Expire Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. First, let me compliment our new chairman of the Finance Committee. He is doing a great job on this bill. He is keeping the tenor bipartisan as he has done throughout his whole career. He has only been there a short while, but he is taking to the chairmanship like a fish to water.

I wish to follow up. There is so much that is bipartisan in this bill. It was a bipartisan bill that passed out of committee unanimously. I worked on an amendment with Senator Roberts that Senator Coons had originated for the R&D credit with Senators Cardin, Isakson, and Blunt to improve the section 181 live production incentive so we keep the film industry here, not London or Canada; Senators Portman and Cardin worked on energy efficiency; Senators Brown and Portman on disadvantaged workers; and Cantwell and Roberts on low-income housing tax credit. The list goes on and on. As a result, this bill has broad support: the Business Roundtable, Grover Norquist, as well as the NEA and Feeding America.

So where are we. And I would like to further elaborate on what the chairman has said. We are willing to vote on amendments.

I always think of my dear friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who remembers how the place used to work and constantly reminds us--and that is a very good and salutary thing in this body. He would say on most bills there would be bipartisan support in the committee. The ranking member and the chair would get together with a list of amendments, each for his or her side, and they would come up with the list.

We are willing to do that. In fact, Leader Reid has been extremely generous. He said we are not going to decide it should be this one and not that one, as long as the amendments are germane to this extenders bill. Of course we can't open the whole Tax Code for debate or debate the merits of the ACA on this bill. This is not the type of bill to do that.

It is a bipartisan bill, as Chairman Wyden outlined, that is very necessary. So we would plead, almost, with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for the sake of the country, come up with some amendments, a list. If it is 100, obviously Senators Wyden and Hatch will have to whittle it down. If it is five or six from your side and five or six from our side and they are germane to extenders, we will have to vote them up or down.

But the cry from the other side--which I have sympathy with, even though I don't agree that they tell the whole story--is let us do amendments. We are answering that plea. Leader Reid has made it clear, Chairman Wyden has made it clear we are not going to pick and say we will do this one and not that one.

The only two limits that I can tell are time--we can't do 100 or 200 of these, but as the Senator from Tennessee constantly reminds us, that is not going to happen--nor can we go far afield way beyond the bounds of this bill. Germaneness makes sense in such a bipartisan and important bill, but other than that, let's let it rip.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are discussing this. I know they are very serious about it. I have talked to colleagues on the floor, in the gym, and in the corridors of these bodies about getting this done.

It is so important for the country. Even beyond that, if we can't work in a bipartisan way on this bill, which was put together by Senators Wyden and Hatch in such a bipartisan way, which has so much input from both sides of the aisle and where the offer is let's do amendments, not picking and choosing--we will pick this one, not that one--simply limited to what the bill is all about, germaneness, then we will not get anything done.

I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--on my side of the aisle, so many Members--and I sympathize with them--who desire to legislate and do amendments, we have made that offer. Harry, the leader, the chairman, and I am fully part of this, have made the offer to let's do amendments.

We hope the folks on the other side--it is sort of a little bit of a test. I am not throwing down any kind of gauntlet, but if we can't come up with a way to legislate on this bill, a bipartisan bill that has the support of the left, right, and center, that everyone agrees with, as Senator Wyden outlined how much America needs them, what are we going to be able to be legislate?

We have a little time. We have 1 week where we can discuss this while we are in our districts working away. Let's get this done. I plead with my colleagues--``plead'' is the right word, the right verb--come up with a list. We will come up with our list, and then let's roll up our sleeves, get to work on the floor, and pass this bill.

I believe if we do, the other body will. The other body--one other point--has different ideas. They want to make a few of these permanent. That is a legitimate amendment in the bounds that Leader Reid has talked about. Let's vote on it. Let's debate it and vote on it. That is what we are supposed to do. If the other body's wisdom prevails, it will make it easier to pass the bill. Even if the other body's wisdom doesn't prevail, they will see that our body has a chance to debate it and decide on it.

Again, we are willing not to pick amendments--I know there is a complaint on the other side of the aisle that our leadership picks which amendments. We are not doing that. All we are saying is they ought to be germane to tax extenders, focused on the issue at hand, which is the extenders. This is not a bill that came out of a figment of the imagination of four Democratic Senators with no Republican input.

If we can't legislate on this bill, then what bill can we? I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ask them to get us the list they come up with of amendments they wish to vote on.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source