[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8569-S8570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3630

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to eventually make a unanimous 
consent request. We have alerted our Republican friends to it. But 
before I do, I want to set the stage for why I am going to eventually 
ask we be allowed to go to H.R. 3630, which is at the desk, and that 
there be a debate and a vote on the Republican-passed payroll tax cut.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why, as we approach the end of 
this year, Republicans do not want, right now, to have a vote on their 
own bill. Maybe it is because they do not have a lot of votes for it 
because it is a disaster. The President has spoken out very strongly 
for a payroll tax cut. We need that. It has been in effect, and if we 
don't extend it in this time of recovering from a deep dark recession, 
economists of all stripes have said we are going to see a reduction in 
economic growth. That is something we don't need right now.
  Initially, Republicans said they didn't want anything to do with this 
tax cut. They loved the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires. 
Oh, that one they have a heart for but this one, they don't really 
like.
  I think they took the heat back home, and good for the American 
people. They then decided they had to pass it because if they didn't 
pass it, working people were going to notice that $1,000 increase in 
their taxes.
  So we are facing a very odd situation. Having served in the House for 
10 years--I had left before Newt Gingrich became Speaker; I ran for the 
Senate. I know how things work over there. I can almost see--though I 
have no accuracy on this; it is simply my own feeling--the mindset: The 
President wants this tax cut so badly, let's do it, but let's load this 
up with things he is not going to be able to abide. Frankly, that is 
what they did.
  Let's look at some of the things that are in this payroll tax cut. 
First of all, they added environmental riders. One of them I am very 
familiar with, and I want to spend a minute explaining.
  The EPA passed a rule to control the filthiest and dirtiest boiler 
operations. These boilers are located in our communities. They spew 
forth things you really don't want to know about, but we better know. 
They are things such as mercury, arsenic, and lead. All these things 
cause cancer, and all of these things are dangerous to all of us, 
particularly to children and to pregnant women. So the EPA has crafted 
a rule--listen to this--that only goes after 5,500 of the 1.6 million 
boilers. Again, these are the filthiest and the dirtiest.
  In crafting this rule, they had peer review science that showed this 
rule would prevent 8,100 premature deaths every single year. That is 
because we are talking about mercury, lead, and arsenic. These are not 
our friends.
  Now, not being able to abide by this, those in the House are standing 
with the dirtiest polluters, and they put a stop to that rule. To me, 
this is shocking, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. If I saw you were driving a car in a certain direction, Mr. 
President, and I said to you, if you continue to drive your car in that 
direction, you are going to hurt people; you are actually going to be 
responsible for the deaths of 8,100 people in the course of a year, you 
would turn that car around. But, no, they are barreling forward. I am 
not even citing the stats--because I don't have them in my memory--on 
the number of missed workdays, the number of asthma cases, and the lost 
schooldays, but it is in the tens of thousands in a year.

  So they attached what I call a real poison pill to the payroll tax 
cut. But that wasn't enough. Despite the objections from the Republican 
Governor of Nebraska, they pushed forward on the tar sands pipeline 
before the studies were done. By the way, the environmental impact 
report was done by a company that had ties to the developer. So before 
we rush to judgment on this, colleagues, we need to have more 
information. But, no, they are going to jam that through.
  So those are two environmental riders that are in the bill that are 
very dangerous for the American people. So it is sort of like, here is 
$1,000 for you with the payroll tax cut, but we have just increased 
your risk of getting asthma or perhaps dying of cancer or a heart 
attack. Maybe that is why they object to having a vote on this bill.
  Now, in this bill, the way they pay for things is unbelievable. They 
are so fearful of hurting the upper income people--those earning over 
$1 million a

[[Page S8570]]

year and paying for this payroll tax cut the way we do, with a small 
surtax on the millionaires and billionaires, which doesn't kick in 
until they get past the $1 million mark--they go after the middle 
class. They raise premiums on Medicare for 25 percent of Medicare 
recipients who earn $80,000 a year, and they raise it 15 percent for 
some of them in this time of recession. They cut the number of weeks an 
individual can get unemployment insurance, which also, at this time, is 
just plain cruel. They go after the salaries of middle-class workers, 
such as Federal firefighters, veterans, nurses, air traffic 
controllers, FBI agents, and all Federal employees while they allow 
government contractor employees to earn up to $700,000 a year.
  Senator Grassley is here, and I know he probably disagrees with some 
of what I said, but I know he agrees on the Federal contractor issue. 
In this particular bill, which the House crafted, I say to my friends, 
they go after middle-class workers, but the government contractor 
workers can earn up to $700,000 a year. To me, that is the only reason 
I can see why Republicans are objecting to having a vote on this so-
called payroll tax bill--because it is so loaded with things that are 
going to hurt the American people.
  So I think we ought to have that vote and kill this Christmas turkey, 
because it is a turkey. It is harmful to the middle class. It is 
literally going to cause an increase in premature deaths, in asthma 
cases, and it is literally going to hurt middle-class workers while it 
leaves the millionaires and billionaires alone. What kind of value 
system is that? Merry Christmas to the middle class. No, it isn't.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of H.R. 3630, which was just received from the House; 
that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders 
or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill; that no 
amendments be in order prior to the vote; and that the vote on passage 
be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, if the bill is 
not passed, it remain the pending business and the majority leader be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I must object, but I 
wish to make clear that the Senator from California understands I 
didn't come to the floor to object to her request, but on behalf of the 
Republican leader I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We are buddies. We 
work together on a lot of good government issues. But the minority 
leader, the Republican leader, is objecting.
  So in summing this up, as I leave the floor, I would ask 
rhetorically, why on Earth the Republican leader is afraid to vote on a 
Republican bill, other than the fact that that bill, in my view, 
exposes a set of values that are not consistent with the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
what time I might consume, but I wouldn't expect it would be more than 
30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
the Fast and Furious investigation. But I would also like to follow up 
and have this portion of my remarks follow the Senator from California 
because I think my side has a legitimate position to take on some job 
creation things that are in the House bill that has come over here; 
that if people just hear one side of the story, they might 
misunderstand we are not interested in creating jobs and we are only 
interested in putting stumbling blocks in the way of regulations or 
Presidential decisions that are made. But it is directly related to, in 
the case of rules by EPA that the Senator spoke about, it is a fact 
that under this administration there is an explosion of regulations. A 
lot of those regulations, because of their cost, have led to the 
elimination of a lot of jobs or a lot of jobs not being created as a 
result thereof.
  So if we hear the President of the United States saying we ought to 
pass legislation that he is for to create jobs or we hear the President 
of the United States, one or two times a week, flying all over the 
country at taxpayers' expense to give political speeches and asking to 
put the pressure on Congress to pass his jobs bill at the very same 
time his departments are issuing regulations costing jobs or not 
creating jobs or the President making a decision that we shouldn't 
build a pipeline from Canada down to Texas so we can import more oil in 
a cost-effective way from our friend Canada--a reliable friend--instead 
of spending $830 million every day--every day--to import oil and paying 
that to countries that either hate us or want to kill us, we think 
there is an inconsistency between the President who is going around the 
country giving speeches on why Congress isn't passing his legislation 
to create jobs, when his administration is making decisions--in the 
case of the pipeline, 20,000 jobs could be created right now, union-
paying jobs, good jobs, and 110,000 jobs on the side related thereto, 
plus what it does good for the energy policy of the United States to 
have that built. The President is standing in the way.
  He says it needs another year of study. The State Department has 
already given two studies over a period of years saying it is OK to go 
ahead. It is not an environmental problem. The Nebraska legislature 
held it up for a little while because of the aquifer, but they have 
reached an agreement that it can go through their State in a little 
different direction.
  We think we ought to create those 20,000 jobs and we ought to do it 
right now and this legislation that has come over from the House does 
that. This legislation coming over from the House puts some block of 
some regulations going into effect that is going to eliminate jobs or 
stop the creation of jobs.
  So we are a little bit irritated about the inconsistency between an 
administration that wants us to pass legislation to create jobs when, 
at the very same time, one person is making a decision that we are not 
going to move ahead with job creation projects. This legislation allows 
to move ahead for that.

                          ____________________