Extreme opposition to some of these provisions in the package. Id like to specifically respond to claims that some of my colleagues have made about wind energy and the wind production tax credit. Im sympathetic to the argument that the tax code has gotten too cluttered with too many special interest provisions. Thats the reason many of us for a long period of time have been clamoring for tax reform. But just because we havent cleaned up the tax code in a comprehensive way doesnt 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. Im 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 dont seem to talk about those much. For example, the 100yearold 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. Thats 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 priceanderson federal Liability Insurance provisions. Congress provided that as a temporary measure way back in 1958, but its 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 havent heard it from the same colleagues that talk about wind energy. Is it time to end market distortion for Nuclear Power . I havent 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 thats 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 oped 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 id 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 . Its not intellectually honest, that argument. I authored the Wind Energy Incentive in 1992. Now, we all know that its that there is no justification for it to go on forever. It was never meant to, and it shouldnt. Im 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 wydens 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 longterm 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 hes 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. Virginias map is a map of americas 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 thats 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 , heres 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 couldnt 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 youre learning to opera heavy equipment in the military, get the commercial drivers license. If youre learning to be a battlefield medic, get credits right when youre 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. Theyll 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 youre 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 dont have that. And its 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 dont or havent 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 Fouryear College than they can be used for even the highestquality career and technical programs. Thats why today im 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 theyre 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 theyre recognized by national and International Standards and not offered by shady or sort of flybynight 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 thats higher than the national average. Theres 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 cant 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 its 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 thats really what the senates all about. Thats why we have a congress. Thats why we have representatives, so that we can represent the voices of the people who sent us here. But right now if youre in the minority, as i am and my republican colleagues are, were 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 worlds 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 havent 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 thenmajority 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 dont see that today. There is no robert byrd here. Theres no one standing up on the other side saying, wait a minute, this is not what were 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 ive made and Amendment Proposals ive made. Theyre not allowed to offer their amendments either. We are frozen out by someone who has taken a dictatorial position, saying its my way or the highway. We see that on Foreign Policy enacted now coming out of russia with vladimir putin. But thats not what the United States is about. Thats not what the United States senate is about. Were 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 im 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. Its unprecedented. Its never happened before. Its dictatorial. Whether its the Washington Post or any other news media, theyre scratching their heads also, saying, weve never seen this before. Its a tragedy that thats the case. Now, here we are coming up to yet another major piece of legislation, the socalled tax extenders. These are provisions within the tax code that allow certain exemptions or credits or special provisions, for instance, research and development. Theres a deduction allowed, bonus depreciation for businesses, any number of things that were 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 id 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. Thats a biblical injunction that goes back to the beginning of time. Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no, but dont 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. Were told and we will find out shortly were told that once again the majority leader will come down here and just say, im not allowing republicans to offer any amendments, even if theyre sensible, even if theyre reasonable, even if theyre relevant. Im sorry, thats not the way were 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 its its tragic and its unfortunate and it is not the senate. And we all ought to be ashamed that this is the procedurals were operatinprocedural the g under. I want to help indiana charities, theyre 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 dont 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 its not provided, the Internal Revenue service has the authority to close down those charities. Many of them dont 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 501c3 or their taxexempt status has been revoked. And they call our office and say, whats going on here . Well, i mean, the i. R. S. Says you dont comply with all the regulations. Well, what regulations . These are people out not making a profit, theyre trying to provide social services and needed help to lowincome, poverty, people in need. And they dont have the expertise, they dont have the time, they dont have the understanding of what it takes to comply with all the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations. So all im 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 havent complied with. If you you have a certain amount of time to do this or we will have to take away your taxexempt status. Some of these things are just nobrainers, mr. President. I mean, could we ask the i. R. S. To simply send a notice if theyre going to terminate a 501c3 because they didnt 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 its theyre out of business, theyre 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 its 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 highpaying jobs, that is leading edge in terms of innovation and creativity and providing muchneeded 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, thats a majority that overrides a veto. Thats 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 , were not even allowed an opportunity to take that vote. So the voice of the people, whether its indiana or the voice of the people from this country is being gagged, and there is a big gag put on everything that were 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. Thats all were 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. Its 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 its just a shame that this is the case. Im 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 thats full comprehensive reform. Lowering our Corporate Tax rate, lowering individual rates, making our tax code simpler and fairer and more growth oriented. Thats the those are the provisions of the