business growth p. the enhangsed expensing rules under section 179 are particularly importance to small businesses and farmers. i regularly hear from my constituents who are putting off purchasing a new truck or tractor for their business operation because they do not know the fate of that provision. now, this is bad for economic growth, and it obviously has something to do with we have a high unemployment rate, jobs not being created. the lapse of renewable energy incentives has also created a lot of uncertainty and slow growth in the renewable industry. this serves only to hamper the stride made towards a viable, self-sustainable renewable energy and fuel sector. i'm aware that some of my colleagues have expressed

extreme opposition to some of these provisions in the package. i'd like to specifically respond to claims that some of my colleagues have made about wind energy and the wind production tax credit. i'm sympathetic to the argument that the tax code has gotten too cluttered with too many special interest provisions. that's the reason many of us for a long period of time have been clamoring for tax reform. but just because we haven't cleaned up the tax code in a comprehensive way doesn't mean that we should pull the rug out from under domestic renewable energy production. doing so would cost jobs, harm our economy and harm the environment and even enhance problems for national security. i'm glad to defend the wind

production tax credit and wind energy. wind energy provides more than 4% of u.s. electricity, supports 80,000 american jobs, spurred $105 billion in private investment in the u.s. just since 2005. and that source of energy displaces more expensive and more polluting sources of energy, lowering electricity prices for consumers. more than 70% of u.s. wind turbine value is now produced right here in the united states, compared to just 25% prior to 2005. more than 550 industrial facilities across 44 states manufacture for wind energy industry. the wind industry today supports

80,000 american jobs. the tax incentive has spurred $105 billion in private investment in the u.s. since 2005. opponents of renewable energy provisions want to have this debate in a vacuum. they disregard the many incentives and subsidies that exist for other sources of energy and are permanent law, but they don't seem to talk about those much. for example, the 100-year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry. these are not general business tax provisions as we are led to believe, no different than what other industries have. these are specific to oil and gas business, the same way as the wind energy tax credit is

specific to wind. i give you a few examples of these tax provisions. expensing for intangible drilling costs. deductions forter cherry injections. special amortization for geological costs. these four tax preferences for this single industry result in the loss of more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue. nuclear energy would be another example. in fact, a very great example. the first nuclear power plant came online in the united states in 1958. that's 56 years ago. nuclear received special tax treatment for interest from decommissioning trust fund. congress created a production tax credit for this mature industry in 2005, and that

production tax credit is going to be available until 2020. nuclear also benefits from the price-anderson federal liability insurance provisions. congress provided that as a temporary measure way back in 1958, but it's still here and it was renewed, as i said, through 2025. nuclear energy also has received $74 billion in federal research and development dollars since 1950. are these crony capitalist handouts? i haven't heard it from the same colleagues that talk about wind energy. is it time to end market distortion for nuclear power? i haven't heard my colleagues talk about that. a kato study found that -- quote -- "in truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and

exists purely as a creature of government." there is also no truth -- that's the end of quote. there is also no truth to the claim that wind energy is somehow under cutting base load power. base load nuclear and coal energy are being harmed by cheap natural gas, transmission congestion and stagnant electricity demand. the chairman and c.e.o. of next era energy, james rogol, addressed this issue in an op-ed recently. next era operates significant wind generation but also a large nuclear operation. this is what he said -- quote - "we do not merely advocate for an all of the above energy strategy. we live it. and from our perspective, nuclear plants in competitive markets are not challenged by

wind energy or below natural gas prices caused by shale gas revolution. blaming the wind industry for the challenges in the merchant nuclear business may be politically expedient, but it will not help any company or technology operate more successfully in a low natural gas environment." end of quote. wind energy and its incentives are not to blame for the market conditions affecting the economic of nuclear energy, so i'd ask my colleagues a very simple question -- why is repealing a subsidy for oil and gas or nuclear energy a tax increase on energy producers and consumers while repealing an incentive for alternative and renewable energy is not? it's not intellectually honest,

that argument. i authored the wind energy incentive in 1992. now, we all know that it's -- that there is no justification for it to go on forever. it was never meant to, and it shouldn't. i'm happy to discuss a responsible multiyear phaseout of the wind tax credit. in 2012, the wind energy was the only industry to put forward a phaseout plan, but any phaseout must be done in the context of comprehensive tax reform where all energy tax provisions are on the table at the same time, and it should be done responsibly for a few years to provide certainty and ensure a viable industry. thank god that chairman wyden has expressed his determination

that this is the last tax extender bill prior to comprehensive tax reform. i share senator wyden's sentiment in favor of putting an end to the annual kabuki dance, that is what we call tax extenders, the bill before the senate that we are going to be voting on here shortly. good tax policy requires certainty that can only come from long-term predictable tax policy. businesses need certainty in the tax code so that they can plan and invest accordingly. moreover, taxpayers deserve to know that the tax code is not just being used for another way to dole out funds to politically favored groups. however, the only sound way to reach this goal is through comprehensive tax reform, and senator wyden as chairman of the finance committee can make that

