{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6898", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "LEGISLATIVE SESSION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SLEGISLATIVE", "S6898", "S6903", "[{\"name\": \"Ron Wyden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maria Cantwell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark  Begich\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Leahy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jack Reed\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheldon Whitehouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert P. Casey Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Orrin G. Hatch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard Burr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Cornyn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"5771\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6898", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6898-S6903]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nLEGISLATIVE SESSION\n                                  ____\n\n                  TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2014\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       A bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of\n     1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical\n     corrections, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to\n     provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established\n     under State programs for the care of family members with\n     disabilities, and for other purposes.\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with this tax bill, the Congress is turning\nin its tax homework 11\\1/2\\ months late and expects to earn full\ncredit. Tax incentives will last just 2 weeks before families and\nbusinesses are thrown back into the dark with respect to the taxes they\nowe. The legislation accomplishes nothing for 2015.\n  The debate takes place against the backdrop of positive economic\nnews, showing that unemployment is down and wages are up--just the kind\nof news the Congress ought to build on by providing certainty and\npredictability for families and businesses. Instead, the Congress is\nabout to pass a tax bill that doesn't have the shelf life of a carton\nof eggs.\n  Of course, we have the power to enshrine tax provisions for any\nlength of time we choose. What the Congress can't do is travel back\nthrough time. The Congress can pass this $41 billion bill, but it\ncannot change anything taxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. Those\ndecisions have been made.\n  The only new effects of this legislation apply to the next 2 weeks.\nThat is not enough time for the key provisions; for example, putting a\ndent in veterans unemployment, to start a clean energy project, to hire\nnew workers or to help a student who is on the fence about whether to\nenroll in college next semester. Particularly important is this bill\ndrops the health coverage tax credit, yanking away an economic lifeline\nthat working-class Americans were counting on this April 15. This means\nthat for tens of thousands of our people in States such as Wisconsin,\nIllinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, who have been kicked down by a\nfiercely competitive economy, they are going to face a very unpleasant\nsurprise this spring.\n  I am just going to spend a minute talking about how the Senate got\nhere and where our tax policy should go in the future. The truth is the\nSenate didn't need to be in this spot. Within a few weeks after I\nbecame chairman of the Finance Committee, with the help and good\ncounsel of Senator Hatch and many members of the committee, we\nunanimously passed the EXPIRE Act, a balanced, bipartisan bill that\nwould provide 2 years of certainty and a springboard to comprehensive\nreform. When the bill came to the floor, a host of Senators said they\nwere eager to move it forward. Democrats and Republicans all wanted to\nmove ahead, but the toxic Senate environment and a battle over\namendments caused the EXPIRE Act to stall out.\n  This fall there were discussions with the House about a bipartisan,\nbicameral agreement. I was encouraged at the outset, especially when\nthe House indicated they would accept the Senate's bipartisan work. We\nalso talked about the possibility of making several provisions\npermanent. In my view, any agreement on permanent tax policy has to be\nbalanced--balanced between support for business and support for working\nfamilies. A deal that is skewed in just one direction fails the test of\nfairness. The Democrats on the Finance Committee felt the same way. The\nnegotiations progressed, more offers were traded, and there was real\nhope. However, after weeks of hard work, there was a conflicting\nprocess and that drove House Republicans to quit the negotiations.\nSenate negotiators, in effect, were left without a dance partner. Our\nteam kept making new offers. We tried to suggest proposals that had\ndrawn support from Republicans and Democrats in the past, but the House\nsettled on passing this 2-week extender bill that is now before us this\nevening.\n  However Senators choose to vote on this legislation, I want to\nrecognize that this bill proves, once and for all, how broken America's\ntax system is. The Congress is about to spend $41 billion on a tax\nincentive package that when done right ought to lift the cloud of\nuncertainty and strengthen the important parts of our American economy.