Senate Agenda
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York and my colleague from Missouri who was here a moment ago and all those who came to the floor to talk. I assume my colleagues are aware of the fact that all across America there have been cable TV subscribers who have been calling in and asking for a refund because when they turned on C-SPAN to see the Senate they saw an empty Chamber and nothing going on, and at least now we give them a little activity on the Senate floor. But, unfortunately, that activity is not going to lead to anything meaningful. The Senator from New York even offers a legislative idea that doesn't seem to be greeted by any applause on the other side or any counteroffer of any conciliatory magnitude.
I was at the meeting the Senator talked about yesterday, and it was a historic meeting with the President and Senator Kyl, Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, myself, the President, the leaders of the House, as well and some members of the President's Cabinet--Secretary Geithner, for example. Vice President Biden was there.
I would say the reports generally have been accurate, that the President said: I want to change the environment, I want to change the dialog, I want there to be more meetings like this, open to suggestions from the other side about how we can work together and solve the problems facing our Nation.
Then the President did something which those of us who have been fortunate to visit the White House once in a while really considered to be rare. He stood up and said: I would like to ask the elected Members and the Vice President to come with me to my private dining room off the Oval Office.
We went in and had another cup of coffee and in a much more isolated and private setting had an even more candid conversation. I really felt good at the end of it. I felt we were starting at least to develop the kind of dialog the American people asked for in the November 2 election.
The President asked us, Senator Reid and some others: Pick someone and let's sit down and talk about this tax situation. Let's try to find some common ground if we can, and I understand the group met this morning and again this afternoon. It is all, from my point of view, a very positive development and good for our Nation.
But what troubles me, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, is this letter. I see the letter is dated November 29, so it started circulating even before this peacemaking meeting we had. It seems that this letter which was sent to Senator Reid is basically an ultimatum. The ultimatum is, we are not going to do anything on the floor of the Senate until we act on the tax measure and funding our government--nothing. It says basically that your side, the Republican side, the 42 Senators who signed it, are going to object to moving to any other item of business--anything.
Now we are back into the cable TV problem, where people are going to see this empty Chamber and wonder why, with all the things we could be doing in the Senate, why we can do nothing--nothing whatsoever, according to this letter--until we reach an agreement on the tax issue.
I think we all concede the fact that we need to do it. We all concede the fact we need to fund the government. But what is the point? Really, if we are going to draw a paycheck for coming into the Senate, shouldn't we at least do the people's business? Do we have to sit here with empty desks and an empty Chamber and quorum calls day after day because of this threat that says: Don't try to bring up another issue?
It strikes me as odd. I know the Senator from Tennessee is an industrious man. He served as Secretary of Education. He was a Governor. He plays the piano. The man sings songs. He has more talents than most people I ever met. To think you would want us to just do nothing--nothing on the floor of the Senate.
The Senator from New York has offered an idea--I think a reasonable idea. Let's agree. Let's agree that people making $1 million or less will have the same tax cuts that they had before, no questions asked, to invigorate the economy. But let's say to Paris Hilton and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, no; you are not going to get a $100,000 tax cut each year. If you make $1 million, that is the average. We don't think that really invigorates the economy.
I would add as a postscript to what the Senator from New York raised, wouldn't it be reasonable for us also to say if we are going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, and add to our deficit in the process, shouldn't we help those who are unemployed in Tennessee--I see the two Senators from Tennessee--or Wyoming--I see the Senator from Wyoming is here--or Minnesota or Illinois? Do you think it is right for us to cut off unemployment benefits for people in the midst of this holiday season?
There are 127,000 people in the State of Illinois who will lose their unemployment benefits this month. Merry Christmas.
I know what those people receive. It is about $300 a week. I don't know any of us who could survive on that. They try, they try to keep going. Yet we cut them off. There have been efforts on the Senate floor, unanimous consent requests to fund the unemployment benefits for another year, objected to by the Republican side of the aisle.
I find it hard to follow the logic on the Republican side that we cannot afford to help those who are out of work through no fault of their own but we can afford to give a tax break, a huge tax break to Warren Buffett--who is not asking for it, incidentally--Bill Gates, Paris Hilton, or any of these others. I don't follow the logic.
I think, although the Senator is fervent in his belief that tax cuts are the key to prosperity--some of us may question how much they are the key--it really is
fundamentally unfair that those who are unemployed would face this kind of problem.
I am going to make a unanimous consent request on another issue that I think will help create jobs. It will save jobs in Tennessee and Wyoming and Illinois and Minnesota, and it relates to something that is not new because it is already on the calendar. For those who want to follow this and say where is this coming from, turn to page 73, the Calendar of Business of the Senate, and go to order No. 578, S. 3816, a bill I introduced with others to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, create American jobs, and prevent offshoring of such jobs overseas.
