vote on our bill, the republicans plan, middle-class taxes. again they refused the up-or-down votes that they had asked for. this time they wanted a third vote now on a different plan, we're told. madam president, we have president obama's tax plan before us. i'm not going to make up some tax plan of the president they

said they're going to do. we have president obama's tax plan. we have worked hand in glove for him now for months to come to the body with what we have today. so this third vote is, again, a charade. the presiding officer has a couple of small children. my children aren't so small anymore. but small children are small children. and it's very often that these little kids at bedtime have a tactic that's been used forever. i'm sure the presiding officer's children and i know my kids, we needed to get them to sleep but they always wanted one more story. one more story. but parents suddenly learned that this bedtime story for what it really is. we see it as a delaying tactic. to stave off bedtime. americans see republicans' hollow request for one more vote, a made-up vote for what it

is, an excuse to put off a democratic vote for a plan to cut taxes for the middle class. of course we know why republicans are filibustering our plan to protect the middle class. they know it would pass if we held a up-or-down vote. our bill has the support of president obama. it has the support of the democratic caucus and has the support of the american people. the majority of americans, including a significant majority of republicans, agree taxes should remain low for the middle class and the top 2% should pay their fair share to reduce the deficit. as i said, the majority of republicans agree. the only place there is no agreement is with the republicans in congress. they once again have decided to obstruct rather than to legislate. so the senate may not even get to debate the merits of our plan to cut taxes for 98% of american families. there's still time for republicans to reverse course and drop another filibuster. they owe the american people a serious debate on this proposal.

finally, madam president, just a word on national security. i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us to debate a crucial cybersecurity bill before the end of this month. we hope to have a vote on this as early as tomorrow or the next day. cybersecurity, a new word, but there is nothing more important to national security than doing something about cybersecurity. if we do not pass this legislation that is now before the senate, if we don't do something about this, we're told by the experts that it's not a question of if. it's a question of when. this legislation is extremely important. national security experts from the left, the right and center say weaknesses in our cyber defenses are among the greatest threats facing our nation and some say it's the greatest threat facing our nation.

congress must act rapidly to address this issue. the house and senate must also act before congress leaves for august recess to pass the final version of legislation initial initiating new iran sanctions. the congress has been hard at work to complete this agreement. i've been clear i expect the negotiation to conclude soon so we can further tighten these sanctions against iran. sanctions are critical. it's a critical tool to help stop iran's nuclear weapons program and ensuring the security of our ally, the state of israel. madam president, i would ask the chair to announce -- the republican leader is on his way. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 2:15 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.

mr. johanns: madam president, i come to the floor today to discuss a wholly predictable and forseeable economic disaster, and i ask why the senate continues to waste valuable time while we continue barreling toward a fiscal cliff. in a little more than five months the current tax rates are scheduled to expire for every single american, resulting in the largest tax increase in history. it's hard to imagine this massive tax increase is what the president wants. just two years ago he warned that you absolutely should not raise taxes in a poor economy. yet today the economy is actually in worse shape. so what does the president do? he calls for raising taxes on job creators, on small business

owners filing as individuals, on investment income, on all of those things that actually drive economic prosperity and hiring. the favorite talking point claims that all those making more than $250,000, well, they should just be taxed more. while those families reporting income of more than $250,000 may only make up about 2% of all tax returns, it is these citizens who are the owners of small businesses that employ 25% of america's workforce. these are the same small business owners that created two-thirds of the net jobs in the last decade. i hear from small business owners in nebraska every day, and they tell me if faced with a more expensive tax bill, they will be forced to cut costs

elsewhere. in fact, according to the global accounting firms ernst & young, the democrats' tax plan would result in 710,000 fewer jobs compared to simply keeping the current rate the same for all americans. now, the economic wreckage resulting from the tax hike doesn't stop there. in the same study ernst & young estimates that these reckless policies will drive wages of hardworking americans down by 1.8%. furthermore, investment is estimated to decrease 2.4% as the tax on dividends increases. well, what's apparent here? what's apparent is that less investment means less economic

activity, which means fewer jobs, and it's really that straightforward, it's really that simple. now, the president and the senate democrats partnersly disagree over just how much to increase your taxes on dividend income. it is one of the few areas where their plans are not in lock step, but both plans increase the dividend's tax rate nonetheless. while their rhetoric continues to lambaste the ultra wealthy, make no mistake -- make no mistake -- this tax increase will affect the vast majority of the middle class. you see, when examining historical i.r.s. data, it is revealed that 68% of all tax returns showing dividend income are from those americans with incomes below $100,000 -- 68%.

while adding insult to injury, the president has proposed to increase taxes on the estate of deceased loved ones as well. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle not only pick up the president's proposal, but they make it worse. believe it or not, they want to tax even more estates at even higher rates than the president. it is astonishing and unfortunately this reversal on the death tax would disproportionately impact ag states like nebraska. in their opposition to the democrat bill, the nebraska farm bureau and the nebraska cattlemen state that allowing the estate tax exemption to fall to $1 million would subject the typical full-time farm or ranch

to the increased estate tax rate of -- get this -- 55%. i'd ask consent, madam president, that the letters from these two groups be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: the democrats' estate tax plan would hit over 48,000 estates with a $40.5 billion tax bill compared to an extension of the current rates. while an extension of current estate tax rates is not perfect -- because i believe it should be repealed permanently -- it is far better than putting over 48,000 families, a large percent of them farmers and ranchers, on the death tax rolls. i've said over and over again, death should not be a taxable event.

families should not have to sell the family business and lay off their employees to pay uncle sam a 55% tax rate on the value of the estate. so all of these ill-advised tax policies taken together add up to bad news for our economy and our country, bad news for our workers, and bad news for every american. the national federation of independent businesses estimates they would -- that the tax increases would result in a u.s. economy tha that is 1.3% smaller than it is today, and that is an outcome none of us should strive for. so, yes, what's the alternative? just last week the senior nor from washington laid out the democrats' plan if they don't get their way on raising taxes:

hold the economy hostage and go over the fiscal cliff. make sure everybody's taxes go up by the largest amount in the nation's history. but the $110 billion sequester for this year strip our military of the resources it needs to keep us safe and impact domestic programs. let the alternative minimum tax wreak havoc on our middle class with the exemption actually falling below the median household income. in nebraska alone, the nonpartisan congressional research service estimates for 2012 there will be over 134,000 potential a.m.t. tax returns compared with 16,000 in 2009. all told, this fiscal cliff will cost us between 3% and 5% of our

entire gross domestic product, trillions in destroyed wealth, and a c.b.o.-predicted economic recession. that's the plan, a understand it's aston 00 -- and it's astonishing to me that the democrats would go to these lengths just to raise taxes on our country's economic engine. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim taxes must be raised to address the mammoth deficit. and make no mistake,, attacking our deficit should be job number one. however, o an actual analysis, e see that the democrats' claim is nothing but a mirage. according to the nonpartisan joint committee on tax acres the difference between the democrats' plan to increase taxes and a simple extension of all the current tax rates is not even enough to cover five days of our government's spending.

and it is only .3% of our crushing $16 trillion national debt. this simply is not about our national debt or about deficits. it is about an ideological statement and nothing more. so after tomorrow's failed vote on these tax increases, it is my hope that we can get together and practice some common sense. common sense would tell me, let's not raise taxes in a struggling economy. that used to be the president's position before he was up for reelection. let's not punish our job creators and small business owners. let's not punish our senior citizens and other savers that rely on dividend income. and let's not hinder passing down family farms and ranches from one generation to the next. let's extend the current rates for as long as it takes to get

to work on comprehensive tax reform and actually solve the problems of our tax code. let's get serious and start working on the business the americans sent us here to do. a massive tax increase will drive our economy to its knees and bring about another recession. we can't afford that. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i ask that the quorum call be dispenses with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you. ronald reagan once joked that if anyone wanted to understand

washington, d.c., just take a look at roads they design here. i.t. full of circles. you won't find too many roundabouts in nevada, but in washington, d.c., it seems to be part of the cull tire. -- it seems to be part of the culture. it seems washington is going around in circles again. this time is about whether we should raise taxes on businesses at a time when our economy is struggle to grow. we all live in a country with a temporary tax code. right now there is no certainty for an entrepreneur to start a new endeavor. there is no certainty for a small business who wants to hire a new employee. there's no certainty for businesses to invest in new equipment or in new buildings. what makes the situation worse is that the american public is now hearing from the majority party that they're willing to take our country off the fiscal cliff regardless of the economic damage it may cause by raising taxes, resulting in a smaller

economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. president obama said in 2009 -- and i quote -- "you don't raise taxes in a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses further in the hole." you know, i agreed with that statement in 2009, and i agree with that statement today. let me give my colleagues another quote from president obama, after he supported extending all of the tax rates for two years in 2010. and i quote -- "the bipartisan framework we have forged on taxes will provide businesses with incentives to invest, grow, and hire." i supported this bipartisan framework as a member of the house of representatives, yet today in a complete 180-degree turn, raising taxes and going over the fiscal cliff seem to be the new economic agenda.

