Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I want to congratulate Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their leadership in putting together what is such an important bill for 280,000 jobs that are saved or created as a result of this bill, and focusing on our ability to out-innovate and out-build in a global economy. We can't do that without a 21st century FAA system--airports, air traffic control, and so on. So I join with Senator Hutchison in hoping that--and I am sure it will be true--at the end of the day we will have a strong bipartisan vote, because they are moving forward in the spirit in which we have all come together in saying we want to move forward; that is, working hard and focusing on jobs. That is what the American people want us to do, focus on jobs, and find common ground, working across the aisle. That is evident from this bill. I am very appreciative of the fact they are focusing, and I want to thank our leader for making sure that the first bill we are bringing up is about jobs. We understand that too many families--certainly in my State--are still looking for work. They have worked hard all their lives, and they never thought in a million years they would find themselves in the situation they are now facing. They want us to be laser-focused on jobs and the economy and outcompeting in the global economy, as the President said. This bill is exactly the kind of policy on which we should be focused. What is concerning to me is that while we are doing that, we are now going to have a debate that is very divisive, really looking backward rather than looking forward. One of the things the President talked about--again, which I agree with strongly--is that in the area of health care, what we passed last year, we know there are measures we can fix to make our system more competitive, to make it better for families, to put families back in control rather than insurance companies. We know we can make it better. Certainly no one has been more of a champion than our leader on this legislation, now the chairman of the Commerce Committee but one of the leaders, the No. 2 on the Finance Committee, who brought his passion to the issue of health care as well. We know this can be fixed, and we want to work together to make it better but not fight old fights, create old political fights and division, and certainly not roll back the clock where we put all the control in the insurance companies and we see our families losing the freedom and security to make sure their children, their families have the health care they need. Let me first talk about my amendment and then why I believe we should be focused on this kind of amendment to fix the bill that passed last year, the new law, to make it better rather than rolling the clock back. Certainly we have heard now, if you follow the polls, that four out of five Americans are saying: Don't go back and just repeal what was done; fix it. So the majority of people are not supporting going back to old political fights or going back, frankly, to a system that is an uncontrolled system where insurances companies can raise rates 20, 30, 40 percent every year without some plan, some focus to be able to lower costs, to be able to get people out of emergency rooms and into the doctors' offices, and, frankly, for people who have insurance not to be placed into a situation where they continually see their rates go up to pay for people who do not, which is what we have put in place. There is a provision that has been a concern of mine and many others. We have debated it on the floor. We have attempted to get it fixed several different times. I hope today, I hope tomorrow--whenever we vote--that we will actually be able to get this fixed. This has been supported on both sides of the aisle, and it deals with eliminating redtape and burdensome IRS reporting requirements for our businesses, particularly small businesses. We are particularly concerned about what this means for small businesses. The provision that was placed into the bill that now, as we look at how the IRS would implement it, is clearly too burdensome--my amendment would repeal that. It would allow business owners to spend their time growing their companies and creating jobs instead of filling out paperwork from the IRS. We want them creating jobs. It is a commonsense solution to an issue that has come up. Basically, it would make sure that the provision that would require a 1099 form for every vendor when a company has a purchase of $600 or more for goods would no longer be in place. This is a provision that actually does not take effect until next year, but we want to send a very clear message to businesses that have expressed great concern about this, about what is coming for them at the end of the year. We want to let them know that we will not continue the new provision. We would allow small businesses that already create 64 percent of the jobs to be able to keep creating those jobs, and we would make sure we are not putting in place additional paperwork for them. It is important to note that, according to the IRS, the provision we want to repeal if left unchecked would impact about 40 million American businesses and 26 million of them are sole proprietorships--our smallest businesses. They would be overwhelmed with the paperwork that is involved. It does not make any sense. We passed a great small business jobs bill last fall that created eight different tax cuts and focused on making capital loans more available for small businesses. We don't want to now go in the other direction and see a mountain of paperwork added to the small businesses we have been very committed to fighting for and supporting. Unfortunately, if this provision were allowed to stand, it would require a 2000-percent increase in 1099 filings. Frankly, that does not make sense. This particular provision would repeal what was placed into the new health care law. We pay for the repeal by cutting $44 billion in unobligated spending. We do make it clear that certainly this does not affect Medicare or Social Security benefits in any way. I would not support that. I know colleagues on the floor would not as well. It makes it clear that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration are not included. But it would give the Office of Management and Budget the ability to look at the possibility in areas for cuts, and they would then report back to us in 60 days after enactment--to the Secretary of Treasury and the Congress--concerning the amounts and the accounts they would be using in order to cut back, in order to save this particular provision. This is an area where we can come together, where Democrats and Republicans--both sides of the aisle--who care passionately about small businesses can come together and eliminate redtape and burdensome IRS reporting provisions. We would get that off the table and make it clear to small businesses that there is no intent or actuality that this is going to happen. We can do that together. But what we should not be doing is what the next amendment, the Republican leader's amendment, would do because his amendment would take us back to the time of uncontrolled insurance company increases, of no accountability, and it would put the control of health care coverage and costs back in the hands of insurance companies. What I support and what the new law allows is the freedom and security for families to make sure they can get the medical care they need when they need it. I have two beautiful grandchildren, a granddaughter age 3 and a grandson age 1, and they are the most beautiful children in the world, just for the record. I want my son and daughter-in-law picking up the phone and calling the doctor when they get sick, not fighting with the insurance company. If this is repealed, they go back to fighting with the insurance company. I want to ensure that my children, as well as my grandchildren, my mom, everyone else in my family, as well as everyone in Michigan and the country, is getting the medical care they need, not fighting with the insurance companies, not worrying that because their child has juvenile diabetes or leukemia or some other disease or condition, the insurance company is going to say: Tough luck, we are not going to cover your child even though your child needs care or you suddenly get sick and they say: You know, there is some fine print over here, and we know you are sick, but we are going to cancel your coverage or we have 10 treatments we will provide even though the doctor says you need 20. Right now, because of what we have done in the Patients' Bill of Rights that was put into place, we put those decisions in the hands of families and doctors instead of insurance