happen, and he said he's going to. i agree that there are provisions in extenders that ultimately should be left on the cutting room floor, but it is in tax reform environment where we should consider the relative merits of individual provisions. targeting certain provisions for elimination now makes total sense for -- little sense for those of us that want to reduce tax rates as much as possible. tax reform provides that opportunity to use a realistic baseline that will allow the revenue generated from cutting back provisions to be used to pay for reductions in individual and corporate tax rates. so i look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to enact that tax reform and to put an end to the headaches and uncertainty created by the regular expiration of the tax

provisions that we are going to be considering -- or are considering right now on the senate floor. right now, our focus must be on extending current expired or expiring provisions that will end up giving us room in the baseline, the baseline that c.b.o. always talks about, to work towards that goal of tax reform. it is my hope that we can move quickly to reach a bipartisan agreement here in the senate and come to a timely agreement with the house. taxpayers should not have to wait until december or january for us to act. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, since taking office, one of my highest priorities has been finding

solutions to the unemployment rate among american veterans. we proudly in virginia proclaim a tighter connection with the american military than any other state, and i know 99 other senators or 98 other senators would argue with me about that, but one in nine virginians is a veteran. virginia has 27 military installations, including the largest naval base in the world in norfolk, the place where all marine officers are trained at quantico. virginia's map is a map of america's military history. yorktown where the revolutionary war ended. appomattox where the civil war ended and other civil war battlefields. the pentagon where one of the two attacks on 9/11 occurred. our service members in virginia and nationally make a tremendous sacrifice for our country. we have to have a commitment to honor these sacrifices and demonstrate to service men and women the same degree of commitment to them as they have

demonstrated to our country. and that's what makes the unemployment rate among our veterans so troubling. veterans who are exiting military service in the iraq and afghan war era, especially enlisted men and women who may not have college degrees have an unemployment rate significantly higher than the national average. in fact, mr. president, here's a statistic when i heard it that really stunned me. between fiscal year 2001 and 2012, the department of defense spent $9.6 billion on unemployment insurance payments. $9.6 billion in payments to men and women who had exited the military and then couldn't find a job after they did. and obviously, these are men and women who have served valiantly during the longest period of war in the history of this country. as our armed forces continue to

draw down in afghanistan after nearly 13 years of combat operations -- and those combat operations are scheduled to cease this year -- we have to do everything we can to ensure that these service members can find a way to quickly transition from military to civilian life and find good jobs in the process. we know -- and, mr. president, i know you know very well in your personal capacity that service members gain incredible valuable skills while serving in the military. we make a significant investment as a society in training each and every member of our armed forces in a military occupational specialty, many of which have parallel fields in the civilian work force. i have a child in the military now, and watching the degree of training that he undergoes, training that will be very valuable for civilian work when he chooses to make that transition and seeing the kinds of training that his colleagues undergo as well convinces me of these great skills that adhere

in our military. but instead of making it easier for service members to get credit for these skills that would help them find employment as they transition to civilian life, they are often and continuing to face roadblocks. that inspired me, mr. president, to introduce my first bill as a senator last year, the true talent act of -- troop talent act of 2013. the troop talent act required information on civilian credentialing opportunities to be made available to service members during their active duty training and that information on military training and experience have to be provided as civilian credentialing agencies to help them understand how the skills for success in military life transfer directly to the skills of success in civilian life. if you're learning to opera heavy equipment in the military, get the commercial driver's license. if you're learning to be a battlefield medic, get credits

right when you're learning that. get the american welding certificate, put it in your personnel file, when you get ready to move to civilian life, you have have credentials that will be understood by a civilian workforce. i am proud that key parts of the bill were signed in to law as part of the national defense authorizing bill we passed in september and with this information, service members will be more prepared to transfer into civilian life. they'll have a better sense of what skills service members possess as they enter civilian life. so the passage of this true talent act was for me a first step, but there are many more steps that we have to take to tackle this problem of veterans unemployment. in speaking with military leadership, service members and veterans have lerped that there are some a-- have learned that there are some additional barriers to the employment of our veterans that deal with how tuition assistance moneys can be used by those in active service. one is the cost of fees

associated with getting credentials while on active duty and those costs of credentials are not covered by the current military tuition assistance program. some military members transfer out of the service and they decide to pursue a agree at a grege or university -- 0 at a college or university. but others are ready to enter a workforce with the skills they obtained through military training. just to use the example i started with earlier, if you are a logistic ordinance officer, you take metal courses, you take welding course, very much in demand in the american manufacturing sector rate now. those individuals often have an ability -- they certainly have the skills -- to get good jobs when they leave. but they often lack something important. they lack the credential that the civilian workforce understands, in this case an american welding society cree engs dids, for example. -- credential, for example.