the plan of the majority party and the president will cost nevadans more than 6,000 jobs and will shrink the state's economy by $1.7 billion. let me repeat that. the plan of the majority party and this president, what they're offering will cost nevadans 6,000 jobs and shrink the economy $1.7 billion. nationwide, this plan will hurt more than 700,000 jobs. is this really the economic strategy washington should be embracing? my home state of nevada leads the nation in unemployment at 11.6%. we cannot afford to lose another 6,000 jobs. divisive partisan politics does a great disservice to every american who is either out of work or taken a pay cut. those who stay up late at night wondering how they're going to make it mortgage payment, put

food on their table or clothe their children while people across our country are struggling to get by, the senate majority is pushing legislation that will actually hurt job creation. congress should do everything within its power to encourage economic growth, and that begins with providing america with tax certainty. it is through our current tax code is too costly, too complex, and too burdensome. there is no question -- no question -- that the tax code is unfair and needs an overhaul. but the best this president and the senate majority can do is push a tax hike designed for nothing more than perceived campaign sound bites. instead of election-year campaign gimmicks, let's have an honest discussion on fundamental tax reform. last summer i reached tout president obama to offer work -- to work with him to fundamentally reform the tax

code that would eliminate and close loopholes. this was an issue i worked on in the house as a member of the ways and means committee, and i've continued to advocate for it here in the senate. yet here we are today, and instead of debating fundamental tax reform, we are taking another showboat on a tax proposal that would raise taxes on small businesses and cost jobs. again, it'll cost nevada 6,000 jobs. the senate was created by our founding fathers to be the deliberative body, yet once again we find ourselvesness a situation in which we will be unable to have an open debate on an issue that will affect every single american taxpayer. the senate should be debating all tax proposals on bipartisan basis and working to find consensus on areas to increase american competitiveness. yet instead of providing our

nation's job creators with clarity and economic certainty, some of my colleagues would rather engage in messaging for a perceived political gain. raising taxes will do nothing to create jobs in nevada or this nation. as the fiscal cliff draws near and near, the job growth remains stagnant. congress should focus on long-term economic solution that is boost our recovery and provide businesses the certainty that they need to create jobs. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: for nearly four years now, democratic leaders in washington have claimed to want what's best for the economy but done just about everything you can think of from a policy perspective to actually undermine the economy, whether it is overwhelming businesses with red tape, burdening them with costly new health care laws, or punting on major economic decisions until after

the election. democrats have done everything you'd expect to more centralize power in washington than reviving a weak economy. and of course we have the results to snore it. as a result of the democrats' policy, we have fewer jobs today and than the day the president took office. more signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs. more people signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs. and the percentage of americans who actually can work but aren't is at the lowest point literally in decades. this is the sad legacy of this president's economic policies. and later today we'll have a chance to cast a vote for more of the same or a plan that will help us get offe off of this har

wheel we've been on for the past three and a half years. i'm referring, of course, to the very different proposals we'll vote on today for dealing with the looming tax hike coming in january. the republican plan, which gives every american not only the certainty that their income taxes won't go up at the end of the year but that congress will deliver meaningful tax reform within a year, and the democrat senate plan which raises taxes on a million small business owners at a moment when we're counting on them to create jobs, raise taxes on thousands of family farmers, and small business owners grieving the loss of a loved one. it leaves a middle-class tax hike in place and reforms absolutely nothing. we'd also like to vote on the president's plan, though it appears our democratic friends will deny the president his

vote. i will leave it to others to explain the fininger points of these plans, but one thing stands out: as i've indicated, the thing that stands out is the democratic proposal to raise the death tax. this is one of the bright ideas to revive the economy: raise the death tax. it dramatically lowers the exemption level so more farm families actually get hit by it and dramatically increases the amount of the tax itself. under their plan, family members who inherit a farm or ranch would have to write a check for 55% -- 5 5% of the value of the property and equipment above $1 million, all but guaranteeing that tensions of thousands of smalsmall- and mid-sized family businesses across the country will be broken you had and handed to the government instead

of passed on to the next generation. now, look ... i know some democrats will try to justify their vote on this stunningly bad proposal by saying they'll deal with the assault on family farms later. wrong. the democratic bill we'll vote on today, by not addressing the problem, makes the tax liability for these families even worse. a vote for the democratic plan is a vote to put these families's farms and ranches literally o out of business. there will be no stand-alone bill signed into law on the death tax, and anyone who says otherwise isn't being straight with the american people. but now there's one big difference between our plan and theirs. the most important difference is this: only ours is aimed at helping the economy. only ours is aimed at helping the economy.

only ours is meant to help struggling americans in the midst of an historic jobs cris crisis. theirs is meant to deflect attention from their continued failure to reverse this economic situation. throughout this entire debate, not a single democrat has come forward to claim that raising taxes on job creators will help the economy. nobody is claiming that because it can't. the real motives are based on an ideological agenda, not an economic one. now, ordinarily, republicans would do everything we can to keep a plan as damaging as the democrat's plan from passing, and the only reason we won't block it today is because we know it doesn't pass constitutional muster and won't become law. because it didn't originate in the house.

if the democrats were serious, they'd proceed to a house-originated revenue bill, as the constitution requires. that said, the potential consequences of inaction on this issue are so grave that the american people deserve know where their elected representatives really stand, truly stand on this issue. and so that's why, mr. president, i'm announcing this morning republicans will allow a simple majority vote -- a simple majority vote on the two proposals i've described. and that's why we're also calling for a simple majority vote on the president's plan. he's the leader of the democratic party. he's been calling for a vote on his plan. i, for one, think we ought to give the president what he is a he asking for: a vote on his plan. so what i'm saying here this

morning is we'll have a simple majority vote on the senate democratic plan, on the republican plan to make sure no one's income taxes go up at the end of the year, and i would also recommend we have a simple majority vote on the president's plan. the only way to force people to take a stand is to make sure that today's votes truly count. by setting these votes a the a 50-vote threshold, nobody on the other side can hide behind a procedural vote whole leaving their views on the actual bill itself a mystery, a simple mystery to the people who sent them here. that's what today's votes are all about, about showing the people who sent us here where we stand. we owe it to the american people to let them know whether we actually think it is a good idea to doubledown on the failed economic policies of the past few years or whether we support a new approach, whether we think it is a good idea to raise taxes on nearly a million business

owners at a moment when millions of americans are struggling to find work or to do no harm and commit to future reform. three votes, two visions. three votes, two visions. the american people should know where we stand, and today they will. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i suppose senator mcconnell, the leader, has given a preference for what i want to say. i think the american people should know where we stand on these important questions. that's why i come to the floor, to indicate that i will vote in favor of proceeding to debate on

s. 3412, senator reid's proposal to amend the internal revenue code of 1986; but if the matter does come to full discussion and debate on the floor, as i hope it will, i will not vote for it in its current form. and i want to explain why. mr. president, i feel strongly that the first thing the american people want us to do is get the economy going again so that the economy is creating jobs. and i'm convinced that the best thing congress can do to restore economic growth and job creation is to enact a comprehensive bipartisan plan to balance our budget along the lines of the simpson-bowles commission

recommendations. unfortunately, s. 3412, which is the so-called middle-class tax cut, which would extend the existing reduced tax rates on people making less -- couples making less than $250,000 but would raise taxes on those making more than that, does not represent such a plan. in other words, it is not a bipartisan plan to balance our budget in a way that will create job growth. its enactment at this time, in my opinion, would only serve to preclude debate and action on exactly the broader type of reforms we need to fix our broken federal government fiscal system. just imposing across-the-board

tax increases for individuals and small businesses that make over $250,000 a year is neither tax reform nor the balanced deficit-reduction agreement our country needs right now. i don't hesitate -- and i will not hesitate as part of this kind of balanced bipartisan debt reduction, hopefully debt elimination plan -- to vote to increase the amount of taxes that the wealthiest americans are paying, but i won't do that as part of a scattershot approach. it has got to be part of a program that reduces spending, that reforms spending on our entitlement programs, which are the fastest-growing element of our federal budget, and that reforms our tax system. the bill before us is not such a