\nInstead, all of the $41 billion in this legislation is going to go for\nthings that happened months and months ago. Virtually all of the $41\nbillion has absolutely no incentive power whatsoever. Reforming the Tax\nCode is going to be hard, but it can be done. I sat next to our former\ncolleague Senator Gregg every week for 2 years to produce the first\nbipartisan Federal income tax reform bill. I am very grateful to our\ncurrent colleague Senator Coats, who picked up on those efforts.\nSenator Hatch--and I commend him for it--put out an analysis for tax\nreform issues, recognizing that getting more perspectives in the debate\nis going to help advance reform.\n  I know Senator Hatch is going to keep working diligently when he\ntakes the gavel--and I congratulate him for that--in January, and I\nlook forward to working with him.\n  Before we wrap up for the year, I also want to congratulate Senator\nCasey and Senator Burr, who worked tirelessly in a bipartisan way on\nbehalf of the disabled. I met with these disabled folks in our\ncommunity, and I commend Senator Casey and Senator Burr for their work.\n  Here is the bottom line for the future: The middle class deserves a\ntax cut. The tax system in America needs to do more to promote\ninnovation and launch a new wave of job creation. Our country\ndesperately needs a simpler and more competitive corporate tax system\nthat draws investment and jobs to our country. We have to end the cycle\nof stop-and-go policy that leaves taxpayers in the dark time and time\nagain.\n  I want to yield our remaining time to my colleague Senator Cantwell,\nfrom Washington and close by saying, retroactive tax bills, such as the\none before the Senate tonight, may satisfy some, but they leave our\nworkers, our families, and businesses wanting. It is the time for real\ntax reform.\n  For the last word on our side, my colleague and seatmate, Senator\nCantwell.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership\non the Finance Committee and just point out to my colleagues who come\nfrom States that don't have an income tax that this legislation before\nus tonight includes making sure we are able to deduct our State sales\ntax from our Federal tax obligations. I hope we will be here someday\nwhen we can actually get tax fairness in the code. This is a permanent\nsolution. We don't have to go back every year to try to get the tax\nfairness our States deserve. My colleague Senator Murray is here and\nknows this issue well. But tonight at least we can say Washingtonians\ncan\n\n[[Page S6899]]\n\ntake the sales receipts they have this year and make sure they are\ndeducted from their tax obligations for 2014. But as the Presiding\nOfficer said, let's make sure we take these provisions that are so\nimportant for our economy to move forward and give the taxpayers\npredictability and certainty.\n  I would say that is making the sales tax deduction permanent, but I\nam glad Washingtonians will at least have this opportunity this year\nand we will move forward to have a more robust debate.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time does our side have left?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\\1/2\\ minutes.\n  Mr. WYDEN. I want to yield 3 minutes to Senator Begich and 3 minutes\nto Senator Casey.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.\n  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to say I\nappreciate the Senator's comments, and what I thought was most\nimportant about it was the fact that these tax benefits come after the\nfact. It is not going to create new opportunities. The tax reform\nlegislation the Senator has been working on with Senator Gregg, Senator\nCoats, and myself is about real reform. It is about setting economic\nopportunities and creating growth. It is not about looking back. It is\nabout looking forward. I have the same feelings the Senator has on this\nbill; that doing the short term, really 2 weeks, and then putting\nuncertainty back into the system again for another year would be a\nmistake. From my perspective, it is a $40 billion bill that is not paid\nfor. Let's deal with it. Let's figure out real tax reform.\n  I will not be here in January. I wish all the Members will sit down,\nafter years of work that you have done, and focus on a longer term\nsituation that actually creates incentive for small business and not\nafter the fact. My wife is in a small business, and they don't spend\nthe last 2 weeks trying to figure out what their tax benefits will be\nto help do to investments. They have done it already. If we really want\nto do something for the economy and have real tax reform and real tax\nrelief, focus into the future and not the past.\n  I commend you for the work that has been done on this, but I agree\nthat there are a lot of problems with this and the way it is laid out\nfor 2 weeks which is problematic.\n  Mr. WYDEN. I want the body to know the Senator from Alaska has\nwritten some of the really thoughtful provisions with respect to\neducation tax credits, and I commend him for that.\n  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the Tax\nIncrease Prevention Act of 2014, a House-passed bill that extends a\nlimited and narrow set of expired tax credits and deductions, and\nincludes the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, ABLE Act.