the military tuition assistance programs currently provides active duty service members financial assistance, up to $4,5 in aggregate for fiscal year, for post secondary programs. while nur service, you can take degree programs up to $4,500 a year those degree programs and courses will be supported by the program. but despite the success of this program, certification and license fees are not allowed to be paid with tuition assistance benefits. so in other words if you're in the military and you want to take a college course, you can get it paid. if you are in the military and you want to pass a welding certificate exam to be a welder, the tuition assistance program will not pay for that. this is a challenge because these credentialing exams can cost significantly out of pocket, often $300 to $500, and many of our enlisted men and

women don't have that. and it's really inequity balinge that we would allow them to draw down up to $4,500 for college courses but not draw down one penny to get a cree deption for a tec-- to get acredential for l skill. i think we value college and community college in a way that we don't or haven't traditionally valued career and technical education programs. so many of our programs -- pell grants and stafford loans, g.i. benefits -- often can be used for easily for community college or a four-year college than they can be used for even the highest-quality career and technical programs. that's why today i'm introducing the credentialing improvement for true talent -- or credit -- act. that money will go into the program and exspanged the authority of the program so it can cover credentialing expenses

for the men and women who want to move into career and technical fields. it will give service members the means to pay for credentials while they're still on active duty and before they transition into the civilian workforce. in addition, the legislation will ensure that the credentials our service members earn are of the highest quality thand they're recognized by national and international standards and not offered by shady or sort of fly-by-night organizations who simile want to -- simply want to pocket money that our military men and women are entitled to to help them get educational drengses. we in virginia have seen first hand how the talents of the men and women who serve our country can benefit our workforce and contribute to our economy. we make a huge investment in our service members and it is a disservice not only to them but also to our nation not to take advantage of the skills that we bestow on these men and women once they transition to civilian life. we have to, all of us, mr. president, stay focused on

this. it is unacceptable for us as nation to look into the mirror and say, we will, our servicemen and women who served in iraq and afghanistan, they have an unemployment rate that's higher than the national average. there's nothing we can do about that. no, we have to make sure that the skills can carry with them drengses that will enable them to get a quicker traction when they move into the civilian workforce. it is unacceptable that we are paying $800 million a year in the federal budget to pay for unemployment benefits for people who exit the military and then can't find jobs when they do. and we need steps like the credit act and others to bring down that veterans unemployment rate, to enable people to get the kinds of jobs that will help them have a happy and successful life post service and that will enable society to take advantage of the great skills and talents that they have. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, are we in morning business or are we in a quorum call? what is the current status of the floor? the presiding officer: we are in divided time until 11:15. mr. coats: mr. president, i would like to use some of that time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. coats: mr. president, the citizens of indiana sent me to

washington to be their voice, and as i travel across the state listening to them, whether it's in coffee shops or factories, small businesses, local schools, the people on the street, i hear a lot of good counsel and good advice as to what they think we ought to be doing up here. there are regulations and taxes and policies that are being imposed upon their businesses, on their personal lives. they would like to see some changes, some reforms. many of these ideas are very sensible. they -- they are relevant to what we do here. they affect their livelihoods. and that's really what the senate's all about. that's why we have a congress. that's why we have representatives, so that we can represent the voices of the people who sent us here. but right now if you're in the minority, as i am and my republican colleagues are, we're being shut out of our ability to represent their voices.

the tradition of the senate since its inception has been that it is a place where we -- to meet the phrase that describes us, "the world's greatest deliberative body" -- can take time to deliberate these ideas, these reforms, to be able to offer amendments to legislation that is being brought forward, to talk to our colleagues, encourage bipartisan support, work to achieve a majority so that the ideas that we bring can be passed into law, coordinated with the house and sent to the president for signing and become law. a strange thing has happened here under the current leadership of our current majority leader and that is, he has found a way to procedurally gag us from being a representative and representing the voices of the people of our states. in the last 10 months, republicans have been only offered a vote on the

substantive policy measure or amendment to a policy measure nine times in 10 months. i had the great privilege of serving in the senate in a previous -- at a previous time in my life. i had committed to serm limits s and so after my two terms were fulfilled, i honored those term limits and stepped down. i was out for 12 years. i was asked to come back at a time when many of us thought that we -- our country was going in the wrong direction and they wanted a voice to stand up for their interests relative to our beliefs and feelings about what our country ought to be and the kind of policies that we ought to have enacted. and so i had the great fortune of being sent back here to serve in this united states senate. only to find, to my shock and amazement, that under the procedures used by the majority leader, no longer was this the

greatest deliberative body. it has been turned into the least deliberative body, because we haven't been able to deliberate anything. the tradition here that was honored by leadership in the past, both republican leadership and democrat leadership -- i served under senator mitchell, democrat majority leader, senator daschle, democrat majority leader, trent lott, bill frist, republican -- well, trent lott and bob dole. bill frist came after i left. republican leaders. whether it was republican or whether it was democrat, they honored the tradition of the senate. they honored what the senate was designed to be. no one was more he will ghent allowing the -- no one was more eloquent in allowing the majority to play a role, to offer amendments to bills, to debate those bills, to vote. sometimes we won, sometimes we lost, but we at least had the opportunity for our voices to be heard and for our colleagues to