plan. i said -- i've said over and over again that there's plenty of time this year to get a bipartisan balanced budget program passed in congress and that i would vote against both the president's partial repeal of the so-called bush tax cuts and the republican plan to extend all the cuts for another year. i think we can do better this year, and i think we must do better. i know that that's exactly what our constituents want us to do. we can cut spending, adopt tax reform, and entitlement reform. and while that hope is alive, i'm going to vote against both partial measures and proposals to put off the tough decisions about our economic future that our constituents elected us to major i think both the

democratic plan, which is the subject before us right now on this motion to proceed, and senator hatch's plan don't make it. they're partial, and they basically kick the can down the road again without solving our economic problems. and giving the private sector the confidence about our future to invest the trillions of dollars in cash they're sitting on now, which is what -- which is the only thing that'll get our economy going and creating more jobs -- in the private sector, businesses won't do that today because they don't know where this government of ours is going. they don't have a sense of certainty and confidence. so, as i said, if for some reason the precedent that the senate is facing today changes

and both the democratic plan to raise taxes on people over $250,000 comes up for a vote and senator hatch's tax hike prevention act, which extends all the tax cuts for another year come up, i'll vote against both of them because i don't think they do what our country needs to be done. there's plenty of time, as i said, left this year to do what we have to do. now, why am i going to vote to proceed to debate on either or both of these, if i'm opposed to each of them, as they're drafted? it's because i think there's mog more important we could do -- it's because i think there's nothing more important we could do in this congress than to beginning to confront and debate the challenge of our time, which is to get our federal government back in balance, to make the tough decisions that will do

that, and thereby to get our economy going and creating jobs again. debate,  yes, let's not hide from debate. let's confront it and deal with it as quickly as we can. but these two proposals, in my opinion, they don't do what our economy needs to be done. i will just say a final word about the deep hole that we're in and about the idea of raising taxes on everybody making more than $250,000, but raising no taxes on people makes less than $250,000. mr. president, the truth is that we're in a deep hole in this country. we're heading toward what now has begun to be popular called the fiscal cliff. the challenge to our government is whether we're going to have the courage, the honesty, the

leadership qualities to come together across party lines and protect our economy and our country before we begin to go over the fiscal cliff. i know that requires us to make difficult decisions. maybe it's easier for me to say because i'm not running for reelection this year, but honestly i believe what the american people would most like us to do is do what we think is right, to do something that doesn't seem like conventional politics, to have the guts to enact tax reform, entitlement reform and cut spending. that's really what they want us to do because that's what they know the country needs us to do. but let me come back to this $250,000. i know it's politically appealing, but the truth is to really balance our budget again, we're going to have to ask most every american to give a little

something so that our country can grow and everybody will benefit. sure the people who are making the most should pay more in revenue. but i think we're at a point where we can't simply say to what we generally describe as the middle class they don't have to give anything else. i think that would be wrong. that's not consistent with the revenue system we have now, which is a progressive and fair system. and i want to build on that, reform it in some ways to make it more constructive and make it more likely to incentivize growth in our economy. but let's not take anything off the table. let's, as our economy, as precarious as it is, as it faces very uncertain effects from

economic troubles in europe and even in china now, i think we've got to be very careful about raising anybody's taxes in the short run -- that is next year. what we need is a long-term balanced deficit-reduction program for america. so that's why i will vote to proceed to debate for debate on these subjects we desperately need. but neither the democratic or republican approaches do what this country needs. and, therefore, if they come to the floor and we have a debate, i'll try to amend them with something like the bowles-simpson recommendations. if that fails, i'll vote against them because we can do better than that and the american people have a right to expect that we will. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. quorum call: mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. coons: i ask the

proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i rise to speak on the vote taking place on the floor later today. mr. president, as you and i and all the members of this chamber know, our national debt and our deficit are enormous. they're unsustainable. and last week an array of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to the floor one after the other to make exactly that point. members of both parties agree that excessive debt hurts our competitiveness, that it causes interest rates to rise and crowds out critical investments in our country's future. my own experience, mr. president, in the private sector and six years of tough budget balancing as a county executive in my home state of delaware taught me how important it is to have responsible budget processes in place, to manage your way through difficult financial times, to create opportunity for our communities, while still reducing our deficits and debt. there is no question,

mr. president, that high debt levels lead to lower growth in the long run and can restrain or starve or strangle the dreams of our communities, our children for our future. our deficit and debt is a ticking time bomb and one everyone -- republicans and democrats, independence, economists, experts, working families, small business owners, the american people know that we want to and we have to deal with. but the key, mr. president, in my view, is to deal with this problem responsibly and fairly and in a way that reflects america's values. our debt is neither a republican nor a democratic problem, but a shared and structural problem. it took both parties to get us into this mess, and it will take both parties working together to dig us out. each member of this party must take responsibility and look at what's best for the next generation not just for winning the next election. for my part, i will continue to

continue the fight for balanced and responsible deficit reduction. if the american people can share in sacrifice in our cities, counties and states all over this country, as they're already doing in my home state of delaware, then republicans and democrats have to show that we too can come together and find a way to compromise. mr. president, it's time we recognize the sobering reality that if we're going to plug the hole in our national balance sheets, if we're going to avoid the fate of europe, and it is a really, really big hole in the bottom of america's balance sheet, while still continuing to investment in our future and in the strength and promise and opportunity for our families we have to find, i think, a more responsible and more fair balanced between spending cuts and revenue increases. we simply cannot achieve the level of savings we need through spending cuts alone. drastic cuts, dramatic cuts, across-the-board cuts violate our very values and will drive

down the possibility of recovery and growth in the future. spending cuts must be a central part of the solution to our budget problem, but the fact is revenue must also play a meaningful role. we need, mr. president, balance. it's the only way to provide the economic certainty necessary to sustain a recovery, and in my view, the only way to sustain investments that are critical for our future. let's be clear, mr. president, about some rhetoric that we've heard both out in the country and here in this chamber. the united states don't begrudge success. we as democrats, we in this chamber don't resent those who have achieved, who have succeeded. in fact, that's the engine that for generations has drawn people from around this world to this country and pulled people forward. the hopes and dreams of those who see reason to work in this country because of the promise of opportunity, the very real history of risk taking, entrepreneurship and the rich

rewards this country provides those who succeed beyond their wildest dreams through hard work, through innovation, through creativity. we don't resent or reject wealth and success in this chamber or in this country. in fact we admire it and want to create the groundwork for a new generations of americans to achieve the successes of the last generation. if we're going to do right by the next generation of bill gatt's or -- bill gates or warren buffetts, that requires us to find a solution that is fair. as president lyndon johnson said once, it is not just enough to open the gates of opportunity. all of our citizens have to have the ability to walk through those gates. the ability of future americans to walk through those gates, mr. president i believe requires sustainable investment in our future, so we can keep improving public education and infrastructure, so our

businesses can move their products and ideas as fast as our competitors can on our roads and rails and broadband. in research and development so america can continue to be a world leader in innovation and scientific breakthroughs. mr. president, we all know that health care costs are among the greatest drivers of our mounting national deficit and debt and we've got two paths forward. one where we cut, constrain and reduce our spending. another where we invest in basic science and research. i think this latter way of investing in our schools, infrastructure, our innovation and in finding path-breaking cures is more true to the american spirit. cuts to essential services and programs are already deep. although this is not probably known throughout country sacrifices have been made here and programs are pinched from

people who can least afford them. in my home state of delaware due to changes we made here we've seen cuts to critical programs like heating assistance to low-income families and programs like the community development block programs. home programs were cut 30% to 40%, programs that supported affordable housing for the disabled, for seniors, for the low-income. we must continue to make cuts across the board to move our way towards a sustainable federal deficit. but cuts alone cannot responsibly make our path forward. we've seen proposals in the other chamber that would decimate vital safety net programs like medicare and medicaid shifting the burden of deficit-reduction to our most vulnerable citizens. we need to bring balance back to how we solve these problems and we need to do it in a way that puts a circle of protection, mr. president, around those who are most vulnerable in our society. in previous generations that

served in this chamber, when they came together and reached the resolutions that solved our country's fiscal problems, in 1983, for example, they put a sin kel of protection around -- circle of protection around the most vulnerable americans. they chose not to slash programs that are focused object the disabled, low-income seniors, children in the early stages of life. and i think it's important that we remember those values as we look at the choices we make here today and as we come together in the months leading up to the election and, hopefully after the election to craft a solution to our structural problems. today on the floor, mr. president, the senate is considering the other piece of the equation from cuts: revenue. mr. president, we have a stark choice between us today. we have two plans, a reid plan and a hatch plan. we have a democrat proposal and a republican proposal. and let me put this in some context that i think has been missing in some of the speeches i've heard on the floor here

earlier today. in both cases these are plans that make choices about which of our existing tax cuts, which of the existing tax expenditures we will allow to expire and which we will extend. there's a lot of talk about the coming tax-mageddon, about the greatest onetime tax increase in american history. but let's be clear, what we're talking about is tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 and other tax cuts that were enacted in 2009 and 2010 and whether they should be extended. or whether these temporary tax cuts should be allowed to be that and expire. we have two starkly different plans, mr. president. in one, the republican plan, they extend all of the bush tax cuts even for the highest income earners, even on the marginal rates of the highest income earners. and the democrat plan extends

and does not allow to expire critical tax cuts, the earned-income tax credit, the tuition tax credit and the child tax credit that 25 million americans, the working poor, working families with children, rely on to get through this difficult recession. the republican plan a thousands all three of those to expire and thus, to use their language, raises taxes on 25 million of the working poor. it should be an obscenity mr. president, for there to be people who are working full time and yet poor in this country. this is the country, as i said before, of opportunity, the place to which millions have come over generations from around the world seeking the opportunity of this country. yet today and especially in this economy, working poor has real meaning as the rate of poverty has raised to alarming levels, one in six americans is poor today, the highest rate since the 1960's.