\nOnce again, Congress has waited until the eleventh hour to address tax\ncredits that expired nearly a year ago. Once again, this has resulted\nin needless confusion for families and businesses who have been unable\nto plan and unable to grow, given the uncertainty of the outcome of\nthese credits. I heard from Vermonters over the last year concerned\nabout the expiration of these credits--and the pending expiration of\ndozens of more tax credits that benefit hardworking, middle-class\nfamilies. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to provide\ncertainty within the Tax Code to ensure families in Vermont and across\nthe country have the predictability they need to make financial\ndecisions. While I support extending these tax credits, I cannot\nsupport an effort that once again simply kicks the can down the road\nand leaves for the next year the unfinished business of this Congress.\n  I am disappointed that, earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate\nsquandered an opportunity to consider a more comprehensive package that\nwould have benefited small businesses, researchers, the environment,\nand middle-class families. I have been deeply disappointed in the\nprocess, which has left us with a choice between bad: passing the House\nbill; and worse: not doing anything. This legislation revives more than\n55 expired tax deductions from 2013, and while I agree these are\nimportant provisions, I cannot support this bill on principle. We\ncannot continue to retroactively fix problems Congress carelessly and\nirresponsibly creates, without addressing the same tax provisions that\nwill expire in just a few short weeks from now, only to have the same\nfight next year. It is time we have a meaningful, full debate about tax\nreform, and how Congress can ensure that our Tax Code reflects the\nneeds of all Americans, not just those who are the wealthiest among us.\n  Included in this patch bill is the important ABLE Act, which allows\nthose with disabilities to plan for their futures by creating tax-free\nsavings accounts. I have strongly supported this legislation, and\ncontinue to do so. This legislation creates opportunities for\nindividuals with disabilities to save for college or retirement or\nother living expenses and opens doors for families across the country.\nThe House of Representatives held two votes last week related to taxes:\none on the extenders package, and one on the ABLE Act. If the Senate\nwere allowed to do so, I would cast my vote in strong support of the\nABLE Act.\n  I asked Vermonters to elect me as their representative in the Senate\nbecause I wanted carry their voices to the decision centers in\nWashington. I strongly believe in the best of what the Senate has been,\nshould be, and can once again become. There are many Vermonters, and\npeople across the country, who are counting on us to provide\ncomprehensive, long-term solutions to our country's problems. I hope\nthat in the new Congress we can work together instead of kicking the\ncan down the road, yet again. We were elected to find solutions, not\nexcuses.\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the House has sent us a $42 billion year-\nlong extension of several tax provisions known as tax extenders. This\nyear-long extension is unpaid for, and while I will support this\nmeasure because several provisions in this bill need to be extended--\nand soon--I must raise concerns about the approach here to once again\nstack the deck against middle-class families. They rightfully are\nconcerned that they have been left out--and continually so--in policies\nthat this body finds the will to pass.\n  Case in point is the effort I engaged in all year with my Republican\ncolleague, Senator Heller, to restore emergency unemployment insurance\nbenefits for 1.3 million Americans. Now this program is typically\nconsidered an emergency measure because it has been fundamental to\nsupporting our economic recovery, and as such the $24 billion cost to\nextend the program through 2014 would normally not be paid for. Well\nthis year that was not the case and several of my colleagues,\nparticularly House Republicans, insisted that this typical emergency\nmeasure be offset for it to get consideration.\n  So Senator Heller and I worked with several of our colleagues to\ncraft a paid-for measure that would extend the program for 5 months.\nThat paid-for bill passed the Senate, but the House has since refused\nto give it an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that it met the\ncondition of being paid-for and the Congressional Budget Office had\nestimated a full year extension of the program would create 200,000\njobs and boost economic growth by 0.2 percent of GDP. So it strikes me\nas incredibly one-sided and patently unfair that House Republicans\nwould send us a $42 billion unpaid-for retroactive year-long extension\nof tax provisions that would not generate the same kind of economic\nboost as UI, but they still would not consider helping the long-term\nunemployed as they search for work. Indeed, in the bipartisan Senate\nextenders bill, we included a provision that would encourage employers\nto hire the long-term unemployed--but even that modest change to the\nWork Opportunity Tax Credit was not included in the House bill.