cast their "yea" or to cast their "nay" on what we were offering. no one was a greater defender of those minority rights than then-majority leader robert byrd from west virginia. robert byrd is lionized here in terms of his long service and remembered most for the fact that he was so faithful to the constitution of the united states and so faithful to the traditions of the senate and the rules of the senate and the procedures of the senate. and whether it was republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, no one was a greater defender of the traditions of the senate, allowing full and open debate than robert byrd. i had many disagreements with robert byrd but great respect for his respect for this institution. we don't see that today. there is no robert byrd here. there's no one standing up on the other side saying, "wait a

minute, this is not what we're here for." the procedures that the majority leader has undertaken affect democrats as well as republica republicans. i know many of my friends across the aisle, some of them are cosponsors of some of the legislation and proposals that i've made and amendment proposals i've made. they're not allowed to offer their amendments either. we are frozen out by someone who has taken a dictatorial position, saying it's my way or the highway. we see that on foreign policy enacted now coming out of russia with vladimir putin. but that's not what the united states is about. that's not what the united states senate is about. we're a democratic institution. democratic institution means the voices of the people can be heard. the voices of the people i represent are not being heard because i can come down here and talk about my amendments but i'm not allowed the opportunity to have full debate and a vote on those amendments. and the same is true for my other 44 colleagues here on the republican side.

it's unprecedented. it's never happened before. it's dictatorial. whether it's "the washington post" or any other news media, they're scratching their heads also, saying, we've never seen this before. it's a tragedy that that's the case. now, here we are coming up to yet another major piece of legislation, the so-called tax extenders. these are provisions within the tax code that allow certain exemptions or credits or special provisions, for instance, research and development. there's a deduction allowed, bonus depreciation for businesses, any number of things that we're going to be talking about here that need to be legislated because they expire at the end of this year. and so normally what we would have is open debate on those of us who support some of those, those of us who oppose some of those, what changes might be made. in the end, that debate turns to

a vote and the vote determines whether the senate stands. and i know that some of the things that i would be proposing may not be passed by the senate but i'd like to put it to the test. i would like to have my colleagues have an opportunity to not only hear what they were but to vote on it. let their yea be yea and nay be nay. that's a biblical injunction that goes back to the beginning of time. let your yes be a yes and your no be a no, but don't use procedural devices to prevent us from going to yes or to going to no. let me just mention three of the provisions that i would like to see incorporated and debated and voted on in this legislation that is coming before us. we're told -- and we will find out shortly -- we're told that once again the majority leader will come down here and just say, i'm not allowing republicans to offer any amendments, even if they're sensible, even if they're reasonable, even if they're relevant. i'm sorry, that's not the way

we're going to run the united states senate and so i simply will not allow any of those to be offered. that is a repetitive process that has been undertaken here and it's -- it's tragic and it's unfortunate and it is not the senate. and we all ought to be ashamed that this is the procedurals we're operatinprocedural --the g under. i want to help indiana charities, they're individuals or small groups of individuals who are trying with a big heart trying to do a right thing, to reach out to provide support. you know, the federal government budget is ever shrinking because of our debt and deficit and the runaway entitlement mandatory spending, much less for other spending that we have control over. these charities have found themselves somewhat in a bind. some of them are small. they don't have the backroom, the accountants, the lawyers and so forth and so on to read through all the regulations, and many of them have lost their nonprofit status for a very

simple reason that can be easily corrected. there are certain procedures which require certain amounts of information to be provided to the internal revenue service. if it's not provided, the internal revenue service has the authority to close down those charities. many of them don't realize -- have not realized that this certain amount of information needs to be provided on an annual basis. and all of a sudden they get a knoll in the mail that their 501-c-3 or their tax-exempt status has been revoked. and they call our office and say, "what's going on here?" well, i mean, the i.r.s. says you don't comply with all the regulations. well, what regulations? these are people out not making a profit, they're trying to provide social services and needed help to low-income, poverty, people in need. and they don't have the expertise, they don't have the time, they don't have the

understanding of what it takes to comply with all the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations. so all i'm asking here with this amendment, it just seems like this is something that everybody would agree to -- we could do by unanimous consent -- is that the i.r.s. notify these people with a special notification basically saying, this is what you haven't complied with. if you -- you have a certain amount of time to do this or we will have to take away your tax-exempt status. some of these things are just no-brainers, mr. president. i mean, could we ask the i.r.s. to simply send a notice if they're going to terminate a 501-c-3 because they didn't fulfill a particular regulation? could we give them notice so that they then can take it to their tax accountant or take whatever actions it needs in order to meet the test and not lose that status? losing that status means it's -- they're out of business, they're not able to receive contributions that are tax