the economic in equality for those who are the poorest is at an alarming rate. we have as i said before a structural challenge before us, a deficit and debt we must deal with. and and so the democratic plan that is on the floor today -- where we will take a vote later today, whether it body wants to take a proceeding vote on it -- will raise rates for individuals above $250,000 to return to the clinton era. under the democrat's tax plan, we would continue tax breaks for all americans who earn income, for all small businesses that are revenue-earning, but just on the first $200,000 individual income or $250,000 couple income. so even the millionaires and billionaires would continue to get some of the benefit of the tax breaks, first enacted in 20001 and 2003. would what would be raised is

the tax rate on income above $200,000 for couples. s-- $250,000 for couples. but the highest reductions in tax burden on the very wealthiest americans we would allow to expire. what's the impact on our deficit and debt? $850 billion over ten years, which, with the interest savings, is nearly $1 trillion in deficit and debt reduction. these are significant savings, mr. president. and if we asked the wealthiest 2% of americans to take on that burden, to go back to the interest rates on marginal income that they lived through in the clinton era what might that do? significantly reduce or deficit and debt, make it possible for us to sustain the earned-income tax cut, the tuition tax credit and the child tax credit, and frankly reflect our values. mr. president, as i said before, this recession has brought an

alarming rise in the rate of poverty. i'm someone who believes that our faith traditions -- and we come from a very broad range of faith traditions -- speak to us and challenge us to show our values in our budget. as the vice president, who held the seat that i hold in delaware before me has so often said, his father and his grandfather once said to him, "show me your budget and i'll should you your values." -- and i'll show you your valu values." psalm 72 teaches us to that defend the cause of the poor and to give deliverance to the needy is one of our highest callings, a calling repeated through the new book, the torah and many books of faith across this country, to reject the great tradition of a circle of protection, of a prayerful reflection on those who are the neediest in our society and instead say we will extend ad infinitum the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, i think,

defies america's values and defies our greatest tradition of creating and sustaining opportunity while protecting the most vulnerable amongst us. i think, mr. president, that our belief in the american dream and our commitment to basic fairness and responsible problem-solving calls us forward to vote for the reid plan today. this bill is not a substitute for the comprehensive tax reform our nation truly needs, tax reform that simplifies the code, that lowers rates and broadenens the rate -- that's a task we must turn do at a different time. i believe this bill to which i hope this body will turn is the best chance we've got at retaining these important tax credits and opportunities for the working poor while bringing some sanity to the rates at the highest end and asking those who have benefited the most to contribute to solving our problems. last week i got a letter from

judith in delaware who wrote, "millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay their fair share to sustain our economic recovery." mr. president, judith puts their finger on the crux of this issue. if we're going to resolve the hole at the bottom of america's balance sheet in a way that reflects our core values, i think we must move to, we must consider, and we must pass the reid plan in this senate this day. thank you. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, today we are debating the proposal of the senate democratic leadership to raise taxes on the american people. pursuit of this tax hike strategy is clearly being instigated by the president's reelection efforts. i suspect that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are very uncomfortable with this strategy.

i can think of a number of senate democrats whose constituents would be surprised to learn their senator supports tax increases on small businesses, an increase in the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, and hikes in the death tax. with the economy still on the ropes, i think they would be surprised to learn their senator supported a tax hike strategy that might win some votes but at the risk of sparking a recession. that is what the president wants. we will see if that is what he gets. he has pitched his tax hike plan as a way to be fiscally responsible. that could not be further from the truth. one need only look at my friends on the other side's treatment of the house budget. that budget received more votes than any other budget considered by the senate, including the phantom budget advanced by the senate democratic caucus. the house bget provided $180

billion more in deficit reduction than the president's budget for 2013. the house's budget -- the house budget's extra deficit reduction of $180 billion exceeds the differences in deficit impact between the proposal i introduced with my friend and colleague, the republican leader, and the proposal advanced by my democratic friends. and that's true even if you apply the other side' side's dit accounting of the differences between the two proposals. more on that in aempt mo. -- more on that in a moment. so when we hear our friends say that they must risk going off the fiscal cliff for deficit reduction, consider this: they rejected out of hand spending restraints that provided more deficit reduction than is at stake here today. not only are the deficit-reduction numbers phony, but the president and his democratic allies in the senate have repeatedly suggested that

they are willing to intentiona intentionally drive our economy off what federal -- the fed chairman, ben bernanke, has called the fiscal cliff in order to make a political argument about the top marginal tax rates. the president thinks he has struck political gold with this argument. he will be rabel to run for re-- he will be able to run for reelection with a platform under the mantle of deficit reduction. this may be politically advantage you but i doubt it. but i do know that from a fiscal and economic perspective, the president's signature proposal threatens serious damage to our already fragile economy. the president's tax increases on those he deems the rich in fact represent a massive tax hike on the small businesses that are necessary for economic and job growth. moreover, until he gets his way on raising taxes on these small

businesses, he is threatening every single american taxpayer with a tax hike. like a petulant child, he is insisting that it is his way or the highway. we've had far too much of that. he'll get his way on raising taxes on the small business mend and entrepreneurs who find no shelter in today's democratic coalition of unions, lawyers, and government employees, or he will let the current tax relief expire, raising taxes on all americans. now, this is the antithesis of statesmanship at a time when our economy requires serious deficit reduction. it is the political equivalents of a temper tantrum. i expect that american voters have about as much patient for this as they would a similar fit from their children. the american people want a grown-up in the white house but on tax policy we appear to be dealing with adolescents.

i've said before that the president's proposal is the policy equivalent of thelma and louise intentionally driving their car off the cliff. there is at least some ambiguity about the fate of thelma and lee wees. if the president gets his way and either raise taxes on small businesses or denies relief to all american taxpayers, there will be no ambiguity about who to hold responsible when our economy crashes. when a liberal democratic president has lost "the new york times," he has lost america. and even the "times" understands what is coming if the president continues to put the pedal to the floor and drive us over the fiscal cliff. the "times" rote that with the economy having slowed in recent weeks, business leaders and policy-makers are growing concerned that the tax increases and government spending cuts set

to take effect at year's end have already begun to cause companies to hold back on hiring and investments. that is 100% right. the election is not for another three months. and already the president's lack of direction and the threats emanating from democratic leadership is about letting the tax relief expire are leading businesses to slow down. how can businesses plan for next year? how can they make hiring or investment decisions? when they have no idea what their tax rates are going to be. they simply can't. and the president and senate democratic leadership with their delay and confusion about how to extend this tax relief are doing absolutely nothing to inspire confidence in these job creators. rather than address the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief, we have been debating campaign commercials masquerading as

serious legislation. last week the senate wasted its time on yet another piece of legislation that had absolutely no chance of becoming law and zero prospects for creating jobs. it is worth comparing the puny impact of the bill considered last week to the size of the coming tax hikes, tax hikes so large that the "washington post" has referred to their impending arrival as "tax-mageddon." take a look at this impact of 20% tax credit versus tax-mageddon over the next ten years. if we bring jobs -- the bring jobs home act that only cost about $87 billion. tax-mageddon is going to cost us $4.538 trillion. make no mistake, our small businesses and our economy face

an existential threat at the end of 2012. yet the majority leader hedules votes that generate campaign fodder rather than jobs or lasting economic growth. facing a fragile economy and a weak jobs market, president obama seems content to sit idly by and allow the scheduled $4.5 trillion tax hike to occur just to make a populous political argument about the need for the so-called rich to pay what he thinks is their fair share. mr. president, congress needs to act now in order to prevent this tax hike on america's families, individuals, and job creators. just look at this chart. look at the difference between "bringing the jobs home act" and "tax-mageddon." it is pretty clear they're just driving us off the cliff. and they're willing to do it for political reasons.