\n  This is part of a troubling pattern created by some of my colleagues\non the other side of the aisle and in the other body--if it helps a\nsmall set of businesses or special interests, well the deficit does not\nseem to matter to them. But if a proposal or initiative is aimed at\nhelping low and middle-income Americans get a foothold in the economy,\nthen the standard is much higher and constantly changing.\n  The 1-year tax extenders bill does have some good provisions, like\nthe extension of credits that help families afford college, make it\neasier for homeowners and lenders to keep families in\n\n[[Page S6900]]\n\ntheir homes, or promote the production of renewable energy like wind.\nBut the bill also has tax breaks for race horses, rum, NASCAR and is\nskewed towards corporations. All equaling a total of $42 billion in\nunpaid-for tax cuts.\n  Indeed, we also considered an appropriations bill, which included a\nsnuck-in provision that allows pension cuts on the backs of middle-\nincome employees and retirees in multiemployer pension plans. We should\nnot have considered such far-reaching pension reform without\nthoughtful, strenuous, and open debate. So the insertion of a pension\ndeal, negotiated behind closed doors, that hurts middle-income\nemployees and retirees at the waning hours of a lame duck Congress is\nuntenable and further cause for Americans to think that their\ngovernment does not have their back or care about their economic\nsecurity. They will see Congress giving tax deals for race horses and\nNASCAR, while their pensions are cut. That's not how this body should\ngovern.\n  Now as we enter a new Congress, we will have to confront the\nimpending sequester that we will face head on again in fiscal year\n2016, which will seriously frustrate our ability to provide for the\nnational defense and general welfare. Those sequestration cuts, brought\non by the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to reach a deficit\nreduction agreement that included raising revenue, total $109 billion\nper year and will impact non-defense and defense spending equally. So\nagain it is striking that many of my colleagues on the other side will\nhave no problem voting for $42 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts--or even\nas was reported last month, a $450 billion unpaid-for permanent\nextension of these tax breaks--but when it comes to helping American\nworkers or confronting and undoing the sequester cuts to our domestic\nprograms my colleagues on the other side apply a tougher standard that\nis tilted against everyday Americans.\n  I have made the tough choices in the 1990s to balance the budget and\nI have supported over $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction since 2010,\nover two-thirds of that coming from spending reductions. The deficit is\non its fastest decline since World War II and has been cut by more than\nhalf since 2009. But the economy has not been growing fast enough and\nmany Americans have seen stagnating wages and have the sense that the\neconomy is stacked against them. So I will work with my colleagues, as\nI have consistently tried to do, to urge them to join with Democrats to\nspur broad-based growth for every American and ensure the economy and\ngovernment works for them--not just for large corporations or special\ninterests.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate will likely pass\nlegislation to extend several dozen expired tax provisions. While I\nsupport a number of the individual provisions extended by this bill, I\nrise today to explain why I reluctantly plan to oppose it.\n  The so-called ``tax extenders'' package includes the 1-year extension\nof a hodgepodge of over 4 dozen tax provisions. This extension is not\nfor the year ahead of us, as one might reasonably expect, but rather\nfor the year that's mostly past us. In other words, we will be\nextending for 2014 tax programs that expired at the end of 2013. This\nmeans that, for the most part, the bill will offer credits and\ndeductions to reward things that have already happened while doing\nabsolutely nothing to help businesses and individuals plan for the\nfuture.\n  If tax policy is intended to influence behavior, the extenders bill\nis a double failure: it spends money rewarding things that have already\nhappened and offers no incentives for businesses and individuals for\nthe year ahead.\n  Let's take for example the production tax credit for wind energy, a\nprogram I strongly support that encourages the construction of wind\nfarms. The provision in the extenders bill offers this incentive for\nproperties for which construction has commenced by the end of 2014.\nThat's 3 weeks from now. Instead of giving energy companies time to\nplan and prepare wind projects, we are saying: if you happen to have\none ready to go, you have got until the end of the holiday season to\nbreak ground. The clock is ticking.\n  In contrast to Congress's temporary, year-to-year treatment of the\nwind tax credit and other incentives for renewable energy, Big Oil and\nGas enjoy permanent subsidies in the Tax Code. It is long past time to\nreform the Tax Code so it reflects America's 21st century energy\npriorities. Permanent incentives for oil and gas and temporary programs\nfor renewable energy is simply upside-down public policy.\n  In total, there are 50 or so extensions in this bill, and the only\nthing they seem to have in common is that Congress repeatedly packages\nthem together. It is truly a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly.\nLet's start with some of the good provisions. In addition to clean\nenergy incentives, the bill extends a popular tax credit that\nencourages businesses to hire veterans, a host of incentives for energy\nefficiency, and a provision that ensures that families that lose their\nhomes in foreclosure do not incur tax bills for the deficiencies. These\nprovisions have strong bipartisan support.\n  Then there is the bad: the unjustifiable tax giveaways. These include\nso-called ``bonus depreciation,'' a program that allows corporations to\ndeduct the costs of equipment right away instead of spreading out the\ndeductions over the life of the equipment. Congress first included this\nprovision in 2009 in the Recovery Act when it made some sense. The idea\nwas to encourage businesses to accelerate their purchases when the\neconomy most needed the investments. We have extended it so many times,\nthough, that now we are just giving money away to corporations for\nbuying things they would have bought anyway. That is a nice subsidy for\nthe businesses, but not a wise use of taxpayer dollars.\n  The bill also includes tax giveaways for NASCAR tracks and\nracehorses. While I know these sports are popular, it is hard to\njustify subsidizing them with taxpayer dollars at a time when we are\nrunning large deficits and face the prospect of more budget\nsequestration.\n  And then there is the ugly, the stuff that does actual harm. There is\na pair of provisions in the bill--the ``active financing'' and\n``controlled foreign corporation look through'' provisions--that reward\nU.S. corporations for shifting money overseas to avoid paying taxes.\nSadly, there are already a number of provisions in the Tax Code that\nencourage companies to move operations and assets overseas. We should\nrepeal those provisions, not enhance them as the extenders bill does.\n  This 1-year, retroactive mixed bag of extensions will increase the\nbudget deficit by over $41 billion. To put that figure into\nperspective, that is more than the annual budget for the entire\nDepartment of Homeland Security.\n  Earlier this year, my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed,\nlead an effort to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of\nAmericans who have struggled to find work in this uneven economic\nrecovery. Republicans repeatedly filibustered his unemployment\ninsurance legislation, with many citing the $17 billion price tag and\nthe offsets included to pay for it.\n  I expect many of these same Republicans will vote to pass the $41\nbillion tax extenders bill, legislation which is not offset and will\nadd to the deficit. If Republicans are truly as worried about the\ndeficit as many of them claim to be, they need to raise these concerns\nconsistently and not forget them when it is convenient. Spending\nthrough the Tax Code is still spending, and we should offset it.\n  Mr. President, next year this body will have new leadership and a\nfresh opportunity to tackle our Nation's problems. I hope Senate\nRepublicans will show us they can exercise the power of being in the\nmajority responsibly. President Obama says he is eager to work with the\nRepublican majority on several major bills including tax reform. I too\nam eager to work with Republicans on sensible, responsible tax reform--\nreform that ends the era of year-to-year extensions, eliminates\nwasteful tax spending, and decreases the deficit.\n  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the rest of our time to Senator Casey.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to rise tonight. I\nwill have a longer statement later to talk about the ABLE Act that\nSenator Burr and I worked on coming through the Finance Committee and\ntalking with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch. I want to thank\nthe\n\n[[Page S6901]]\n\ntwo leaders--Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell--for\nnot having just a bipartisan effort in the Senate but really a\nbicameral support for this legislation--over 400 Members of Congress\nsupporting the ABLE Act, simple. For years we have created incentives\nin the Tax Code to save for higher education, the cost of college, to\nsave for retirement. Now at long last for Americans who have a\ndisability, those families will be able to save for a disability,\nwhether it is to pay for health care or education, the basic expenses\nthat these individuals with disabilities have wanted to save for, for\nmany years.\n  I am honored to be part of it. I will have a longer statement later.\nThis is a great testament to bipartisanship, coming together on such an\nimportant issue. We believe--this is what undergirds the ABLE Act--\npeople with a disability have the ability to live a full life if we\ngive them the tools. One of those tools is an incentive in the Tax Code\nto save for the future for an individual with a disability.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?\n  The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North\nCarolina.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.\n  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the\nFinance Committee and the current chairman of the Finance Committee for\nthe their help. I want to turn to my good friend Bob Casey about this\nin just a second.\n  This has taken 8 years to bring to this point. The amazing thing is\nthat we have taken the opportunity to meet with every group on every\nside of this issue and to find agreement finally, and to go out and\ntell the American people what we are doing, and they look at us and say\nthis makes commonsense; what took so damned long. I am embarrassed it\ntook so long, but this is a product that Congress, the Senate, can be\nproud of.