deductible. many of them will lose that effort. now, secondly, the obamacare bill incorporates a provision that increases the threshold at which overwhich you can deduct medical expenses -- over which you can deduct medical expenses. currently it's 7.5%, 7.5% of total adjusted gross income. the obamacare health law, unbeknownst to many, raised that level from 7.5% to 10%. i am simply wanting to offer an amendment that would go back to status quo or go back to the current law and keep it at 7.5%. that, i think, again could soon gather and garner bipartisan support. i would like to put that for a vote. and thirdly, the medical tax -- medical device tax repeal which i have been talking about ad nauseam here for three years,

one of the most egregious things in the obamacare act was taxing and gross sales an industry that is dynamic, that exports around the world, that provides high-paying jobs, that is leading edge in terms of innovation and creativity and providing much-needed help for those to -- who have health conditions that can be addressed through certain medical devices. i know we have bipartisan support for passage of this provision in this repeal, because in our nonbinding budget vote, a chance when we did have the vote, 34 democrats joined 45 republicans for a total of 79 out of 100. now, that's a majority that overrides a veto. that's a majority of bipartisan consensus as to how we ought to

move forward. and yet once again we have been denied, despite every effort over a period of years by the majority leader from having a binding vote on that. clearly, someone is afraid that this is going to pass. and therefore on a decision solely made by the majority leader, what happens encouraged by the president, we're not even allowed an opportunity to take that vote. so the voice of the people, whether it's indiana or the voice of the people from this country is being gagged, and there is a big gag put on everything that we're trying to do here. i got pretty worked up about this yesterday. i guess i have calmed down a little bit today. maybe going from total frustration yesterday to pleading with some sense of reason that the procedures here could be changed so we at least have the opportunity to state

our case and to take a vote. that's all we're asking for on these tax extender provisions coming before us. we are willing to address a limited -- offer a limited number of totally relevant amendments, give us a chance to make our case, take the vote, let the yea be yea and the nay be nay and see who prevails on it. yet word is once again the majority leader will deny us that opportunity. it's more than tragic because it turns this institution, which was venerated for being a deliberative body, into nondeliberative -- into a nondeliberative body. none of us ever thought we would see this happen. as i said, had robert byrd been here, had george mitchell been here, had a number of other people been here, they never would have allowed this. this is not what the senate has been traditionally. this is something today that none of us recognize, and it's just a shame that this is the

case. i'm not exactly sure how we should best go forward now that the majority leader apparently is going to stifle our efforts. there are very important provisions here that need to be addressed because they expire at the end of the year. i see my colleague, a democrat from oregon, who i have worked together with, senator wyden, on comprehensive tax reform. this -- these provisions today that we will be starting the process of working with are essential to us moving to where we really need to go, and that's full comprehensive reform. lowering our corporate tax rate, lowering individual rates, making our tax code simpler and fairer and more growth oriented. that's the -- those are the provisions of the wyden-coats bill. we want to move to that. we have to deal with this first, but we need to deal with this in a way that doesn't leave a lot of rancor and a lot of frustration on our side that we haven't had an opportunity to have a voice in the matter.

so once again, i'm pleading with the senate majority leader that -- and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we work to find a way to turn the senate back into the senate. what are we afraid of? mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? just in beginning my remarks on the extenders, i just want my colleague from indiana to know that in the finance committee, we have done everything we could, everything, all 24 of us to avoid the kind of rancor and polarization that has so often accompanied big economic debates and passed a bill out of the finance committee overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. and, mr. president, today the senate is going to have the opportunity to vote against a big tax increase. actually, a bunch of big tax

increases. tax increases that would slam our fragile economy hard and would punish innovators, punish our small businesses, punish homeowners who are under water with their mortgages, punish returning veterans looking for jobs and punish students and classroom teachers. colleagues, who here thinks it makes sense to tax innovation? that's what will happen if the tax extender bill fails to pass today. who here thinks it makes sense to tax millions of hardworking homeowners who are under water on their mortgages and were lucky enough to get a break from their lender? that's what will happen if the tax extender bill fails to pass today.

who here thinks it makes sense to make it more difficult for our employers to hire veterans? colleagues, that's what will happen if the tax extender bill fails to pass today. and who here thinks it makes sense to sock college students already drowning in debt with even higher tuition bills. once again, colleagues, that's what happens if the tax extender bill fails to pass today. now, i am very much aware that this bill is not exactly what every senator wants. a little secret -- it's not my first choice either, because for years i have had the honor to work with my colleague from indiana on comprehensive tax

reform. we were joined by our former colleague, senator gregg. senator begich has done good work. so that has long been my first choice, mr. president. when chairman baucus went to china, i realized it wouldn't be possible in the few months that remain in this session to enact comprehensive reform, and the senate shouldn't hit our economy once again with immediate -- i say immediate tax hikes as work goes forward on the broader reforms that senator coats and i feel so strongly about. senator hatch and all the members of the finance committee work cooperatively and help produce a bipartisan tax extender bill. and this is, mr. president, essentially the first piece of