it's critically important for our economy and the american people that we act now to extend the bipartisan tax relief originally signed into law by president bush and extended by president obama. back in 2010. as you can see, the tax legislation "to do" list -- nothing done on tax extenders, although we're willing to work on that with our committee chairman in the finance committee. nothing done on the a.m.t. patch. we're willing to worth that in the overall -- we're willing to work on that in the overall scope of things. nothing done on death tax refo reform. the suggestion by democrats is to increase it so that all the small farms in this country -- or many of them are going to get hammered by taxes. nothing done to prevent the it 2013 tax hikes. no, no, no, no on everything.

this is the most crucial piece of legislation congress can address this year. if we allow this tax relief to expire as scheduled, almost every federal income taxpayer in america will see an increase in their rates. -- an increase in their rates. that's what our friends on the other side said they'll do if they don't get their way. some will see a rate increase of 9%. others will see a rate increase of as much as 87% because the vast majority of small businesses are flow-thru entities. these small businesses will get hit with a tax increase. this tax increase lands on the small business owners even if they do not take one penny out of their business. that's what the democrats are going to do to them. they're willing to go over the cliff and do this? our economy simply cannot afford to tak take on such a fiscal sh.

in 2010, the president said the economy is so fragile, we needed to carry over the 2001, 2003 tax cuts. we're in worst shape today than in 20 10, but unfortunately -- fortunately or unfortunately -- we're in an election year, but unfortunately the president is playing games with these very serious matters. now, our economy simply cannot afford to take on such a fiscal shock. economists estimate that if these current tax rates are allowed to expire, the economy could -- could contract by approximately three percentage points. now, considering that the first quarter g.d.p. growth was 1.% and that expectations are even lower for the second quarter growth that will be reported this friday, going over the fiscal cliff would almost certainly throw us into a

recession. and i don't know many economists who would disagree with that. certainly the fed doesn't disagree. we're going to go into a recession if the democrats get their way. we could even slip into recession in the second half of this year, given businesses' reluctance to hire and invest due to fiscal uncertainty. for the president and others who argue that we should raise the top two tax rates in the name of fiscal responsibility, i would just like to point out a few things. the senate majority leader introduced his tax bill, one that largely mirrors the president's proposal, under the auspices of deficit reduction. it closing adheres to the democratic talking point that the only thing standing between our deficits and fiscal stability is the current top marginal tax rates. we have heard this argument for a year and a half with the president and his democratic

allies insisting that it is not their out-of-control spending that got us into this mess but the republicans' refusal to allow for tax hikes on the so-called rich. that's laughable. this argument sounds nice but it's belied by the actual facts. according to the joint committee on taxation, an apples-to-apples comparison of the democrats' tax proposal and the proposal i introduce with my friend, the republican leader, shows a difference $54.5 billion. the democrats' bill, which raises the top rates and expands the death tax while patching the a.m.t. for one year is scored at $249.7 billion. and the score of my bill without the 2013 a.m.t. patch, is $304.2 billion. so we have a debt that is fast

approaching $16 trillion. taxes are set to go up by $4. $4.5 trillion. and senate democrats are crowing about their fiscal responsibility, throughening to drive the -- threatening to drive the economy off the cliff over $54.5 billion of tax relief? i believe this is called missing the forest for the trees. in order to satisfy their urge to redistribute $54 billion of tax -- of taxpayer dollars, they are willing to risk a recession and see taxes go up by $4.5 trillion? the president recently claimed that we need to raise the top two tax rates because -- quote -- "it's a major driver of our deficits." the numbers show that this is a -- this is plain and simple nonsense. the real difference between the

democratic and republican plans is only $54.5 billion, or about 5% of the deficit. that represents 34% of our national debt. to put it another way, the democrats' tax hike proposal would only provide enough additional revenue to pay for five days of federal government spending. five days of federal government spending. it is also worth noting that exactly -- what exactly the democrats' refusal to provide two years of a.m.t. relief means for their constituents. if senate democrats do not patch the a.m.t. in 2013, their a.m.t. will take away over 40% of the tax relief they claim to be providing with their bill. now, this is their prerogative but i hope that the hometown papers, the northern virginia, new jersey, new york, florida and colorado are paying

attention. i hope they're paying close attention to what a lack of a.m.t. relief will mean for middle-income families in those states. now, these tax proposals in the end have nothing to do with sound tax policy that maximizes economic growth, and they have nothing to do with deficit reduction. they have everything to do with pursuing an a.m.t. economic philosophy that is principally concerned with running down the economy's job creators and entrepreneurs. and the explicit tax policy is only the half of it. we learned yesterday from the congressional budget office that the true tax bill for obama-care is over $1 trillion. we were promised there wouldn't be any tax increases. it is the biggest fiasco that i've seen around here almost in the whole time i've been here. i can't think of anything

bigger. all of the new obama-care regulations will cost mcdonald's franchises alone more than $400 million in health care costs. the president might think that ray crock did not build mcdonald's but this is delusional. he might view the small businessman who took a chance and opened those franchises as not especially smart, not responsible for their own success. but this is a view that could only be embraced by an academic and activist who has no experience in the private sect sector. the joint committee on taxation tells us that 53% of all flow-through business income in the united states would be subject to the president's proposed tax hikes. take that, small business, the

president's saying. we don't really care about you, i guess. well, i do. and republicans certainly do. the president's proposal would take the marginal tax rate on small businesses from 33% and 35% to 39.6% and 41% respectively. look at this. this is the increase of small business, the top marginal rate. as you can see, it goes up from 33% and 35% to 40% and 41%. how could that not help but ruin our economy? this is the kind of economic thinking that we're putting up with around here. and it's all coming from the white house and our friends on the other side apparently don't want to take the white house on. it's an increase of 17% to 24% on the marginal tax rates for small businesses.

ernst & young recently released a study showing that these proposed tax hikes on top of obama-care's 16.8% increase on dividends, interest and capital gains, would reduce our economic output by 1.3%. the ernst & young study also found that real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8% as a result of president obama's policies. not surprisingly, the study noted that 54% of the entire private-sector work force is employed by flow-through businesses, such as s corporations and partnerships, the majority of which would see their taxes go up under the president's plan. that's where the jobs are. what kind of thinking is -- are they willing to accept on the other side of the aisle? it's hard for me to believe. there's isn't -- there isn't a person over there i don't care for.

it's hard for me to believe that they aren't willing to stand up to this president and say, hey, the game's over. the truth is, many of the people targeted by democrats as wealthy are, in fact, middle-income small business owners who spend their whole lives building a business and then sell it, getting thrown into a top bracket just for the year of sale. consider a real-life example provided by the associated builders and contractors. a husband and a wife from pennsylvania who retired to florida owned an s corporation. in 2009, the couple paid no federal income tax because they did not have enough taxable income to owe any tax. in 2010, when they sold the business, their adjusted gross income was about $780,000 and they paid $170,000 in taxes. if they had not sold their business in 2010, they would have paid no taxes. so the one-time sale of a business built up over many

years caused these small business owners to be in one of the two top brackets for just one year after years of building their business. and then having to sell it, have this catastrophe follow them. yet the president would have the american people believe that this couple was part of some ritchie sleet is refusing to pay its first share. and that's not all. or as ron popeale would say, "but wait, there's more." last week before the i think was even dry on the democratic leader's small business tax hike legislation, the bill was changed to substantially increase -- get this -- substantially increase the death tax. now, why was that? because we found there's only $28 billion difference between the democrat bill and our bill. and they wanted to find a way of getting it up to $50 billion, which is, like you say, five days of spending around here.

now, it might be hard to belie believe, but this proposal is even worse than president obama's. the proposal by the democratic leader would impose the death tax on 15 times the number of estates than under current tax policy, according to the jointed committee on taxation, the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation. it would increase the number of estates hit by the death fraction 3600 estates to 55,200. according to the joint committee on taxation, 24 times more farming estates would be hit by the democrats' death tax proposal. what's going on over there? these are intelligent people, our friends on the other side. how can they possibly live with this? according to the joint committee on taxation, 24 times more

farming estates would be hit by the democrats' death tax proposal that they wrote in here. now, i believe to believe they just did it so they could raise the difference between the -- the difference between $28 billion -- three days spending by the federal government -- to $50 -- a little over $50 billion, five days' spending. let's call it eight days' spending. according to -- the number of small businesses hit by this death tax spike would grow by 13 times. what would that do to the incentives for people to build small businesses? small businesses that could become big businesses and employ thousands of people? now, this proposal would subject subject 2,400% more farms and 1,300% more businesses to the death tax. working their whole lives hoping

to sell the farm to the children. they'll have to sell the farm to be able to pay the death taxes that our friends on the other side have written into this bill. they can't be serious. but they are. i would like to be a fly on the wall when some members of this body go home and attempt to defend their support for a proposal effectively designed to hobble small businesses and family farms. the president might think it is no big deal. i'm not sure he's ever been on a farm other than since he's been president. and i'm not sure he's ever worked with a small business. he's been a community organizer. that's important. that doesn't necessarily qualify you for president. after all, according to the president, those farmers and businessmen really were not responsible for their success anyway. now, i'm going to give the president the benefit of the doubt on that one. i think he maybe misspoke.