\n  Senator Casey just covered a lot of the specifics of the legislation.\nI will not go over those again.\n  I want to say to my colleagues: One of the clues that something was\nwrong was the fact that we penalized individuals who had disabilities\nfrom holding assets. It meant they couldn't buy a car and have it be in\ntheir name. It meant they could only earn so much before they were\npenalized. What we have done is changed the landscape, and we have\nactually put into effect something that allows them to accumulate\nsomething for the later years when parents are gone and when they are\ngoing to need the funds. We have tried to be fiscally responsible in\ncapping the annual amounts, capping total amounts, affecting benefits\nif they exceed those amounts, and automatically reinstate them if they\nfall back below.\n  I think this is a bill that the Senate and the House of\nRepresentatives can be proud of. I thank the chairs, and I thank\nSenator Casey. I also want to take the opportunity on behalf of our\ncolleagues in the House to say to Congressmen Crenshaw, Sessions and\nCongresswoman McMorris Rodgers that we couldn't have done it without\ntheir leadership and an overwhelming vote in the House of\nRepresentatives. I urge my colleagues to not only vote yes but to be\nproud of this legislation.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to personally thank the\ndistinguished Senators from North Carolina and Pennsylvania for their\nwork on the act. It is a very important bill. I want to give them\ncredit for doing such a good job. The Senate will soon vote on a 1-year\ntax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax\nprovisions that expire at the end of 2014. It is quite literally the\nbest we can do. At this point it is something we must do. We are\nactually disappointed that 1-year package that was sent over to the\nHouse was basically rejected by the President. We would have preferred\nto have had that package. On the other hand, this is reckoning time at\nthe end of the year. I might add in his epic speech, Prime Minister\nWinston Churchill stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so\nmuch been owed by so many to so few.''\n  In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in\nthe history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and\nbeen so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years,\nwe will ensure that the new Congress will start with all of the regular\nso-called tax extenders already expired at the end of the first\nsession, as the distinguished Senator from Oregon has explained. That\nis a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable in our view.\n  The problem of course is the President and some of his allies in the\nSenate pulled the plug on a bipartisan negotiation that would have\nproduced a more satisfying result. As we all know, the Speaker of the\nHouse and the Senate majority leader were, just a few weeks ago, on the\nverge of reaching a deal that both sides could reasonably support.\nPresident Obama caught wind of the emerging deal which had yet to be\nfinalized and promptly issued a veto threat. That threat was then\nratified by many in this Chamber, including some at the negotiating\ntable. For those who wish we were voting on a better extenders package,\nthey should know who to blame--President Obama and his supporters in\nthe Senate. At this late hour, passing a 1-year extension is the only\noption left for us.\n  I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do\nthe same. I should also note this bill includes, as we have said, the\nABLE Act--a great piece of legislation that our colleagues, Senators\nCasey and Burr, have worked on for years right up to this point. I want\nto applaud them for their work on behalf of families affected by\ndisabilities. I take a great interest in that myself, so I am very\npleased to see these two leaders getting this bill finally through.\n  I am pleased we are coming to the end of this session; hopefully in\nthe next year, we can all work together to do an even better job than\nwe have done this year.\n  How much time do we have remaining?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes remaining.\n  Mr. HATCH. How much time does the other side have?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes remaining.\n  Mr. HATCH. The Senate will soon vote on a one-year tax extenders\npackage that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that\nexpired at the end of 2013. It is, quite literally, the least we can\ndo, and at this point, it is something we must do.\n  The remarkable thing about this tax extenders bill is that no one\nseems to be happy with it. I don't know a single Member of Congress\nthat is pleased that we're going to pass a simple, one-year extension\nof expiring provisions. But, sadly, that's where we are. Of course, it\ndidn't have to be this way.\n  There was a time in the not-too-distant past when we were working on\na package that would not only extend most of the expired provisions for\na longer period time, but also make a number of important provisions\npermanent, thus eliminating much of the year-to-year roller coaster\nthat individuals, families, and businesses have to go through when\nplanning for their taxes.