legislation on my watch as chair of the committee. the process was totally open. every member of the finance committee had the opportunity to weigh in and offer proposals, and i want to just briefly describe some of the extraordinary bipartisanship that went into the bill that we will have an opportunity to vote on today. senators schumer and roberts built on the good work of another bipartisan duo, senator moran and senator coons and improved the research and development credit to make it available to those start-ups out there in garages who have a dream. the research and development credit is essentially the

premier part of this legislation because we so need those innovation-driven jobs. and here we had four senators, two of them were democrats, two of them were republicans, in effect coming together to significantly improve the research and development credit to ensure that it was available to even more of the start-ups, even more of those innovators, the ones just getting out of the gate. we know -- mr. president, we know a lot of our big businesses started that way, the microsofts and the intels and others. next, senator cardin and senator portman add an important provision to help the long-term unemployed. we all understand that the nature of those who are unemployed has changed

significantly in recent years. we have many more who are long-term unemployed americans, and we had two senators -- by the way, two senators who started working in a bipartisan way when they were house members because i remember their good work on the ways and means committee. they came up with a very promising approach to help the long-term unemployed. senators hatch and grassley and roberts, three republicans joined a whole host of democrats in supporting conservation easements, which i know the distinguished senator from montana knows a great deal about. chairman baucus had a long interest in it because what this does, again on a bipartisan basis, is it protects open spaces and outdoor recreation businesses, and on the charity front because i heard my good friend from indiana speak on this and he has done wonderful

work, standing up for our charities, and he and i and senator thune feel so strongly about making sure that our charities get a fair shake in tax policy. i would just say to my good friend, i'm very pleased that there is a provision in what we will vote on today that would allow retirees who choose to use some of their i.r.a. savings and give those i.r.a. savings to charity, this legislation today would give a break to those retirees. my friend and i have talked about it's the i.r.a. rollover concept to help our charities. that, too, is in this legislation and it has long, long had bipartisan support. now, mr. president, i could go even further, and i will simply

wrap up by saying that today the united states senate has a chance to push back hard against big tax increases, tax increases that i have indicated punish everyone from innovators to classroom teachers, would hit our small businesses hard when the economy is so fragile. the senate would have the opportunity today to push back against those immediate, immediate tax increases as well as future tax increases, and to support the bipartisan work of the 24 members of this body who serve on the finance committee. so i hope that my colleagues will see that even though this bill is not everything each

senator wants -- and i think it is very fitting that my good friend from indiana is on the floor, because he knows that i strongly prefer the idea of comprehensive reform. it became clear to me that it wouldn't be possible to do that in just a few short months before the end of the year. so the question was are we going to stop immediate tax hikes, which i hope the senate will vote today to do, or were we just going to say we'll sit by and watch those americans get hurt and in effect have a lot of americans say if they can't do this, how are they possibly going to go on to the kind of comprehensive tax reform that i and others would like. so i hope my colleagues will vote today to advance this bill,

will vote for cloture, vote to break the gridlock, vote to prevent a massive tax increase and show that when a committee like the senate finance committee comes together with almost a quarter of the united states senate on an overwhelming basis, i am so appreciative of senator hatch who has consistently met me halfway. i in effect parachuted into this job as the new chair of the finance committee when certainly i didn't expect it and with the graciousness of chairman hatch. the first bill -- this is essentially the first bill on my watch. we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and i hope my colleagues later this afternoon will vote to advance it. with that, i -- mr. coats: could i ask if the

senator from oregon would be willing to enter into just a bit of a dialogue with me? i'd like to ask him a couple questions but also respond to hisests on a bipartisan -- respond to his efforts on a bipartisan way to move forward with reform. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from indiana. mr. coats: first of all, let me say, it's been a delight to work with the senator from oregon, my colleague. tax reform is not easy. hasn't happened in 25 years. comprehensive tax reform -- that's not what we're talking about today. but we're setting the stage for that. i certainly fray wit agree withe senator from oregon that the bipartisan product that came out of committee is something that has been negotiated, members had opportunities to make adjustments and get their provisions looked at, voted on,

some were voted down, some were voted in. but now is moves to the whole senate floor, and there are those of us who don't serve on that committee that have some suggestions as to how we think we can make the bill even better. i laid out thre out three provit i'm interested in. one is a provision that would give notice to charities that are being terminated from their 501(c)3 status. that seems like something sensible and relevant. now i'm prohibited, unless the majority leader comes forward and allows us to offer amendments, i'm prohibit from offering that specific provision. we all know that there's many good things in here that we support. there's some that we, you know, maybe -- maybe "yes," maybe "no." and there are some bad things we

don't want to support. but all we're asking for is the opportunity to enter into the procedure that the senator and i both have enjoyed in the past so we can debate some of this on the floor. could the senator give me an indication of whether or not we've just shut down the process now of any additions or modifications to this and vote on this? and i know the senator knows this, obviously people aren't going to lose these -- aren't going to get these higher taxes imposed on them tomorrow, if quey don't paswedon't pass this. these expire at the understand of the year. the house is on a different path in terms of dealing with these. we're going to have to reconcile the differences. so the real issues doesn't take effect -- i mean, the concern doesn't take effect until the end of the year, so that gives us plenty of time to debate, to talk about reforms that we might make, additions and constructive additions, some of which i've