but i sometimes think that he thinks these folks around very smart, at least in the president's view. they really owe it all to the bureaucrats stationed at the departments of ago kilt and -- agriculture and labor and their helpful, investment creating regulations. we all know about those, don't we? the sweat and tears and sacrifice of the families and individuals who created -- who create and run small businesses have nothing on the hard work and commitment of the mid-level bureaucrats who make their success possible. my guess is that some members of this body i have a slightly more nuanced understanding of the importance of thee farms ask businesses to their communities -- these farms and businesses to their communities on both sides of the aisle. they have to. there's a limit to what this president should ask of my democrat friends and he's asking way too much and they should stand up and say, "we've had it. we're not going to do this."

madam president, it seems clear what the agenda of the senate should be. we should be focused like hawks on preventing tax-mageddon. we should be focused on job creation. yet instead of addressing these important matters, president obama and his democrat allies are spinning their wheels trying to raise taxes on politically unpopular groups. even the democrats' treasured keynesian economics says that you do not raise taxes in a weak economy if you want to create more jobs. the president is devoting his entire re-election campaign toward tax hiking in the name of fishes. we have voted twice on proposals to raise taxes on oil and gas companies for no other reason than that democrat pollsters,

democratic pollsters found that the president's base does not like oil and gas companies. then a few months ago, we voted on the silly buffett rule. this was not serious tax policy. it was a statutory talking point and not a very good one at that. then there was last week's bill on overseas investment that was a little more than a campaign advertisement with cosponsors. the american people are tired of these political stunts. they're tired of the senate doing nothing. they're tired of the senate bringing up bills that aren't going to go anywhere. every minute democrats spend playing politics is a minute that we fail to prevent the largest tax increase in american history, but instead of working to be prevent this massive tax hike on small businesses, the president and the congressional democratic leadership have doubled down on their tax hike strategy.

believe it or not, while doubling down on their tax hike strategy, our friends on the other side are pushing the canard that the hatch-mcconnell proposal is a tax hike. yesterday one of our colleagues highway won't name, although he named me, said the following, and i quote -- "republicans claim not to want to raise taxes, but the republican tax bill would let very popular lower and middle-class provisions expire that would cost 25 million americans an average of $1,000 each. under the republican bill, 12 million families would see an end to the smaller child tax credit. six million fans would lose their earned income tax credit. 11 million americans would lose their american opportunity tax credit, unquote. a little over 11 years ago, 1/4 of the democratic caucus supported the bipartisan 2001 relief plan, which is the foundation of the policy underlying the hatch-mcconnell

bill. at that time, the joint committee on taxation showed that the bill distributed as an across-the-board tax cut, which made the tax code more progressive, the 2003 bill was passed on a narrower bipartisan basis and extended on a broader bipartisan basis in 2004 and 2006, bipartisan. joint committee on taxation data showed that against current law, the fiscal cliff my friends are threatening is not surprisingly basically the same as it was in 2001-2003 -- 2001, 2003 and 2006. in other words, the hatch-mcconnell proposal provides across-the-board tax relief benefiting virtually every income taxpayer, yielding a tax system that is more progressive than what we would face if we went over the fiscal cliff. let me just repeat that again.

the hatch-mcconnell proposal provides across-the-board tax relief benefiting virtually every income taxpayer, yielding a tax system that is more progressive than what we would face if we went over the fiscal cliff. the joint committee on taxation analysis includes -- or indicates a similar result today. to be sure, if you count continuous stimulus checks issued by the government to folks that do not pay income tax as tax cuts, the democrats' proposal does more of that than the hatch-mcconnell proposal. no question about that. but when is it going to end? when is the upper 49% all going to have to continue to just carry everything in this country? under federal budget law, those

continuous stimulus checks are counted in the main as spending. i would say to the colleague i referred to a moment ago that if the democrats want to use that talking point, one at odds with conventional budget accounting, it's a free country, but if democrats are going to make that strained and tortured charge, then they should also answer for the failure of their bill to patch the a.m.t. for the year that they claim to be delivering middle-class tax relief. their plan exposes 28 million middle-class families to a tax stealth tax increase of over $3,500 per family. so while they claim that our bill raises taxes by cutting stimulus spending, they are mum on the massive tax increase on 28 million american families implicated in their own bill. i think we might have a case here of folks in class houses

throwing stones. make no mistake, madam president, tax-mageddon is coming. the only good news is that congress can prevent this historic tax increase from happening. as i mentioned, i have a bill that i have introduced with senator mcconnell, s. 3413, the tax hike prevention act of 2012, that will prevent this historic tax increase and will pave the way for tax reform in 2013. that is where my focus will be until tax-mageddon is averted, and i hope that my colleagues will join me in preventing this looming tax increase from being imposed on the american people. 40 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to temporarily extend this tax relief in 2010, recognizing that we were in financial difficulty. we're in worse difficulty today, and they should do so again. at that time, president obama said that it would be foolish to

raise taxes during an economic downturn, and he acted accordingly. and i respect him for that. but he's not acting that way now. this is an election year. our economy remains weak today. in fact, it's weaker in terms of growth in g.d.p. than it was at the end of 2010. and incoming data clearly point to even more slowing in the economy as uncertainty from the fiscal cliff has begun to strangle hiring and investment. my friends on the other side have got to wake up to these facts. the only thing that appears to have changed is that president obama has apparently chosen the path of class warfare and is pursuing a politics-driven tax agenda. i remember days in the past when my friends on the other side

would rise up against even their own president when it comes to good economics, but -- and i hope they will again. it appears like it's not so today. my hope is that my colleagues who have supported this tax relief in the past will put the president's shortsighted and self-interested partisanship aside and vote on behalf of their constituents in favor of s. 3413 to extend this tax relief to america's families and small businesses. for the sake of the more than 12.7 unemployed -- 12.7 million unemployed americans, my hope is that we act to prevent the president's campaign drive to malign small businesses and raise their taxes, that it does not get in the way of sound tax policy and job creation. to put us through this for a

difference of a little more than $50 billion between the two bills is amazing to me. that amounts to, like i say, about five days of federal spending. did you just do this because the president wants it done? sometimes it's really good for this body to stand up and say mr. president, you're going too far. now, what have i proposed? i have proposed that we -- since it's even worse than 2010 when the president thought it was the wise thing to do in a fragile economy, that we put over 2001, 2003 tax cuts for one year, one year, and that we strike out a new force in this senate and in the house to do tax reform in that year on a bipartisan basis. i don't think that's an

unreasonable request, especially under the circumstances that we've seen with the potential of tax-mageddon. i actually believe that -- that it would be very, very wise on the part of all senators in the senate to do exactly that. and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could work together for a change over the next year, knowing that -- that that year is devoted to tax -- taxes and to tax reform? let me just read a letter from the associated builders and contractors, which i won't read it because i have it -- i have been referring to it in my remarks today. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the associated builders and contractors, dated july 25, 2012, be placed in the record at

this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank you, madam president. look, i yearn for the day when we can see both sides come together and work together and work together in the best interests of the country. we know that this presidential election is close. we know that they are virtually in a tie right now. let that play itself out, but let's do what is right here. let's not hammer small business. let's not have the biggest tax increase in history. let's not put this country into -- into a recession and maybe even a depression. it was irresponsible in my eyes for any democrat or any republican to say that if you don't give us what we want, we're going to just go into --

we're going to allow thelma and louise to go off the cliff. and we're thelma and louise in this situation. we can stop that, prevent that, work together and hopefully come up with an economic program that everybody in this body can support or at least a vast majority can support in a bipartisan way. i hope we can get through this. i'm very, very concerned about our country. i'm very, very concerned about this election year, the way these type of things are being brought up. and let me just make one last comment. the senate is not being run like a senate. they're not voting according to the regular order. we're not going through the committees. it's pure politics. i expect a little bit of that, but i don't expect everything to be pure politics. our side isn't even given a

chance under many circumstances to even bring up amendments in the greatest deliberative body in the world. you can see why there are some bad feelings around here. it's all being done just to protect -- protect some members here rather than doing what's right for the economy and for our country. i think we have got to wake up and start doing things in a little better fashion around here, and i hope we can. i hope that my colleagues on the other side will accept my suggestion here. it's done in good faith. i believe we can dedicate next year to tax reform, and i believe we can get it done if we work together. i believe we can bring this country out of the morass that it's in. i suspect that if my colleagues on the other side will support what i have suggested here today

, the economy will start to turn around almost immediately. and it would be for their benefit, it seems to me, in this presidential election year. even though i don't trust what some have done in the past. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum -- or i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: madam president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: i have prepared comments, i'm going to

deviate, listening to my good friend and colleague senator hatch from utah. i respect him greatly but i want to take note to his comments and clarify a few things and also comment on this important piece of legislation that we have in front of us as one of if not only small business person in the body and chamber, actually runs a small business, small business defined not by the s.b.a. which is 500 and below, i don't know about you, when i talk to small business people they wish they had 500 employees. it would be a dream. but it's not. that's not the fact. and we have to be careful with the numbers, a lot of numbers thrown around but let's be clear. it was the story about tax reform florida -- the gentleman from florida who sold his business and paid more taxes. my guess is, i'll be corrected on the record if necessary, but when you sell your small business you pay actually capital gains tax which is about 15%. so when you made more money when you sold your business, i've

sold several small businesses over the years and if you don't reinvest you pay a rate and when you reinvest you can bypass it through an exchange that our afforded buy the tax code. i know my friend from utah knows that because he sits on the finance committee. but i'm guessing that small business person actually had a pretty good rate, 15 points which isn't bad. let me also make sure it's very clear, again, there's a loft numbers thrown around, the bills are very simple. they both cost money. one costs $930 billion over the next ten years, one costs $250 billion. the proposal that my friend from utah suggested costs $930 billion over ten years. that's how the congressional budget office scores these things. you can argue if you agree or disagree, it's amazing on days people like the numbers they agree, on days they don't like the numbers, they disagree but the c.b.o. is the-. i don't like the group in the sense.

i like the people but i think they have some black magic box they come up with numbers but the fact is that's the numbers, that's the bipartisan organization selected by this body jointly to determine these numbers. we can argue over them after the fact. for example, when this extension that my friend talks about over there and just one more year, one more year, how many times have we heard, i've heard it twice since i've been here. it was a ten-year deal when it was first passed. that would bring this relief and this growth in this economy beyond our belief. well, in the last three and a half years i don't know, economy crashed, it's recovering now, struggling, when i came here they said we need to stepped it just for two years, two years to help the economy. so we extended it. i voted to extend them all for two years. i'm not doing that again. we can't afford it. for two years we had this

extension, supposed to boom the economy. we've had a slow-growth economy but the people building this economy are the small business people. these are people who have 25 or less employees, real small business people. as a matter of fact, this bill and i heard the number and, again, i ask people to listen to the numbers and the twisted commentary that everyone gives on both sides at times, i try to keep it simple. in alaska we tell it like it is, the facts as we see them and we saw them a in documents and whatever presented to us. 97% of the small businesses in this country will not see a tax increase. will not see a tax increase. because they're real small business people. when we walk out of this building and we go down the street here, for lunch and we see the restauranteurs that are operating, there are not 500 employees. there are 10 or 15. or like alaska growth company,

talked to today, has 15 employees. the largest s.b.a. lender in the state of alaska, bigger than wells fargo, bigger than key bank, bigger than all of them. 15 employees. that's a small business. that's the people we're talking about. so when people sit down here and proclaim -- and i again respect my friend, he's been a lawyer all his life. i'm no lawyer, no disrespect to lawyers. i'm a small business person. that's where i made my living. that's why i made -- where i made my living, where my family makes our living. so let's make sure it is clear when we talk about, i don't remember the exact percent, 54% are pass-through dollars he talked about, yeah, because the 3% or the employers over 25 or 50 employees have huge revenue streams. but the small business people in this economy, 97% of them make

less than a quarter of a million dollars net income. that's what we're talking about. you know, i think every small business would love to have net income over a quarter of a million dollars. they would -- they strive for it every day. i know i do in my small business. i hope every day that we achieve -- achieve these numbers. as the public listens carefully to the debate and as the minority leader said earlier today, there is a difference, a clear difference. we cannot afford their bill. the taxpayers cannot afford their bill. $930 billion over the next ten years plus interest costs. they -- i've heard over and over again from the other side, 40% of what we borrow, you know, we've got to borrow it to pay our bills, 40% of everything we pay we've got to borrow. okay, where are they getting

the $930 billion? where is that coming from? it costs money, costs interest, we don't have it. because the last decade and a half of people and how they opated this body, democrats, republicans, spent like there was no tomorrow. well, tomorrow is here. and we have to determine what our priorities are. my priorities, despite the fear tactics, i support small businesses. 100%. many bills i presented and supported over the last three and a half years are about protecting and growing our small business community and defined as real small business. people who have to take their credit cards and figure out how to get capital because banks won't give them the money. because they have -- they have the dream of an opportunity that people look at them and say, well, you know, how much money you got in our bank? can you mortgage your two homes or one home or can you put everything up you you have as

collateral plus maybe your first-born? i've been through this. you know, my wife started her small business with a small investment out of our retirement funds, her own funds and a small $30,000 s.b.a. loan. an s.b.a. loan and just a side note, here, madam president, i get so frustrated when i hear these ads, everyone's going to exaggerate what they hear and see, what people -- i'm sure whatever i say today two years from now they'll take a couple words and use them against me. i expect that. they'll make it up, say whatever they want. that's what they do. what opponents do in campaigns. it's too bad we can't talk about the issues. but i'm not here to defend the president, the president gets to defend himself. that's what he does. i've disagreed with the president more than once. i've disagreed with my national party more than once. but his point was when you build a business, there's other elements that help you build it. my wife's business, s.b.a. loan. you know, my business, i had a vending business when i had those trucks on the street those

roads were built by a collective group of taxpayers that helped pay for those roads. it's a combination of things. but don't get me wrong. it is the blood, sweat, and tears of small businesses that -- the people that come up with the dreams and the ideas that create these businesses. and push it forward. so i -- i sat here patiently, i listened as i was presiding, now here. the numbers are simple. one costs more, one costs less. taxpayers can't afford it. two years ago like i said i supported the extension because i was told that we're going to invest. we're going to grow this economy significantly. well, we've grown it on the backs of small business people. that's who we've grown this economy on. that's where the fastest growing population of new employees are coming from. to my friend on the a other side, we gave that idea a shot. didn't really perform. i have to say that thelma and

louise, thank god they were driving an american car because my bet is they landed safely on the other side wherever they went. but the fact is it was in this body, i heard the same arguments on the other side, we can't help our auto industry, we can't help them out of what they're struggling with. we took a risk, calculated risk to support those businesses that manufacture and employ people and today they are thriving because this body said we're going to take the risk. again, thelma and louise, thank you for driving an american car. madam president, this is simple. it is about making sure 98% of americans today continue to have tax relief. it's about 97% of the businesses continuing to have tax relief. small businesses. it's important that we do this not only for the economy but for these families that are

struggling. 300,000 families in alaska alone will benefit from this relief. you know, there's a comment, you know, and i think senator lieberman said it earlier and i recognize his point. his point is we should real reform. i agree. that's why i've sponsored a bill with dismor wyden and senator coats on real tax reform. we're moving down that bath path but we've got to deep keystone doing some things here, keeping the economy moving forward in the right direction. a typical family of four in alaska if not without this relief will pay another $2,200 a year in taxes. a married couple of $80,000 with one teenager at home and another in college will see their taxes go up by $2,250. i can go on and 0 with these tamples. the -- examples. the point is, they're not going

to be fun. those days are gone. they did that the last decade and a half when they had money to spend and do all kinds of stuff but we are in a different situation. we have to make choices of who we invest in to grow this economy. i'm going to invest in the small business community, the 97% that will continue to receive tax relief under this bill. the 98% of middle america that is working every day to try to make ends meet. these are the folks that i'm focused on. and i recognize my colleagues on the other side want to again see massive tax reform. we haven't had it since the early 1980's. i haven't been here since then. a lot of these guys have been here for along time. sitting on the finance committee and others. do it. i'm all game. and for amendments on the floor, i'm game for that. we did it on the farm bill. we had i don't know how many, 80 amendments, the transportation bill we had a ton of amendments. doesn't bother me one darn bit.