wydencoats 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 doesnt leave a lot of rancor and a lot of frustration on our side that we havent had an opportunity to have a voice in the matter. So once again, im 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 . Thats 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 . Thats 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, thats 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, thats 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 its 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 wouldnt be possible in the few months that remain in this session to enact comprehensive reform, and the senate shouldnt 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 startups 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 innovationdriven 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 startups, 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 longterm unemployed. We all understand that the nature of those who are unemployed has changed significantly in recent years. We have many more who are longterm 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 longterm 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, im 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 its 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 wouldnt 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 well sit by and watch those americans get hurt and in effect have a lot of americans say if they cant 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 didnt 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 . Id 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, its been a delight to work with the senator from oregon, my colleague. Tax reform is not easy. Hasnt happened in 25 years. Comprehensive tax reform thats not what were talking about today. But were 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 dont 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 im 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 im prohibited, unless the majority leader comes forward and allows us to offer amendments, im prohibit from offering that specific provision. We all know that theres many good things in here that we support. Theres some that we, you know, maybe maybe yes, maybe no. And there are some bad things we dont want to support. But all were 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 weve 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 arent going to lose these arent going to get these higher taxes imposed on them tomorrow, if quey dont paswedont pass this. These expire at the understand of the year. The house is on a different path in terms of dealing with these. Were going to have to reconcile the differences. So the real issues doesnt take effect i mean, the concern doesnt 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 ive 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 weve 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 arent 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 doesnt 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 youre home for this recess and youre walking down main street and youre talking to people who are going to pay those higher taxes and arent able to make those investments and hire those workers and make those decisions now, theyre not going to be happy that the senate said, oh, well see if maybe itll work out some other time or retroactive or Something Like that. Theyre making quarterly payments. Theyre 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 didnt get a chance to hear all of my friends 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, were 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 cant 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 couldnt 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 dont buy that. And in a fragile economy, when businesses cant plan, they dont have the certainty of knowing what the rules are going to be and when theyre 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. Thats 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 im 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 senators statement and i appreciate where he is trying to come from. It is true that some of the amendments dont 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, were going to finish this bill by the end of the next week, before the recess period. So were not talking about a do it today or ifort its 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 were asking for really is the opportunity to make some improvements to this. There are some who say, i cant 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, ill 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 thats this egregious this doesnt fit the model of what were looking for in terms of growth and innovation and sensible tax policy. And lets put that to a vote. Well still end up with a bill in the end that will either have it in or out. But well have had the opportunity to debate it with our colleagues, not just simply carte blanche, heres what we decided in committee and were 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 dont understand why it is in there. Lets debate it, why did it get in there . If they can make the case, theyll win the vote. Isnt that what were 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 dont. If we dont and enough people think were 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 . Theyre 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. Theyll send us back or theyll 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, youre in the minority, you didnt 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, im shutting all that off, says the majority leader. You have no rights. You cant offer any amendments. Any improvements to this bill. Were taught from the beginning, in terms of how laws are made, that its 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 doesnt mean were 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 were going 0 have the opportunit weregoing to haveo do anything, to say anything. Listed three things that i think directly relate to taxes. If the parliamentarian determined that those werent relevant to the particular bill, ill accept that. I think they are relevant. My colleagues would accept that. Were tailoring things that we think here go directly to what the issue of the day is. But yet were not offered the opportunity to do anything about it. I cannot understand why my democrat colleagues cant 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 ive 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 im willing to accept how the vote turns out. Im not necessarily trying to stop the bill from going forward. Im trying to make it bemplet i think if the im trying to make it better. I think if the shoe was on the other foot, my colleagues would say, thats not the way the senate is supposed to work. Thats not why i came here. I came here to be a participant. I didnt come here to be told by the majority leader that i have no right to offer an amendment, a relevant amendment to legislation thats before us. Its 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 doesnt 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. Were taking that right away from you. Deliberative means we stand here and talk to each other like we just did. Its 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. Its 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. Im not sure where well 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 didnt pass but i gave it everything i had. And i dont want to go home and say, i didnt 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 peoples 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 agreedupon 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 were 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. Wed 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
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.