mentioned. so i would ask my friend from oregon, would he be willing toen courage the majority leader to offer us that opportunity to make some adjustments, hopefully constructive, all relevant, maybe even a limited amount to the legislation so that we feel at least we've had the opportunity to represent the voices of the people that we represent here in washington? mr. wyden: first, i want to be clear on a couple of points. this idea that there really aren't any immediate consequences -- i know my friend from indiana spends a lot of time talking to businesses, as i do. and these businesses are up in arms about the fact that the senate cannot deal with this, because it doesn't give them certainty and predictability that they need to go out and make those orders and hire those workers. as my friend knows, so many of those businesses make quarterly payments -- april and june and

others. so i want my colleagues to understand that the idea that, oh, maybe this is going to get worked out another time ... when you're home for this recess and you're walking down main street and you're talking to people who are going to pay those higher taxes and aren't able to make those investments and hire those workers and make those decisions now, they're not going to be happy that the senate said, oh, we'll see if maybe it'll work out some other time or retroactive or something like that. they're making quarterly payments. they're making decisions right now. second -- and the senator from indiana knows because of our work how much i want to do comprehensive reform -- one of the reasons that senator hatch and i made the judgment together that we were going to focus on extenders is because these are provisions that have essentially already expired.

i didn't get a chance to hear all of my friend's presentation, but i know, for example, that he cares a great deal about the medical device tax. i joined him in voting to repeal the medical device tax when we had a vote earlier. i think it has real implications, as i know my friend does, for innovation and jobs. it is not an extender. it is not in line with the framework that senator hatch and i agreed on a bipartisan basis to do now. we said, we're going to do extenders now. and to till the truth, if -- and to tell you the trunnel, i trutn get through the extenders, starting with a favorable vote today, it will give us even more time to do what my friend from indiana is talking about both in terms of comprehensive reform, and i know looking at other issues. if, however, we can't deal with

the extenders, the message is going to go out far and wide, well, how are they going to do comprehensive tax real estate form when they -- reform when they couldn't even on the senate floor pass this legislation, which got such overwhelming support in the senate finance committee? so i renew my pledge to work very closely with my colleague from indiana and just repeat that the idea that somehow everything is going to turn out fine down the road, i just don't buy that. and in a fragile economy, when businesses can't plan, they don't have the certainty of knowing what the rules are going to be and when they're going to kick in, that affects business decisions today in a negative way. and when people are making those quarterly payments, we better believe that there are going to be small businesses and others very unhappy if we see a tax

increase, which is what will happen today. and i have to apologize to my colleague from indiana because i have to be somewhere else, and i am late. by just close by saying, i know of the sincerity of the colleague. that's why i mentioned that charitable provision that allows for the ira rollover into charity. no one has done more good work advocating for charities in my time in public service than the distinguished senator from indiana. i wanted him to know that at least we were making a beginning in this legislation, and i'm committed to working with him in the days ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i thank the senator's statement and i appreciate where he is trying to come from. it is true that some of the amendments don't exactly apply to the extenders.

they do apply to taxes. and they are sensible. we can limit that, if the senator -- well, if the majority leader would agree, we could limit those to directly ply to the -- to directly apply to the extenders. look, everyone knows that if we go forward here -- if we prevent this from happening today because the majority leader prevents us from having amendments, we're going to finish this bill by the end of the next week, before the recess period. so we're not talking about a "do it today or ifort it's done for" situation here. this is going to be resolved in the united states senate within the next several business days, probably moving into next week. all we're asking for really is the opportunity to make some improvements to this. there are some who say, i can't vote for this bill because this piece that the committee has agreed to is so egregious, it overwhelms all the good that i see in it. others are simply saying, well,

you know, okay, sometimes you have to take the less good -- good being th -- perfect being e enemy of the good. and it is the only way we can get to a bipartisan position, so, yes, i'll lean forward, even though i object to this particular provision. but at least they can say, i had the opportunity to make the point to my colleagues that, why is this in there? why is something that's this egregious -- this doesn't fit the model of what we're looking for in terms of growth and innovation and sensible tax policy. and let's put that to a vote. we'll still end up with a bill in the end that will either have it in or out. but we'll have had the opportunity to debate it with our colleagues, not just simply carte blanche, here's what we decided in committee and we're not going to give any of the rest of us an opportunity to say, wait a minute, i think we can make it better. i think this provision -- i don't understand why it is in