It was actually read the second time and placed on the calendar September 22 of this year. It relates to something which has affected the Senator's State and mine. When a company in Tennessee decides to send jobs overseas, to close down a local production facility, and to ship those jobs and that production facility to another country--China, Mexico, wherever it happens to be--we reward them. We give them tax benefits and tax deductions to help facilitate that decision.
Many of us believe that is upside-down. If a company thinks it is in its best interest, profit motive and best interest to locate overseas, so be it. Let them make that decision. But we should not encourage it. We should not subsidize it. We should not reward it. The reward should actually go to the many businesses that stay in Minnesota and Illinois and Tennessee and Wyoming, hiring American workers, paying them a decent wage and giving them basic benefits and retirement. That is where the reward ought to be in the Tax Code. It should not be in the area where we are creating tax incentives for companies to move jobs overseas.
If the economy, prosperity, and jobs are really the No. 1 goal here--I think they are, and I think they should be--then let's change this provision in the Tax Code. That is what this does. It tries to slow down the exodus of jobs from the United States. It will save jobs in Tennessee and save jobs in other places as well. This provision called ``Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act'' that I introduced with Senators Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, and Senator Schumer is a simple bill with three commonsense provisions.
Let me describe it before I make the unanimous consent request. I will be brief.
First, we make two changes that discourage U.S. companies from giving out pink slips to Americans while they open their doors abroad. We will say to firms: If you want to shut down operations here and move them somewhere else, we are not going to let you take tax deductions on the shutdown expenses.
We also say to firms: If you want to sell your products in this country, we are not going to let you start making those goods abroad, ship them back to this country, and avoid paying taxes on your profits.
Second, we make it more attractive for companies to bring the production of goods back home. We say to firms: If you bring jobs home from another country, you don't have to pay your share of payroll taxes on those U.S. workers for 3 years, repatriating jobs from overseas back into the United States. It is not radical, it is basic.
There are a lot of folks who defend this loophole I am trying to close: the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers. They oppose this. Republican leaders have spoken out in the past against it, but I think these two brilliant leaders from Tennessee on the floor of the Senate are not going to join that group. They are going to stand by their workers and companies from Tennessee. I am sure of that when I make this unanimous consent request.
So I hope they will join me in this effort. With this measure we can literally bring to the floor of the Senate a measure which will help save American jobs and create American jobs. We can debate it and get it over for a final vote in a matter of hours, and we can still have negotiations going on about taxes. We can walk and chew gum in the Senate. We can do more than one thing at a time. We should not be victims of an ultimatum that says: You will either do the tax cuts and funding the government or else.
So I am going to make this unanimous consent request that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of Calendar No. 578, S. 3816, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wanted to give my friend from Tennessee time to make his objection in its entirety. I thank him for that. I am glad he clarified the fact that we could bring the START treaty to the floor. I sincerely hope we do. I think it would be a serious mistake for us to leave Washington for the holiday season without voting on that treaty on the floor.
This is a treaty which the President has worked on and which is supported by previous administrations, Democratic and Republican. It is an effort to reach an agreement with the Russians. It should be based on a premise that most Republicans applaud because it goes back to an earlier statement by President Reagan that we should ``trust but verify.'' The fact is, for over 1 calendar year, we have not had any inspectors on the ground in Russia to verify the safety and treaty compliance of their nuclear weaponry.
Senator Lugar, on that side of the aisle, a man whom I greatly respect, supports this treaty, and if there is one person in the Senate who is probably more expert than any other when it comes to this issue of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon control and modernization, it is Senator Lugar of Indiana. He supports this treaty and wants it to come forward. I hope Senators feel he is right. I think he is.
I hope we can do this. The notion that we do not have time--I said at an appearance a few days ago that we had time to create the Department of Homeland Security in a lameduck session because two extraordinary Senators--Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, then a Democrat of Connecticut--worked overtime to put together a bipartisan bill which we considered in a lameduck session and literally reorganized the intelligence structure of America. It was an amazing undertaking and one I believe has served us well. We did it in a lameduck session, and no one stood up and said: I object; do not go forward. I object; I need 2 weeks. People really worked together to get it done.
We can do it in that same spirit when it comes to the START treaty. Let's get that done. Let's get the tax provision done. Let's get funding the government done. And let's get the START treaty done before we go home. We can do this. We are capable of doing this. But an empty Chamber and empty desks and no Senators on the floor will not achieve that.
I am glad the Senator clarified that he is not stepping in the way of considering the START treaty with this ultimatum that was sent out from 42 Republican Senators. I wish we could do a few other things, too, such as extend unemployment benefits, but apparently there is an objection to that.
So I hope we can work forward from this point in a more positive way. I truly value my friendship and the fact that I can serve with these two fine Senators from Tennessee. Although I spent a lot of time extolling the virtue of the senior Senator from Tennessee, I guarantee you, next time, I will extoll the virtues of the junior Senator so that he has a positive feeling about our relationship.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source