\n  There was bipartisan agreement on such an approach. And, in fact, at\none point it appeared that a deal--a bipartisan, bicameral deal--was on\nthe immediate horizon. But, as we all know now, that deal came crashing\ndown after the President and some of his more liberal allies here in\nthe Senate decided they were unwilling to compromise.\n  I came to the floor to talk about this debacle a couple weeks back,\nbut some of the points bear repeating.\n  Just before Thanksgiving, the Senate majority leader and the Speaker\nof the House were very close to reaching a deal on the tax extenders,\none that would have included all of the provisions of the Senate\nFinance Committee's extenders package--the EXPIRE Act--while also\nmaking a number of tax extenders permanent.\n  The emerging deal was a reasonable compromise. It would have been\nsomething both Republicans and Democrats could support, and I have\nlittle doubt that it would have passed easily through both Chambers.\n  It wasn't perfect. There were certainly parts of it that I,\npersonally, could have lived without and provisions that most\nRepublicans that I know didn't really support. But, as a\n\n[[Page S6902]]\n\ncompromise between two negotiating positions, it was a very good deal,\nand, as I said, I believe it would have passed easily through both the\nHouse and Senate.\n  Unfortunately, the deal was not good enough for President Obama, who\nwas apparently less willing than the Senate majority leader to\ncompromise on the extenders package. Before the negotiations were even\ncompleted and a deal was even reached, the President issued a veto\nthreat. That's right, the President issued a veto threat on a deal\nstill under negotiation. That's how eager he was to put the kibosh on a\ncompromise.\n  That was unfortunate. What was even more unfortunate, however, was\nthat parties to the negotiations decided to ratify this threat and pull\nthe plug on the deal being negotiated by the leaders of the two\nChambers. The President's excuse for issuing his veto threat on the\nemerging deal was that it did too much to help the business community\nand not enough to help individuals and families.\n  For those of us who have been working on tax issues and have been\nasking the President to engage on these matters, this statement from\nthe White House was more than just a little bit strange. After all,\nwhile Republicans have for years been strongly advocating for\ncomprehensive tax reform, encompassing both the individual and business\ntax systems, the President has only expressed a willingness to engage\nin tax reform on the business side. Indeed, he has more or less refused\nto even talk about tax reform for individuals and families, unless, of\ncourse, such reform amounted to a massive tax increase.\n  In other words, he threatened to veto a tax extenders package that,\nin his eyes, only helped businesses and not individuals, while at the\nsame time, maintaining a vision for tax reform that did just what he\nsaid he opposed--helping businesses and not individuals.\n  The mental gymnastics at play here are dizzying, and you would be\nforgiven for being confused by the White House's attempt to be on both\nsides of this issue.\n  I am definitely confused by the President's statements. I am even\nmore confused as to why some of my colleagues here in the Senate opted\nto go along with it.\n  It is no secret that things are going to change around here in the\nnext Congress. I can't imagine that any of my colleagues really think\nthey are going to get a better deal on the tax extenders than the one\nthat was being negotiated by the current Senate majority leader. But,\nas is too often the case around here, simple and obvious logic can\neasily be cast aside when there is a political point to be made. That's\nwhat I think is going on here. Pure politics. Sadly, as is also too\noften the case around here, the American people are the ones who are\ngoing to suffer.\n  Rather than a longer tax extenders deal with some permanency in some\nkey provisions, the American people will be left with a 1-year,\nretroactive extension. Rather than being able to plan for the future,\nindividuals, families, and businesses will instead have to wait around\nand hope that Congress can do better the next time around.\n  Don't get me wrong, I plan to support the 1-year extension, as I have\nsaid before, but, we could have done better. And, it's unfortunate\nthat, once again, politics and an unwillingness to compromise stopped a\ngood deal--one that would have satisfied the majority of both parties--\nfrom being made.\n  In his epic speech on the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston\nChurchill stated: ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much\nbeen owed by so many to so few.''\n  In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in\nthe history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and\nbeen so disappointed.\n  In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, a new Congress will\nstart with all the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at\nthe beginning of the first session. That is a dubious distinction that\nwas entirely avoidable.\n  I have been pretty hard on the President for his actions on this\nmatter. But, it is not just him. There are many in this Chamber who\nsupported and went right along with him, and, as a result, the package\nwe will be voting on is not nearly as good as it could have been. But,\nin the end, we don't have much choice on this matter. Passing the 1-\nyear extension is the only option left to us at this late hour. So, I\nplan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the\nsame.\n  Finally, I just want to say I am very pleased that an extremely\nimportant bill will accompany the extenders package. I'm talking about\nthe Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, or the ABLE Act.\n  The ABLE Act makes permanent changes to the tax code that will\nprovide critical assistance to families saving private funds for the\nsupport of individuals with disabilities. These funds may be used to\nmaintain health, independence, quality of life, and pay for all manner\nof disability-related expenses. The funds may be used throughout the\ndisabled person's life, an important feature for parents that worry\nabout providing for children with lifelong challenges. The funds will\nsupplement, but not supplant, benefits provided through private\ninsurance, Medicaid, Social Security, and employment.\n  I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Casey\nand Senator Burr, who for several years have done the heavy lifting\nnecessary to make this law a reality. For decades to come disabled\nAmericans will owe these two Senators and their fine staffs an enormous\ndebt of gratitude.\n  I yield the floor without losing any time.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, what is especially\ntroubling to me is that we are talking about $418 billion, in effect,\nthat is supposed to provide incentives. But it cannot change anything\ntaxpayers did 6, 8 or 10 months ago. The decisions have been made. This\nis a 2-week bill.\n  I would just say, from my own standpoint, having worked with our\ncolleague Senator Coats to present a bipartisan alternative, that the\nlesson out of this debate is that this cannot happen again. Senator\nHatch and I put together a bipartisan bill, the EXPIRE Act. We thought\nthat was the way to go. I continue to believe that had we had the\nopportunity, without an alternative process coming out in the home\nstretch, we could have built on that. That is not going to be possible\ntonight.\n  I hope that Senators will say, however they vote tonight, that the\nreal lesson out of this is when you have an opportunity to provide\ncertainty and predictability for the American economy, take it. Do not\nwalk away from it. Unfortunately, because this bill is only 2 weeks\nlong, that is what we are doing. We are walking away from the chance to\nprovide some certainty and predictability.\n  Instead, our citizens are going to be in the dark come January 1 with\nrespect to taxes. Let's make sure that next time on a bipartisan basis\nwe do better.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will\nyield back ours.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield back the time on our side.\n  Mr. HATCH. I yield back our time.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.\n  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the\nquestion is, Shall the bill pass?\n  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)\nand the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.\n  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.\nCochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from\nIllinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator\nfrom Alabama (Mr. Sessions).\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber\ndesiring to vote?\n  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 16, as follows:\n\n[[Page S6903]]\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--76\n\n     Alexander\n     Ayotte\n     Baldwin\n     Barrasso\n     Begich\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt\n     Booker\n     Boozman\n     Burr\n     Cantwell\n     Cardin\n     Carper\n     Casey\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Corker\n     Cornyn\n     Cruz\n     Donnelly\n     Durbin\n     Enzi\n     Feinstein\n     Fischer\n     Franken\n     Gillibrand\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagan\n     Harkin\n     Hatch\n     Heinrich\n     Heitkamp\n     Heller\n     Hirono\n     Hoeven\n     Inhofe\n     Isakson\n     Johnson (SD)\n     Johnson (WI)\n     Kaine\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Landrieu\n     Levin\n     Markey\n     McCain\n     McCaskill\n     McConnell\n     Menendez\n     Mikulski\n     Moran\n     Murkowski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Nelson\n     Paul\n     Pryor\n     Reed\n     Reid\n     Roberts\n     Rockefeller\n     Rubio\n     Schatz\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Shelby\n     Stabenow\n     Tester\n     Thune\n     Udall (CO)\n     Udall (NM)\n     Vitter\n     Walsh\n     Warner\n     Wicker\n\n                                NAYS--16\n\n     Bennet\n     Brown\n     Coats\n     Coburn\n     Crapo\n     Flake\n     Leahy\n     Manchin\n     Merkley\n     Portman\n     Risch\n     Scott\n     Toomey\n     Warren\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                             NOT VOTING--8\n\n     Boxer\n     Chambliss\n     Cochran\n     Johanns\n     Kirk\n     Lee\n     Sanders\n     Sessions\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved,\nthe bill (H.R. 5771) is passed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6898"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 8.828930091112852, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}