vote on whatever we need to vote on and move this economy forward and keep moving forward on the legislation that's critical. let me end on one point, madam president, and i respect my colleagues other side of the aisle, and we agree many times and sometimes we disagree. today we disagree on this issue. because this is a fundamental fundamental -- we don't have the money. we have to limit our abilities and where we put our resources d target them in the best way we can. as i said, i voted a couple years ago for this extension on everything and more layoffs occurred in these big companies and certain things that happened that didn't show the economy growth. but one thing did happen. small businesses did grow. home prices for the first time in five years reported last week are up. new home starts are up. the first time in many months. why are those up?

because the small business community and middle america is starting to put money into those areas. that's important because that will grow this economy. grow it beyond our beliefs over the next decade plus. but for us to say we can still have the train moving at the speed we were moving at before the crash, we can't do it. we can't extend these tax rates for everyone. everyone has to give a little so we're asking the top 2% to give a little bit. at the end of the year my guess is we won't extend the trt. that means people will have to give a little bit. as senator lieberman said, everyone has to give a little bit. yes, we're going to do that. from my end i see the give and take that's necessary. tough decisions. but that's what we get elected for, that's why we're here and just to keep business as usual and say just one more year and, oh, yes, we'll do tax reform someday, the day is here, there's no tomorrow, and we

have to make tough calls. so why not give the relief to the real 97% of small businesses, again, defined -- and, again, i have to clarify, madam president. i have a sub s, an l.l.c. i know this, i understand this and my friend said even if the owner didn't take a dime, i have a business like that, i didn't take a dime, my l.l.c. made money. i pay not a corporate but a pass-through, through me because i get it through a sub s , it's a combination of corporations. so the point is everyone needs to give a little to make it happen, make it work. today we're asking one group to give a little but making sure the bulk of our economy continues to move forward, making sure the 300,000 alaskans that i see on a regular basis still get the relief. for the small businesses that are really creating businesses, creating a dream where they have to put a maximum on their charge

card 0 because they can't get capital from the banks or spending time cashing out their retirement, this might be their opportunity, these are the people i'm going to support. so, again, madam president, i appreciate the time. i -- i wish we had more of -- what happens is we come down here, we speak, we leave. we come down, we speak, we leave. there's no give and take. i wish my friend from utah were here, there would be a great consideration of about the data he used. but it's a very simple point. one costs almost a trillion dollars. one costs $150 billion. we can afford the lower-cost one, protects 98% of the businesses -- or people of this country, giving them relief, and 97% of our small businesses. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. franken: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. i'd also like to thank the senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, for his courtesy in allowing me to speak now so i

can get in the chair and listen to his -- his speech. madam president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support our economic recovery, endorse fiscal responsibility and bolster the middle class by voting to extend tax cuts on income up to $250,000. madam president, minnesotans are still struggling and we need to act now so people making under $250,000 can keep their tax cu cuts. middle-class families need every bit of help that they can get. at the same time, we need to make sure that the richest 2% of americans are paying their fair share so we can pay down the deficit. it would be irresponsible not to. now, thanks to the policies of the recovery act, we emerge from

one of the worst recessions in generations and actually stopped it from becoming the second great depression. that being said, too many working families are still struggling to find work, pay their rents off their mortgages, find affordable child care, and send their kids to college. by extending tack cuts to these families, it will be pug money in their pockets and, in turn, they'll likely go out and spend that money in their communities, at their local small businesses and further bolster the recovery. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at this a bit differently. they've put forward a proposal that would extend tax cuts on income over $250,000 per year as well, which would cost us over

$800 billion in revenue over ten years. they argue that if we let taxes go up on the richest 2% of americans, we're inviting another recession, we're stifling growth. well, they can make that claim over and over again but there's just on no evidence of this. it would be more helpful to examine the facts and what recent history has taught us. first, it is storable clarify who exactly would get a tax cut under the democratic proposal. luckily the answer is easy. essentially everyone. if we pass the bill proposed by the majority leader and extend the tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income, everyone who currently pays income taxes will get a tax cut extension.

if you make $50,000, our bill preserves your entire tax cut. if you make $100,000, this bill preserves your entire tax cut. if you make $250,000, it preserves your entire tax cut. the tax cut you get is also a lot bigger than the guy making $50,000 or $i $100,000. that might not be clear from some of the rhetoric we've been hearing lately but it's true. people making over $250,000 would still get a tax cut worth thousands of dollars and it would be larger than anybody else's tax cut. the only portion of their taxes that would increase now -- or it would stay the same as under the law which we have which is to

not extend the bush tax cuts -- would be on any additional income above dollars $250,000. if you make $250,001, you pay 39.6% on that extra dollar. that's a difference of 4.6 cents, a little less than a nickel. so for those people under this plan, they get the benefit of thousands and thousands of dollars in tax cuts minus a nickel. secondly, claims that not extending the extra tax breaks for the richest 2% will cause harm to the economy just are not supported by history. let's take a look at president clinton. when he proposed his

tax-reduction plan in 1993, every republican in the house and every in the senate opposed it. and what was their claim? their claim that it would hurt business, it would cause a recession. every republican. what really happened in the ensuing years? not only did we have an unprecedented expansion of our economy for eight years, creating more than 22 million new net jobs at the very tax rate we're talking about, for people over $250,000, but at the same time, we turned the biggest deficit in history to the biggest surplus in history.

president clinton handed president george w. bush a record surplus. so the only time in the last 30 years in which we actually had the budget in balance was after we raised taxes on those at the top, the very level we're talking about now. between 1993 and 2001, this country created an unprecedented number of jobs -- 22.7 million net -- and did so while benefiting everyone up and down the economic ladder. not every individual but every quartile. there was economic growth in every quartile.

we witnessed a decrease in the number of americans in poverty and we saw the creations of more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. president clinton's deficit-reduction plan not only reduced the deficit as planned, it eliminated it entirely. so not only did we create all that prosperity, president clinton then handed off a record surplus. i think it needs to be said. he handed off a record surplus to incoming president george w. bush. in fact, when president bush took office, we were on track to completely pay off our national debt with $5 trillion of surpluses projected over the next ten years. in other words, we would have zeroed out our national debt last year -- zero, no debt.

but he cut taxes in 2002, he cut taxes in 2003 after we went to war. unprecedented. in our nation's history. the decision before us today is a fundamental one. should we extend these tax cuts on income up to $250,000, deserving tax cuts for everyone, the largest tax cuts going to those with income incomes of $20 or more. they get the largest tax cuts. but asking the richest 2% to pay their fair share, to pay 4.6% extra on income over $250,000. which has been shown historically to create jobs. it poses a question about

choices. we can choose to do the economically responsible thing or we can choose to provide additional tax cuts for people who least need them. when everyone pays their fair share, our nation can get back on a path to fiscal responsibility and at the same time invest in quality educati education, in infrastructure, and r&d for high-tech industri industries. these are the things which create prosperity. we can create good jobs in our manufacturing sector and other emerging industries. in fact, investors in the middle class is a win for everyone. the buying power of the middle class is what sustains our economy and makes it grow. our economy doesn't grow from the top down. that's -- if our experience over the last 30 years teaches us anything, it's that.

it grows from the middle class out. president clinton understood that and so does president obama. i have friends who have been very successful in the business world. i have enormous respect for them and what they have accomplished and i do for almost every american who has been successful in building their businesses. there are some people who have taken some short cuts, maybe don't deserve our -- our approval. that's a very, very, very small fraction. we -- we honor, we celebrate people who've been successful. and this is what my friends who have been successful tell me.

they say, when the middle class is strong when they have customers. when they have customers, they grow their businesses and can make more money. believe me, they -- i've had friends tell me exactly this. they'd rather pay 39.6% marginal rate on $2 million of income than pay 35% on $1 million of income. and that's the difference between a booming economy and a stagnant one. and how many times have we heard that the deficit is what's driving -- it's what's hurting our economy? we're talking about a difference of almost $900 billion here to get our deficit under control. it's just -- all this is just common sense.

it's common sense and taking a little bit of look at-, the history of the last -- a little bit of look at history, the history of the last 30 years. policies that support and grow the middle class benefit everyone and increase prosperity all along the economic speck trumenspectrum.so in the end, wg decision to make today. do we stand up for our economic recovery and for middle-class families and for addressing the budget deficit with the democratic proposal? or do we continue to give extra tax breaks to the richest 2% of americans instead of extending improvements in the child tax credit and earned income tax credit, affecting more than 13 million working families while adding hundreds of

billions of dollars to the deficit? make -- be clear here. be clear here. the republican plan would raise taxes on 13 million middle class and working-class families. it gets rid of the expanded earned income tax credit. people who are working. people who are working so that we can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i hope we can show the american people that common sense still prevails here in the united states senate by acting in unison, across the aisle to do the responsible thing. i urge all of my colleagues to extend the middle-class tax cuts and to vote for the majority lead