companies. I certainly am not going to vote to taking it back to putting it in the hands of insurance companies. Frankly, I have had many families approach me to say ``thank you'' who now have the ability, the freedom, the security to put their child--this 22-, 23-, 25-year-old--on their insurance. They get that first job, and it doesn't have health insurance, but they can go out, get started, and know they have the peace of mind that they have health insurance. That would be taken away under what the Republican leader is proposing. We would see young people going back to no insurance as a result of that. Right now, we have seniors who know they are going to have their freedom and security to be able to get the cancer screening they need, the wellness visits, even if they do not have the out-of-pocket--the copay and deductible they were used to being charged in the past because there is no co-pay and deductible now. They will be able to get what they need in preventive care. They will have the peace of mind, the security to know that if they use a lot of medicine and they fall in a gap in coverage, the cost in that gap is going to be cut in half for any brand-named drugs--cut in half. What does that do? It means my mom, who is 84, has the security to know that her great-grandchildren are going to have her around longer--a lot longer, I hope--because she is going to be able to play with those kids. Every older person is going to know they have a better chance to be around for their grandkids because they are going to be able to afford the medicine that will help them get healthy. That is taken away with the Republican leader's amendment, the freedom and security for seniors to know they can stay healthy, they can stay in their homes, they can have the medicine they need or the doctors' visits they need to be able to stay healthy and live a long, healthier life. That is taken away. There will be the freedom and security for women to know that we are not going to pay twice as much as men for insurance--which, by the way, in the majority of policies prior to passing this legislation, if women went out to buy an insurance policy, in over half the policies, women paid as much as twice as much. We changed that. We have also said that things such as maternity care ought to be a basic part of a health insurance policy. Maybe we will not be 39th in the world in the number of babies who live through the first year in their lives if moms are able to get the prenatal care they need and babies are able to get it through the first year of their lives. This gives women the freedom and security of knowing they are going to get what they need to have healthy babies. Isn't that what we all want? That is taken away with the amendment of the Republican leader. Among many other things, I will just mention two others. For the first time, we are putting accountability on the insurance industry--again, our chairman of the Commerce Committee led this effort and the Finance Committee--to say that you know that if you pay a hard-earned dollar out of your pocket for health insurance, and it is tough and the rates are high--and unfortunately, until we get this implemented, they keep going up, they keep having it go up until they have to stop--the majority of that is going to go for medical care. So, depending upon the size of your policy, either 80 or 85 percent that you pay out has to go into medical care, not executive compensation or bureaucracy but medical care. What does that mean? It means it will limit the rate increases over time and put more accountability on the company. The amendment of the Republican leader rolls that back. We have companies now that spend 60 percent of every dollar you give on medical care or 70 percent. This would say that 80 or 85 percent, the majority of your hard-earned dollars--they are hard to come by in this economy--if it is for health care, then it should be used on health care. That is what is repealed in this--accountability on insurance companies. Finally, what is also repealed is a major focus in this bill on supporting small businesses to be able to get a better deal on health insurance, and this takes away the freedom and security for a small business to get the leverage they need, like a big business, to get a better deal on rates. This was something that took effect. If we were going to change something, I wish we could speed that up. That needs to be faster, in my judgment, and not having to wait for the next 3 years because we have all kinds of small businesses that are going to be able to band together and be able to get a better rate like a big business through competition in the marketplace--not government control, private sector competition. I had an opportunity to talk to a gentleman who runs a program for our automakers and other manufacturers for retirees. It is a health exchange, exactly like we passed in the new law. He said to me: I don't think, Senator, even you guys realize how good it is, in terms of what we have done in creating a marketplace and bringing rates down. He said: We bring rates down about 30 percent for the auto companies, for retirees, about 30 percent, because of competition in this bill, leveraged for small businesses, and tax cuts to help small businesses pay for it in the new law, taken away by the McConnell amendment. I hope in the spirit of the underlying bill, which is a great jobs bill, a great bill for innovation--it is about rebuilding our infrastructure; it is about competing in a global economy; it is about being the best we can be--I would hope in the spirit of the FAA bill, we would not succumb to this backward, divisive, political debate on repeal. If we want to join on something on health care, I strongly urge a 100-percent vote on eliminating the burdensome provision for small businesses, eliminate the redtape, eliminate this IRS provision on 1099. Let's do something together that both sides agree should be done. Let's fix the things that need to be fixed, but let's not roll back the clock and put insurance companies in charge of everything, every medical decision, every rate increase as they were in the past. I urge adoption of the Stabenow amendment. We will have a number of colleagues in the process of joining. I don't have a whole list. We have a number of colleagues who will be cosponsors. I thank Senator Baucus for his leadership, his ongoing leadership on this amendment as well. I urge adoption of this amendment to fix what we know needs to be fixed, and then let us go on to jobs.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 9, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be here today. I appreciate the words of the great Senator from Minnesota. I am very pleased to rise with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay tribute to somebody who is much more than a colleague--someone who is also a mentor and a great friend, the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. Today, as we all know, she became the longest serving woman Member of the Senate in the history of our Nation. I have a 3-year-old granddaughter Lilly who will be able to read now in the history books about not only her grandmother but the woman who holds this record, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and all she has done and all she means to each of us, particularly as a role model for my granddaughter and other young children, other young women who will be coming after all of us. She is here today because she is bold and fearless and determined, as we all know. In 1986, when she first ran for the Senate, she looked for inspiration from her own great-grandmother who came to the United States from Poland with no money and no job. But her great-grandmother knew the importance of hard work and she built a life for her family here, a new beginning, and in so doing opened the door for future generations. I know today she is looking down from a special place with tremendous pride. When Senator Mikulski won that election, becoming the first Democratic woman to win a Senate seat in her own right, she carried on her great-grandmother's legacy--opening doors for future generations of women to follow in her footsteps. Thanks to that, there are more women serving in the Senate today than have ever served in the entire history of our great country. When Senator Mikulski was elected in 1986, from the moment she arrived in this august body, she has been a tireless champion of working families in Maryland and across the country. I am proud to have partnered with her on so many important efforts to make sure we are building things in America again and supporting the people who have built the great middle class of this country by their hard work. She grew up working in her parents' grocery store and understands the struggles of working families who want nothing more than to create a better life for their children and their grandchildren. She got her start in politics fighting to save the Fells Point neighborhood in Baltimore, stopping a proposed highway that would have divided a neighborhood and destroyed that community. Today, because of Senator Mikulski, Fells Point is a thriving residential and commercial community. She has continued from that day, every day, fighting for neighborhoods and families and standing for the men and women who work hard every day to make a better life for themselves and their families. When Barbara first arrived in the Senate, she was one of only two women Senators, as we know. Before then, women were appointed to the worst committees, were locked out of the ``old boys' club'' and didn't have much of a voice. But she changed all that. She got appointed to the powerful Appropriations Committee--the first Democratic woman to do so, giving the women of America a voice, for the first time, on how we set our priorities for the investments of our country. More importantly, she learned how to build coalitions, to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and get things done for the people who sent her here to work for them. Today, as dean of the women Senators, Barbara continues that leadership. Thanks to her, the women of the Senate get together--both Democrats and Republicans--for fellowship and friendship on a regular basis. Now, following in her footsteps, there are woman Members on every single committee in the Senate. That is important to the operation of our country's business. Her example shows us all the importance of hard work, determination, and courage. I congratulate my friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, today on her great accomplishment and, most importantly, on a distinguished record of public service on behalf of the people of Maryland and our country. I thank her for all she has done for me personally and for all the other women in the Senate--the ones who have already followed in her footsteps and the many who are still to come. This is an exciting day for the history books--as some of us like to say, it is another step in ``herstory''--Barbara's story--which is a special one for our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent for another 10 seconds to offer a unanimous consent request in order to set aside the second-degree amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer an amendment No. 4773 that would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement for small business.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as we proceed to this important final vote, there are two provisions I strongly believe ought to be in this bill. They are bipartisan provisions. I came to the floor yesterday to offer a unanimous consent on both of those. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues were not on the Senate floor, so out of a courtesy I did not proceed. But I will now at this point. The advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, 48C--a strong bipartisan effort to make sure we are making things in America, creating over 17,000 jobs in 43 States across the country, leveraging $7.7 billion in private investment,--should be included in this bill so when we talk about energy and new innovation, we are making it in America. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer amendment No. 4775, an amendment to extend the 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax credit.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I have a second unanimous consent request. I also spoke last night about the urgent need to fix an IRS reporting provision for small business----

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bill in front of us and particularly a provision I would like very much to see in this legislation. When we have a Republican colleague on the floor either tonight or tomorrow, I intend to ask unanimous consent to add it to the bill. I will say that the underlying bill has been a real dilemma for many of us--certainly the vast majority of us on our side of the aisle-- given where we are on deficits and given the concern about strategy on the top-end tax cuts that have not created jobs over time. There is deep concern about that. I also know that people in my State are desperately hurting, and the unemployment benefit extension is absolutely critical for families who are faced with decisions about whether they will even be able to have a Christmas, whether they even have a house, will they be living in their car, will they be able to put food on the table, let alone get gifts for their children. These are very serious issues for families in Michigan. There are very important tax cuts for middle-class families, for small businesses, and strategic investments in jobs in this legislation in terms of tax provisions that create jobs. The bill before us includes an important financing mechanism called the Treasury grant program, or we have dubbed it 1603--financing for renewable energy. This is one provision that is very important that is in the bill. It is incredibly important, if we are going to expand our economy, that we focus on the growing clean energy economy, the clean energy industry. That is a place where I believe we have the opportunity to create middle-class jobs, to create new opportunities and really create a boon in our economy. When developers want to build wind farms or solar, they can get financing through this program. Financing is hard to get when you are doing something on the front end--commercializing the first technology or doing something that is new. It is hard to get financing. This is very important, and I am a strong supporter of it. But when we build the wind farms in America, when we build the solar units, I want to make sure that they are using wind turbines--that they are using all the parts, the 8,000 parts that are in one of those big wind turbines--I want to make sure those are made in America. That is how we truly grow our economy, not just creating new options on energy but building the technologies here, doing the R&D, doing the innovation. It is absolutely critical. We are the best. We are the best ones at innovation, but we also are the best at making things, and we need to be making them here. I have to say I am very proud to represent a State--the great State of Michigan--where we know how to build things. We have great engineers. We have the best skilled workers in the world. We know how to make things. We are beginning now to move more into clean energy technology, certainly electric vehicles, hybrid, and also wind, solar, geothermal, and other areas that involve manufacturing, and we are very proud of that. When we build the wind and solar provisions, the cutting-edge solar cells, we need to make sure they are made in America, and we are doing that right now in Michigan. My concern is that this bill does not extend the manufacturing tax credit that is absolutely critical to keeping those jobs here at home in America. The advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, which we have dubbed 48C, is helping to create at least 17,000 jobs at 183 manufacturing facilities all across the country in 43 different States right now. It has been a huge success, and I wish to thank Senator Bingaman. I was proud to join with him on the Finance Committee in being able to offer that provision that was in the Recovery Act. I wish to thank Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio for his efforts and leadership and passion on this issue as well, for the investment of the $2.3 billion we put into the Recovery Act. The 48C manufacturing tax credit has leveraged $7.7 billion in private investment and clean energy manufacturing in America. That provision should be in this bill. We have strong bipartisan support and have had it since it was first instituted. That provision should be in this bill. Last year, the Chinese invested $35 billion in clean energy technology. They are expected to ramp that up to $90 billion a year going forward. That is $246 million every single day. By comparison, extending the 48C manufacturing tax credits is a small sum but will leverage private sector investment and more than pay for itself and create jobs, making that new clean energy, those products, that manufacturing here in America. In my home State of Michigan, we have 12 companies that have taken advantage of this manufacturing incentive building wind turbines, solar cells, advanced batteries for electric vehicles--jobs in Michigan. Wacker Polysilicon in Charleston, TN, is using its $128 million tax credit to produce silicon that is used in solar panels. Texas Instruments in Richardson, TX, is using its $51 million advanced manufacturing tax credit to reequip its facility and produce advanced power management semiconductors. Cree, Inc, of Durham, NC, received a $39 million tax credit for the production of LED light chips and fixtures, creating jobs. ZF Steering of Florence, KY, received $28 million in manufacturing tax credits for the production of wind turbine component parts. Frankly, the list goes on and on and on. Forty-three States--Republican, Democratic--have businesses today that are hiring people who are making things in their States, making things in America because of the partnership put in place with the advanced manufacturing tax credit. So in addition to developing the renewable energy area of 1603, extending that so that we are helping to create investment in these new technologies, we also need to extend the manufacturing tax credit for companies that are making renewable energy technology here. The whole point is to make them here--not to bring in the component parts from China or someplace else but to make them here. We can do that. We are already beginning to do that. We cannot trade our dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign technology. In some areas, we are close to doing that. The Recovery Act was about changing that playing field. I thank President Obama and his administration for understanding about manufacturing, about making things in America, building things in America, and what we need to do to create good-paying middle-class jobs again in America. This bill does part of that with the renewable energy grant in the financing. But it does not focus on where things are made, which is of great concern to me. So when I have the opportunity--I came to the floor fully intending to ask unanimous consent to proceed to my amendment, to be able to add this critical job-creating manufacturing credit that has bipartisan support and has had it since it was first initiated. But I don't see any Republican colleagues on the floor this evening. I understand, under legislative courtesy, I will not do that. I will proceed and offer that tomorrow. There is another provision I want to also speak about, an amendment of mine to the bill that I will offer a unanimous consent on tomorrow that relates to small business. When we look at how we grow our economy, we need to make things--by the way, a lot of those manufacturers are small businesses. When we think about the automobile industry, which I am so proud of in what they are doing in coming back, the majority of jobs in Michigan and across the country are actually with small and medium-size suppliers. We know small businesses are absolutely critical to the growth of this country. We know that a lot of folks who have lost their jobs right now are turning to the possibility of starting their own business in the garage or the extra bedroom in the basement. They are taking a great idea and trying to put it to work. Mr. President, we have worked very hard--and you have been a strong supporter in helping our small business owners--and we have focused on that in the last 2 years. We have passed, in fact, in the last 2 years 16 different tax cuts for small businesses to help them grow and create jobs--unfortunately, over constant filibusters on the other side, objections and filibusters, but we did pass them. We know that these companies are the backbone of our economy, and it is our commitment--my commitment--to keep fighting for them every single day, so that they can do well and hire people, and we can have more opportunity for people to work. Unfortunately, there is a new reporting requirement from the IRS hanging over the heads of small business owners related to the filing of 1099 tax forms. It would require business owners to file paperwork with the IRS every time they purchase a product worth more than $600. In practice, that means business owners will be forced to file mounds of paperwork for even the most mundane purchase. For example, if you are a real estate agent and you go to Best Buy for a new laptop or anyplace where you are buying one, you would have to file a 1099 form to buy that. If you are a farmer and you buy $700 worth of seeds, there is a form to file with the IRS. If you are a photographer and you need to travel for a few days to cover an event, a few nights at a hotel could mean another IRS form to fill out when you get home. So we understand. I want to fix that. The majority wants to address this for small business owners. It is critically important. Small businesses in Michigan want to be doing what it is that they do, not filling out extra forms. Realtors want to be showing houses, and farmers want to grow things, and photographers want to take pictures. They don't want to be filling out endless forms and paperwork for the IRS. We had a number of votes on this issue on the floor. They have always gotten overwhelming bipartisan majorities to fix this. Democrats and Republicans have both agreed that we can't force American small businesses to file reams of paperwork with the IRS. So I was very surprised when there have been objections to placing this as part of this bill. This tax bill in front of us is the perfect place to be able to address this issue once and for all. I understand there were objections on the other side of the aisle to doing that, which I find surprising because we continue to see amendment after amendment to take out this provision, which I have supported. But when we try to fix it now, we are seeing objections. I intend also tomorrow to offer an amendment that would eliminate this problem for small businesses once and for all. It is an amendment that I have filed to this bill. It is something that, based on overwhelming votes we have had, overwhelming bipartisan votes, we should be able to deal with very quickly. In fact, a simple unanimous consent ought to be able to do it. If there is no objection--and I don't think there is any objection on our side of the aisle. I am sorry if there is an objection on the Republican side of the aisle to addressing this. There should not be, because now is the time to do that. This bill is the right place to do it. We are coming to the end of the year. This provision is something that will be very onerous when it takes effect on small businesses. We need to fix it. We need to eliminate that provision. When I have the opportunity, when we have Republican colleagues joining us on the floor tomorrow, I will, in fact, offer a motion to move to my amendment and to get rid of this 1099 provision once and for all. In conclusion, for me, as you know, everything is about jobs. My great State has lost more jobs--our people have lost more jobs than any other State, over 800,000 in the last 10 years. Our people have been hit harder, longer, and deeper than anyplace else in the country. We work hard. We are a proud people. Our people want to work. They know how to work. They are doing everything possible to get back to work-- start their own business or get back to work in some other fashion. I am proud of what we are seeing happen with the support of the President and this Congress and the ability for the auto industry in America to come back. All three of our American companies will have a profit this year. It is the first time, I believe, since 1999. They are hiring people back. We will begin to see things turn around. We have a long way to go because of so many jobs that we have lost and so many people who have gone through so much as a result of that. These provisions to take the paperwork off of small businesses, to invest in American-made products through manufacturing, are two provisions that will help us create jobs in America. If that is not our No. 1 priority, it sure ought to be. That is something I am going to continue to push every day. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I agree with my friend from Wyoming. We need certainty in the marketplace, and we are happy to do that. We are happy to create certainty right now that middle-class taxpayers and small businesses will be able to receive tax cuts permanently into the future, that we will be able to extend those tax cuts. We also believe it is important to give certainty to people who are out of work through no fault of their own, who yesterday began to lose unemployment benefits. Now, I personally believe, as long as the economy is as sluggish, as slow, as challenged as it is, we ought to extend benefits beyond 99 weeks. But the bill in front of us is not that. It is the bill Senator Boxer talked about, which is just the basic program. The program basically says, if you lose your job today you have the same opportunity to receive some temporary help as the person who lost their job on Monday or Tuesday because, right now, the Republicans have been blocking us from even extending the basic program for anyone who is newly unemployed, newly out of work. So I think people who are out of work at this holiday season would like some certainty. I was interested in a story in the paper today--I believe it was today--quoting the Michigan Retailers Association concerned about Christmas and the inability to have unemployment benefits extended would directly relate to the ability of families to have any kind of opportunity to have Christmas, and it would affect retailers and small businesses. They would like to see some certainty. I would also like to see a more robust effort and certainty as it relates to jobs. When we look at the way to stimulate the economy, the way to create jobs, the budget folks tell us the No. 1 way right now to keep the economy going is to help those who have no choice but to spend the dollars in their pockets. That is somebody who is out of work. That is the No. 1 way to stimulate the economy, to try to keep things moving, and certainly we have heard that from our retailers. On a long list, the least effective was to give another bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. That was the least effective. So I agree we want economic certainty. What I would love to see is to take those dollars that have been ineffective for 10 years--and we know that simply because it hasn't created jobs. I have lost over 800,000 jobs in Michigan, 10 years of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I have one question: Where are the jobs? If my colleagues can answer that, I am happy to support that policy. What I would suggest as an alternative is that now, just a little under 2 years ago, we invested in the recovery to, for the first time in many, many, many years, invest in American manufacturing: battery manufacturing, new clean energy manufacturing, making things in America, making things at home. And we are beginning to see every month now manufacturing slowly coming up. The investment in the American automobile industry has paid off for us in turning things around, in keeping manufacturing jobs here. We are moving from 2 percent of the manufacturing of advanced battery technologies in America to 40 percent of the world's manufacturing in 5 years because of a strategic investment. I am happy to talk about those kinds of investments, but what we have heard from Republican colleagues is that they are willing to risk everything. They will risk everything to get another tax cut, a bonus tax cut on top of the one everybody is going to get if we extend tax cuts for the first $250,000 in income per couple. They want a bonus tax cut, and they are willing to risk everything and stop everything if they can't get it. So it is very clear what their priorities are. I can speak from Michigan that these are not our priorities. When I look at our manufacturers, our suppliers; when I look at small businesses; when I look at families who are struggling to keep their homes to stay in the middle class--maybe trying to get into the middle class--working families, their priority is not to give somebody making $1 million a year another $100,000 bonus on top of the regular tax cut. So what are we talking about? We are talking about everything being risked for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. What are some of the things we are risking? Another $700 billion on the national debt. If we want to deal with the debt--and I don't know about my colleagues, but I heard an awful lot about the debt, concern about the deficit in this last election and through this last year. There were concerns when we were investing in manufacturing, investing in other things to create jobs, helping small businesses; the tax cuts for small businesses, lending for small businesses. We heard an awful lot from the other side of the aisle about the fact that we shouldn't be doing these things because of the deficit. The most important thing was the deficit. I am not willing to be lectured about the deficit. I voted to balance the budget when I was in the House under President Clinton. We handed President Bush a balanced budget, the largest surplus in the history of the country. So I am not willing to accept that. I have great concern about the deficit, but that concern means I don't want to see $700 billion put on the national debt for a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. So they are willing to risk the national deficit. They are willing to risk jobs. Again, the least stimulative way to create jobs is to put another bonus round of tax cuts in the hands of millionaires and billionaires who, if they invest it--we don't know whether it will be overseas, taking jobs overseas or where it will be--but we know it hasn't trickled down to the people I represent, certainly, in Michigan. The sense I get from the other side of the aisle is that they think we just haven't waited long enough; we haven't waited long enough for it to trickle down. Well, we are tired of waiting. We are tired of waiting, and we are tired of an economic policy of tax cuts geared to those up here when it doesn't work and we are losing jobs. Under that policy of trickle-down economics, Michigan lost over 800,000 jobs in the last 10 years. I am tired of that. I want to see a policy that is going to work. That one hasn't worked. I don't see why in the world we are willing to extend it. They are willing to hold up the tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses. Again, I am not willing to be lectured about small business when we have seen 16 different small business tax cuts filibustered in the last 2 years on the other side of the aisle; eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill that only two colleagues from the other side of the aisle courageously stepped over to support. So we understand the importance of small business. Social Security and Medicare: We have a debt commission that has a number of proposals that are very difficult on Social Security and Medicare, and that is based on the deficit we have now not another $700 billion. I wonder if my colleagues are willing to support cuts in Social Security and Medicare, additional cuts to pay for their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I don't know. Is that what they are suggesting? It certainly is something that could happen if we add another $700 billion. Then there is the one we have been talking about that is not an economic issue but a moral issue for us as a country: Are we going to help folks who have gotten caught up in this country and who find themselves in a situation that is unprecedented through no fault of their own? They didn't cause the recklessness on Wall Street. They were not the ones who made the decision not to enforce trade laws in a fair way or tax policy that allows jobs to go overseas. The people in my State were not the ones who made any of the decisions that caused the situation they are in. Yet Wall Street did pretty well. A lot of folks did pretty well. A lot of folks now are back doing very well. The folks left holding the bag are working families, folks who have been in the middle class and are now mortified because they have to go ask for help at a food bank for the first time in their lives. That is not an unusual situation in my State; people who have always worked, who want to work but find themselves in a situation, because of the economy, they did not create; where they now have to ask that our country be willing to support them at this time for their families until we can turn this economy around. Who are we if we are not willing to do that as a country? Frankly, I am embarrassed we are having a debate on the floor of the Senate about whether to extend help for somebody who has lost their job, the bread winner who no longer can bring home the bread versus a $100,000 bonus tax cut for a millionaire next year, and whatever it is for billionaires. I find that embarrassing, and I find it more than that, actually. If ever we are going to talk about our values and priorities and get them right in terms of what affects the majority of Americans, it ought to be when we are looking at these choices. People in my State want to work. They want us to focus on jobs. They want us to partner with business. They want us to do those things; when it is necessary, stand back, get out of the way; stand up and partner, do all of the things that will allow us in a global economy to compete, to be able to make things in America and, of course, I prefer they be made in Michigan. But they want jobs. They want the economy to turn around. Nobody is out there asking for a handout. They do want us to understand what they are going through and to be willing to have the same sense of urgency about the average family in this country as we did for the Wall Street banks. That is ultimately what we are talking about on this floor, is what the priorities are going to be. Our colleagues have sent a letter, with everybody signing it, saying they are not willing to do anything else. They are not willing to extend unemployment benefits. Two million people started losing their benefits yesterday--temporary help, by the way--$250 to $300 a week, which just barely kind of maybe keeps the heat on, because it is getting cold in Michigan, and a roof over their heads while they are desperately sending resumes out all over the country. I get on planes now with people who are flying all over the country because they want to work. They are flying all over the place and coming home on the weekends, trying to find work. Our colleagues say: Well, you know what. Forget them. They need to wait because the most important thing is extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. I happen to--as we all do--know a lot of people in that category who say to me: I am willing to do my share. I am not asking you for this. I am willing to do my share. I have done well. I understand we have a national deficit. I understand we have a country that has a lot of challenges right now, and I am willing to step up and do my part. So this is not trying to beat up on people or demagogue against people who have worked hard, in many cases, and done well for themselves. But it is about having a set of priorities about what is important. In the few days we have left between now and the end of the year, what is the most important thing we could be doing? I know other colleagues wish to speak. Let me just say, in my judgment, we can create certainty. It certainly doesn't have to be extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It certainly can be extending tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, creating certainty with the R&D tax credit for those who want to innovate and invest. There are other kinds of certainty we can create for businesses in our Tax Code. We need to do that before the end of the year. We need to remember that there are a whole lot of families right now who are trying to create some certainty in their lives about whether they can put up a Christmas tree because they are still going to have their house. That is not rhetoric; that is happening to people. We as Democrats are not willing to risk all this. The Republicans may be willing to risk everything to give a bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, but we are fighting for everybody else. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I simply want to say it is a sad day for millions of families in this country. This is a message we should all be embarrassed to have sent; that millionaires and billionaires should be the ones who are being fought for on the floor of the Senate and that millions of people who are out of work don't count. I regret that.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the year and the end of the session, I want to talk about what is happening for the American people, for small businesses, what is happening in terms of the Senate, and what is at stake as we come to the end of the year for American families, folks who are struggling every day, people trying to keep in the middle class, get into the middle class, a small business trying to keep its head above water, as well as our manufacturers, and so on. It is extremely concerning to me that colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and they have shown it again today in a letter that was written to the leader--are willing to risk everything in order to get a bonus round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They are literally willing to stop everything, risk everything in the economy, in order to get an extra tax cut. The reason I say ``extra'' or ``bonus'' is because we have in front of us an agreement that 97 percent of the public who earn less than $250,000 a year for their family should be continuing to receive tax cuts permanently. Everyone who has income up to $250,000, whether their real income is $1 billion or not, they get a tax cut up to $250,000 of their income. So the question we will be answering this month is whether millionaires and billionaires get a bonus, get an extra tax cut on top of that. Here, as shown on this chart, is what the Republicans are willing to put at risk. I say to the Presiding Officer, who heard it as well as I did throughout the year, talking about the deficit, how we needed to stop the exploding deficit, that we need to bring deficits down, in order to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to risk the Federal deficit, balloon it another $700 billion--not paid for. Now they are saying we ought to pay for unemployment benefits for somebody who lost their job in this economy through no fault of their own. But $700 billion? The average tax cut is $100,000 for somebody earning $1 million. Mr. President, $100,000 is more than the average person in Michigan makes. My guess is, in West Virginia it is the same. So in order to keep $100,000 a year going in a bonus tax cut for people earning $1 million, they are willing to risk the Federal deficit exploding. They are willing to risk jobs because we have seen a policy in the last 10 years of basically giving tax cuts to folks at the top and everybody else waiting for them to trickle down. My folks are tired. I think colleagues on the other side of the aisle just think we have not waited long enough for this to trickle down to everybody else. But the reality is that policy they want to continue, that explodes deficits, gives a bonus tax cut for people at the top, has not created jobs. In fact, my question is, after 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? My State has lost over 800,000 jobs during the period of this bonus tax cut policy for millionaires and billionaires. If it had worked, if we had created 800,000 jobs in Michigan rather than losing 800,000 jobs, I would be on the floor of the Senate fighting to continue this policy. This is not partisanship. This is about common sense and what works. We have had a policy in place that has not worked, so why would we continue it? They say we have to continue this because we are in a recession. This is part of the reason we are in a recession in terms of the fact that it did not invest in the right way. If we want to take those dollars and put them back into clean energy manufacturing and focus on making things in America, if we want to put it into what that we know is actually going to focus on jobs, good-paying, middle-class jobs, I am all for it. But $700 billion of a policy that has not worked for 10 years makes no sense. So that is my question. Where are the jobs? Show me the jobs, and I will be the first person on the Senate floor voting yes to continue it. But they are willing to risk the deficit. They are willing to risk jobs. They are willing now, in the letter they have sent to the leader today, to risk tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses by saying: Do you know what. We are not going to do anything else until we continue the tax cuts for everybody in this country, including millionaires and billionaires. They are not willing to work with us to make sure middle-class families, who are the folks who need to have money back in their pockets, and small businesses, that need that money back in their pockets, get permanent help. Then we can work on the rest of it where people disagree. We are going to hear a lot about small business. And I find it quite surprising that colleagues have filibustered in the last 2 years 16 different tax cuts for small business--a small business jobs bill to make capital available for small business so they can keep their heads above water, refinance, grow their business. Personally, I am not going to be lectured by people who voted against 16 different tax cuts in the last 2 years for small businesses, who are now using small businesses to hide behind--the folks who are hiding behind small businesses that they are holding up as the ones for whom they are fighting. We are happy on our side. We take a back seat to no one on fighting for small business. I thank our Chair, Mary Landrieu, who was on the Senate floor over and over from the Small Business Committee and a wonderful group of colleagues who fought and fought to make sure we put forward a bill--it took way too long because of foot dragging, everybody trying to throw sand in the gears, but we finally got it passed, a tremendous amount of effort to increase capital and to add eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill, on which only two Republican colleagues had the courage to step across the aisle and join us. We are very grateful they were willing to do that. But the Senate Republican caucus is willing to put all of that in jeopardy, hold hostage tax cuts needed by people--working people, middle-class families, small businesses--if they cannot get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. They are also willing, frankly, to jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. We have a debt commission coming up with proposals that are very concerning. There are tough decisions about Social Security and Medicare going forward because we have a deficit. They are saying: Oh well, wait a minute. First, you have to increase the deficit by $700 billion in order to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. No, we don't care. We don't care if that impacts Social Security and Medicare and tough decisions that have to be made for seniors who live on Social Security and Medicare. The most important thing--and we have heard this over and over--is we don't care if it is paid for, it doesn't matter if it is paid for or if anything else gets done for national security. We are not going to take up the START treaty. We don't care about our relationship with Russia. We don't care about national security issues. We want a tax cut for our friends, the millionaires and billionaires, adding $700 billion to the debt. They are willing to risk it all, stop the tax cuts for middle- class families and small businesses, in order to get that bonus tax cut. Finally--and most insulting to me of all--is they can stand and say we will not support helping people who are out of work in an economy that is way beyond normal, where there are five people looking for every one job. In my State, you are talking about folks who have never been out of work before in their life and they are mortified and they are doing everything they can to hold it together. They are trying desperately to keep their heads above water, while their houses are underwater, and they may not have been able to have their kids continue in college this year. Folks are trying to make it, and they are saying we didn't create this economy, create the crisis on Wall Street or create all the rest of this. They have done nothing but play by the rules their whole lives, and now they are in a situation where they can't find a job. I have talked to a lot of folks, 50, 55, 60 years old, who worked all their lives. We are coming up to the holidays now. All they want to do is what we have always done as a country in the case of high unemployment; that is, allow them to receive unemployment benefits to get them through a tough time temporarily, while we should be focusing on jobs because people want to work. People don't want to get $200 or $300 in unemployment benefits. They want to work. They want the dignity of work. Americans know how to work and they want to work. They are looking to us to create a climate of certainty in the marketplace, working with businesses so they can get a job. But here we have a situation where the Republicans in the House turned down unemployment benefits yesterday. Senator Jack Reed came to the floor to ask unanimous consent--which I will ask again--to be able to extend unemployment benefits, just the regular system. I also believe we need to add additionally for people who have run out of their benefits, the ``ninety-niners.'' We need to help them as well. This is just to keep the regular system going, so somebody who loses their job today or is beginning to lose their job is treated as fairly as the person who lost their job on Monday. Right now, the system is up in the air. We hear on the other side: My goodness. We can't possibly extend unemployment benefits without ``paying for it'' and cutting someplace else. It is, for a year, about $50 billion. That is a lot of money; I am not saying it is not. But how about we help pay for it by not giving a bonus tax cut to millionaires in this country--$700 billion--and colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that should be paid for. Somehow tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires have different rules than a little bit of help for somebody who lost their job, through no fault of their own, and is trying to keep their family together and a roof over their heads in these times. That is a heck of a choice in terms of values. I am amazed. But what we have, as we come to the end of the year, is a situation where colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated they are going to continue to block everything. Well, the filibuster is not new. It has been done every day on this floor for the last 2 years. Now they are saying that in addition to extending--obviously, getting the budget done, and we all agree with that. But if we don't extend the tax cuts for everybody--meaning millionaires and billionaires--then they are going to filibuster everything else, including unemployment benefits. Let me say, in closing, that we are in a situation where right now, today, we could give 97 percent of the public certainty going forward about tax cuts, small businesses, middle-class families, by simply joining on a proposal to protect and extend permanently middle-class tax cuts and those for the vast majority of small businesses. We certainly can come together in a way that does more for small business. This is the side that voted 16 times for tax cuts for small businesses. But we believe it is economically and morally wrong to allow an average $100,000 in additional tax relief for a millionaire next year, while somebody who worked all their life and lost their job, through no fault of their own cannot keep a roof over their head this year. It is absolutely not right. By the way, let me just reiterate--because we are going to hear a lot about small businesses--this is not about small businesses. We are willing to come together, as we always have, for small businesses. This is about a few people, and not even everyone in that category is asking for a tax cut, by the way. A lot of these folks understand we have the biggest deficit in the history of the country. They are blessed through their circumstances to be very well off, and many are saying: I want to do my part and I am willing to do my part. Ask me to do my part and I will. They are not asking to hurt people who are out of work in order for them to get another tax cut. Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, our colleagues are willing to risk everything--the deficit, jobs, Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, and help for people who are out of work in order to give a bonus tax cut for a privileged few people. That is not what we are about. That is not what we are about or what we are going to fight for. At this point, because it is absolutely critical that we understand what families are going through now in this holiday season and that someone who is losing a job today should be treated as fairly as somebody who lost their job 2 days ago, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Is Stronger Management and Oversight Needed?'' on December 1, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10:15 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 1, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Are Mini Med Policies Really Health Insurance?''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Latin America in 2010: Opportunities, Challenges and the Future of U.S. Policy in the Hemisphere.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2010, at 9:45 a.m., in SD-430.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Transition and Implementation: The NASA Authorization Act of 2010.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Problems in Mortgage Servicing from Modifications to Foreclosure, Part II.''

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just to follow with my colleagues--and I so appreciate the Senator from Ohio and his comments regarding what is happening to people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own-- five people at least are looking for every one job that is available. There is a critical urgency families feel. I thank the Senator from New York for his passion as well as my other colleagues. Let me take a moment to emphasize what we are talking about. The Republicans--and they have now done through a letter to the leader--are basically saying they are willing to risk everything--everything--to give a bonus tax cut--as my friend and colleague from Alaska talks about, not a tax cut. Everyone is going to get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income. They want a bonus tax cut on millionaires and billionaires that for the average millionaire will be about $100,000 next year, which is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year. So they are willing to shut this place down and risk everything in order to be able to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. What does that mean? Well, they are willing to risk the deficit. They say we cannot help people who are out of work because it will cost $50 billion unless it is totally paid for. But $700 billion for their wealthiest friends and supporters is OK. So they will risk the deficit. They will risk jobs. Where are the jobs? We have had 10 years of this policy, 10 years of this policy of tax cuts at the top waiting for it to trickle down. They think we just have not waited long enough. Folks in Michigan have waited far too long for it to trickle down. We are tired of waiting. We want a proposal that works. I will put forward a unanimous-consent request on something that has worked, an advanced manufacturing tax credit that has allowed now a number of businesses--I think over 12 businesses--to open in Michigan with clean energy manufacturing, stamped ``Made in America.'' In fact, we want to see ``Made in Michigan'' stamped on everything. We need to extend this tax credit because it is putting people back to work in Michigan and across the country. I will be making that unanimous consent request in just a moment. But they are willing to risk jobs, go home without focusing on jobs. They are willing to hold tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses hostage for a tax cut for a few people at the top. We will not be lectured by them about small business, by a group of folks who have filibustered 16 different tax cuts for small businesses in this Congress--16 different tax cuts--including 8 tax cuts for small businesses in the small business jobs bill that added capital for small businesses last fall. So, believe me, we are here for small business as well as middle-class families. Social Security and Medicare: The debt commission is coming out with very serious recommendations that are focused on Social Security and Medicare. They are willing to risk that by adding more to the debt. Does that mean more changes to Social Security and Medicare? Then, finally, help for people who are out of work: They are willing to say our country, our great country, is not good enough, is not strong enough to step up when our families need it the most--families who never before in their lives have needed help. For the families in my State, the average person is 50, 55, 60 years old, who has worked all their life and never dreamed they would find themselves in this situation. But here they are, through no fault of their own. Now, in this holiday season, when we are asking that we just extend the regular program, not even dealing with the long-term unemployed, which is also what I want to do, but to extend the regular program so the person who today loses their job gets the same kind of opportunity to get help as the person who lost their job on Monday, because today over 100,000 people in Michigan are going to lose the opportunity to get any kind of temporary help because they lost their job. So our colleagues have set their priorities, big letters, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They do not want us to do anything else until that gets done. We have a different set of priorities on behalf of American families, middle-class families, small businesses, people who need help right now. I am going to yield the floor at the moment, but I am going to be happy to have a unanimous consent request regarding a very effective jobs tax credit that we could pass today and get going and get people back to work.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with one thing my friend from Wyoming said in the letter they signed, which is we should not be continuing job-killing practices. I would say after 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? If there ever was a policy that didn't work, it was that one. We have lost, in Michigan alone, over 800,000 jobs under the policy they want to continue. In the country we have lost over 8 million jobs under the economic policy they want to continue--not helping the middle class, not helping small business but giving the bonus benefit, the extra tax cut to those at the top, hoping it will trickle down. Frankly, we are tired of waiting for it to trickle down. What we are proposing and I am going to offer as a unanimous consent request is to continue something that is actually working, that is actually creating jobs in this country and beginning to turn manufacturing around. I think the exchange between the distinguished Senator from New York with my friend from Wyoming is very telling. Even if we were talking about tax cuts for those up to $1 million, that is still not enough. This is not about small business. People on the other side of the aisle have filibustered and voted against 16 different tax cuts for small businesses in the last 18 months, 8 of those in September and October. This is not about small business. We are the folks who have been fighting for small business and will continue to do that, as well as those in the middle class. I am going to ask, in a moment, unanimous consent for something that is an extremely effective and exciting new focus for our country; that is, on something called clean energy manufacturing. We are committing to making it in America. We want to see the words ``Made in America'' again. I want to see ``Made in Michigan,'' frankly, on all those products. One of the things that 18 months ago we passed as part of the Recovery Act was something called an advanced manufacturing tax credit, to allow companies to deduct 30 percent of their costs for new plants, new equipment, hiring people in the area of green energy: wind, solar, electric, batteries, and so on. We have seen across the country now, 183 new manufacturing facilities in 43 different States across the country as a result of that. People are being hired, and every month we are seeing manufacturing numbers go up rather than down in the last 18 months. If, in fact, we add another $5 billion, another small investment compared to the $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires in the tax cut--if we just invest $5 billion of that, it is estimated we will unleash at least $15 billion in total capital investments, partnering with the private sector, and create tens of thousands of new construction and manufacturing jobs. That is our priority--things that work, focusing on jobs and making things in America again. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3324, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is not theater. This is about real people in my State who want to work. This is about investing in middle- class jobs and manufacturing. It is about taking a policy that has been in place now for 18 months that has worked and being able to extend it. In terms of bringing this up for the first time, we have focused on it and have been debating it and discussing it over and over. The bill I asked unanimous consent for is bipartisan. This is not new. We have not been able to get through the obstructionism, the throwing of sand in the gears, and the filibustering to bring this up. If we want to focus on something between now and the end of the year, let's focus on jobs and getting people back to work.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me indicate, as someone who has voted in fact to repeal this particular provision, I think it is important we get that done. We actually have a majority of Members who have supported getting that done. Senator Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, brought forward a proposal that unfortunately did not get the bipartisan support necessary to be able to do it, but we are committed to getting this done. It is something I hope our colleagues will join with us in as we bring the tax bill to the floor before the end of the year. It is important, in my judgment, that we repeal this provision, which I do believe is onerous for small business, but it needs to be done in the context of the broader package, so I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Let me just indicate again, as a Senator who voted for both proposals that were in front of us, I could not agree more. We have to get this done. I believe there is a commitment on both sides of the aisle to get this done. You are correct that the 67-vote threshold was very high. We need to come back in a different context and get this done. I am committed to working with my colleague to do that.