there. let's debate it, why did it get in there? if they can make the case, they'll win the vote. isn't that what we're here for? are we here to make our case, put it to a vote, and the american people then look at it and say, at least i know how my senator voted on this particular issue, which is very important to me? and we go home and we either defend our vote successfully or we don't. if we don't and enough people think we're on the wrong track, they have the opportunity to go to the polls and send somebody else in place of us. what are my colleagues afraid of? they're afraid of taking any kind of a vote that someone back home might not think is the right thing to do? we are sent here to exercise our best judgment, to represent the people that sent us here, to stand up for their interests, and then take the consequences

at the next election, yea or nay. they'll send us back or they'll find someone else to send here. but the procedures before us now -- the gag rule imposed by the majority leader, not my friend from oregon -- but the gag rule imposed by the majority leader simply says, you're in the minority, you didn't win the election. therefore, you have no rights. despite what the senate has done for over 200 years, despite what other democratic leaders have honored in terms of the rights of the senators, i'm shutting all that off, says the majority leader. you have no rights. you can't offer any amendments. any improvements to this bill. we're taught from the beginning, in terms of how laws are made, that it's a process, and the process is that everybody gets their input and then you decide which you want to support. and if you can cobble together a majority for supporting, you end up winning.

all of this will be determined here in the next week. and so a vote today in protest of our inability to be gagged, to be shut down by the majority leader doesn't mean we're opposed to good provisions that my colleague from oregon said, no, this has bipartisan -- said, you know, this has bipartisan, nearly unanimous consent. the vote today is whether or not we're going 0 have the opportunit-- we'regoing to haveo do anything, to say anything. listed three things that i think directly relate to taxes. if the parliamentarian determined that those weren't relevant to the particular bill, i'll accept that. i think they are relevant. my colleagues would accept that. we're tailoring things that we think here go directly to what the issue of the day is. but yet we're not offered the opportunity to do anything about

it. i cannot understand why my democrat colleagues can't see the injustice of that, the unfairness of that. if they were in the minority, they would be standing where i am basically making the same point. how could you conceivably, you republicans conceivably say that i've been elected here but i have no way of representing the royce ovoice of the people thate here? i have no means of improving this bill or taking out something that i find totally egregious. but i'm willing to accept how the vote turns out. i'm not necessarily trying to stop the bill from going forward. i'm trying to make it bemplet i think if the -- i'm trying to make it better. i think if the shoe was on the other foot, my colleagues would say, that's not the way the senate is supposed to work. that's not why i came here. i came here to be a participant. i didn't come here to be told by the majority leader that i have

no right to offer an amendment, a relevant amendment to legislation that's before us. it's a total neuterrization of the minority rights in a body that was conceived by our founders and a tradition that has been held for more than 200 years to be a deliberative body -- deliberative. deliberative doesn't mean the majority walks over -- leader walks over from his office and says, you have no right, you have no right to offer an amendment. we're taking that right away from you. deliberative means we stand here and talk to each other like we just did. it's pretty rare for two of us on same page comprehensive tax reform, probably on the extenders. two of us have a chance to go back and forth with each other. mr. president, i know the time has run out. it's about time to call for a vote. no one should mistake a vote

against this as - a vote against tax extenders. it could be a protest. i'm not sure where we'll end up here. it could be a protest vote on the basis of the fact that, you know, we -- we want to have our rights honored. we want to have -- be able to participate. we want to be able to go home and say, i had a chance to take your voice to the senate, debate it, it was voted on. it either passed or it didn't pass but i gave it everything i had. and i don't want to go home and say, i didn't have a chance to even raise my voice on behalf of your voice and achieve any kind of debate, deliberation or vote on this amendment. that is not why we are sent he here. my democrat colleagues need to understand, continue to support what the majority leader is doing impacts their rights and their people's rights as much as it does ours. with that, i know the time has expired and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are two

minutes of debate equally divided before the cloture vote. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of rosemary marquez of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of rosemary marquez of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any other senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, then the ayes are 58 and the nays are 35. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: rosemary marquez of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, to use our time, my colleague from indiana spoke -- the presiding officer: will the senate please come to order. mr. wyden: mr. president, to use our time, my colleague from indiana spoke earlier as though the cloture vote on extenders determines whether or not the senate will have any amendments to the extender bill. that is not the case. a "yes" vote today is a vote to move the debate forward. and in that vein, i simply want to announce that if cloture is invoked, i would be happy to work with senator hatch and the two leaders to develop an agreed-upon list of amendments narrowly related to the bill as the finance committee did in its consideration of the bill in the

committee. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the finance committee, for his observations. he is moving in the right direction. as everyone is clearly aware, the issue of not allowing amendments is a highly sensitive matter. the senate has been changed dramatically in recent years. the time to have a negotiation over amendments is before cloture is invoked, not after. and if there is an indication on the other side that we're willing to have that negotiation, the time to do it is now. because our experience postcloture with the ability to offer amendments has not been good, to put it mildly. i think the chairman of the finance committee is headed in the right direction. the timing is a little off. we'd like to have this negotiation over amendments before cloture is invoked on the bill. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of douglas l. rayes of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of douglas l. rayes, arizona, to be the united states district judge for the district of arizona shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: