[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5239-S5244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 467.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 467, S. 3412, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief
to middle-class families.
Moment of Silence
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
observe a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting in
Colorado.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(Moment of Silence.)
Aurora, Colorado Shootings
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate pauses to remember
those killed in last week's horrific shooting in Colorado.
Among the dead was 26-year-old Jonathan Blunk--a graduate of Hug High
School in Reno, NV, a Navy veteran and father of two. My heart goes out
to his loved ones and to all the victims and their families as they
struggle to make sense of the senseless. How can you make sense of
something that is so senseless? We may never know the motivations
behind this terrible crime or understand why anyone would target so
many innocent people.
Friday's events were a reminder that nothing in this world is certain
and that life is precious and short. Today we pause to mourn the dead
but also to honor how they lived. We pledge our support to the people
of Aurora, CO, both as they grieve and as they begin to heal from this
terrible tragedy.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Aurora, Colorado Shootings
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have all been sifting through the
events of last Friday, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the
Senate to take a moment today to acknowledge, as we just did, the
victims of this nightmarish rampage, their families, and the wider
community of Aurora.
In the life of a nation, some events are just so terrible they compel
all of us to set aside our normal routines and preoccupations, step
back, reflect on our own motivations and priorities, and think about
the kind of lives we all aspire to live. This is certainly one of those
times.
As is almost always the case in moments such as this, the horror has
been tempered somewhat by the acts of heroism and self-sacrifice that
took place in the midst of the violence. I read one report that said
three different young men sacrificed their own lives in protecting the
young women they were with. We know the first responders and nurses and
doctors saved lives too, including the life of an unborn child.
I think all of us were moved over the weekend by the stories we have
heard about the victims themselves. It is hard not to be struck by how
young most of them were, of how many dreams were extinguished so
quickly and mercilessly, but we were also moved by the outpouring of
compassion that followed and by the refusal of the people of Aurora to
allow the monster who committed this crime to
[[Page S5240]]
eclipse the memory of the people he killed.
President Obama, Governor Hickenlooper, and the religious leaders in
and around Aurora are to be commended for the time and effort they have
put into consoling the families of the victims and the broader
community. I think the best thing the rest of us can do right now is to
show our respect for those who have been affected by this terrible and
senseless crime and to continue to pray for the injured, that they
recover fully from their injuries.
There are few things more common in America than going out to a movie
with friends, which is why the first response most of us had to the
shootings in Aurora was to think: It could have been any of us. It is
the randomness of a crime such as this that makes it impossible to
understand and so hard to accept. But as the Scripture says, ``The rain
falls on the just and the unjust.''
So we accept that some things we just can't explain. Evil is one of
them. We take comfort in the fact that while tragedy and loss persist,
so does the goodness and generosity of so many.
Now I would like to join Governor Hickenlooper in honoring the
victims by reciting their names:
Veronica Moser-Sullivan, Gordon Cowden, Matthew McQuinn, Alex
Sullivan, Micayla Medek, John Larimer, Jesse Childress, Alexander Boik,
Jonathan Blunk, Rebecca Ann Wingo, Alexander Teves, Jessica Ghawi.
We too will remember.
Reservation of Leader Time
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Defense Authorization
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to once again urge the majority
leader of the Senate to bring to the floor for debate one of the most
important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year;
that is, the national defense authorization bill.
On several occasions I have approached the majority leader and asked
him to consider this legislation which, for the last 50 years, this
body has taken up, debated, amended, passed, conferenced with the House
of Representatives, and sent to the President for the President's
signature.
Last week, the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, stated that
Senate consideration of a controversial and flawed bill on
cybersecurity--a bill that has not been considered in the regular
order--is more important and of a higher national security priority
than the Defense authorization bill. I respectfully but vehemently
disagree with that statement.
According to the majority leader, ``We're going to have to get to
cybersecurity before we get to the defense authorization bill because
on the relative merits, cybersecurity is more important.''
Let me repeat this. The majority leader of the Senate is arguing that
legislation dealing with cybersecurity--which is a subset of national
security, of national defense--is more important than legislation
responsible for ensuring that the men and women of the Armed Forces
have the resources and authorities necessary to ensure our national
security--a bizarre statement.
I have been involved in national security issues for a long time. I
have been involved with the bills concerning national defense, and I
have never heard a statement that cybersecurity is more important than
the overall security of this country. That either was the majority
leader misspeaking or the majority leader having a lack of
understanding of what national security is all about.
He is arguing that a controversial and flawed bill on cybersecurity--
a bill of such ``significance'' that it has languished for over 5
months at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
with no committee markup or normal committee process, no amendments--
should take precedence over a bill which was vetted for over a period
of 4 months by the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported to the
floor with the unanimous support of all 26 members, which certainly
would not have been the case if there had been a vote on cybersecurity
legislation as it is presently proposed, because I am a member of that
committee and I and others certainly would never have supported this
legislation and at least we should have been allowed the amendment
process. But that is not the case with ``cybersecurity.''
Also, I might add, I understand we will have to have a motion to
proceed, which then will drag us into next week, when we could--I
emphasize could--finish the Defense authorization bill in 1 week and at
most 2.
I remind my colleagues that consideration of the Defense
authorization bill is more than a simple right of this body. It is an
obligation to our national defense and a fulfillment of our
responsibility to the men and women in uniform that the Senate has
honored over the past 50 consecutive years.
I would say to my colleagues, today I went out to Bethesda Walter
Reed to visit with our wounded. It is always an uplifting and always an
incredible experience for me to make that visit. Cannot we--cannot we--
as a body, for the sake of those men and women whose lives are on the
line, pass a defense authorization bill that is responsible for their
security, their training, their weapons, their equipment, their morale,
their welfare? Cannot we pass a defense authorization bill through this
body? Are we so parochial? Is the Senate majority leader oblivious to
the needs of the men and women who are serving this Nation? They
deserve better than what they are getting from the leadership of this
Senate.
The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal year 2013
National Defense Authorization Act provides $525 billion for the base
budget of the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in
Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our
nuclear deterrent.
In the area of pay and compensation, the bill authorizes $135 billion
for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses,
and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of the
uniformed services, consistent with the President's request. The bill
improves the quality of life of the men and women in the Active and
Reserve components of the all-volunteer force. It helps to address the
needs of the wounded servicemembers and their families. It also
authorizes important military construction and family housing projects
that cannot proceed without specific authorization.
All major weapons systems are authorized in this legislation,
including those that will benefit by the committee's continuous
rigorous oversight of poorly performing programs. Every piece of
equipment--large or small--that the Department of Defense needs to
develop or procure is authorized in that legislation.
With the planned reductions in Afghanistan, the importance of
providing for our deployed troops while training and transitioning
responsibilities to the Afghan forces has never been more important.
The bill provides our service men and women with the resources,
training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and
stability operations. It also enhances the capability of U.S. forces to
support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as
they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the
year 2014.
The bill contains important initiatives intended to ensure proper
stewardship by the department of taxpayer dollars by, among other
things, codifying the 2014 goal for it to achieve an auditable
statement of budgetary resources, strictly limiting the use of cost-
type contracts for the production of major weapons systems, requiring
the Department of Defense to review its existing profit guidelines and
revise them as necessary to ensure an appropriate link between
contractor profits and contractor performance, enhancing protections
for contractor employee whistleblowers, and restricting the use of
abusive ``passthrough'' contracts.
Another vitally important provision in the bill repeals provisions of
last year's National Defense Authorization Act that threaten to upset
the delicate balance between the public sector and
[[Page S5241]]
the private sector in the maintenance and repair of military systems,
and the bill addresses many other important national security policy
issues.
With respect to cybersecurity, I am in full agreement that the threat
we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant and
challenging threats of 21st century warfare. This threat was made even
more evident by the recent leaks about Stuxnet coming from this
administration. That is why the Defense authorization bill takes great
steps to improve our capabilities by consolidating defense networks to
improve security and management and allow critical personnel to be
reassigned in support of offensive cyber missions which are presently
understaffed. It also provides policy guidance to the Department of
Defense to address the clear need for retaliatory capabilities to serve
both as a deterrence to and to respond in the event of a cyber attack.
Based on the procedures the Senate has been following over the past
few years--with little or no opportunity for debate and amendments--the
majority leader apparently intends to rush through the Senate a flawed
piece of legislation. The cybersecurity bill he intends to call up
later this week is greatly in need of improvement, both in the area of
information sharing among all Federal agencies and the appropriate
approach to ensuring critical infrastructure protection.
Without significant amendment, the current bill the majority leader
intends to push through the Senate has zero chance of passing the House
of Representatives or ever being signed into law; whereas, the Defense
authorization bill, if we would take it up and pass it, clearly, we
would have a successful conference with the House, and we would send
it--after voting on the conferenced bill--to the President for his
signature. There is no chance the cybersecurity bill the majority
leader wants to bring to the floor will have a chance of passage in the
House of Representatives.
So here is the choice: take up the Defense authorization bill, which
has important cybersecurity provisions in it and provides for the
overall defense of the Nation, or take up a flawed bill that never went
through the committee, was never amended, take it to the floor, use up
1 week while we go through the motion to proceed, and then maybe pass
it, maybe not, and not have it even considered by the other body during
the month of September, which is the last we will be in session before
the election.
For the life of me, I do not understand why the majority leader of
the Senate should have so little regard for the needs of the men and
women who are serving in the military today, and I hope he will
understand better the needs to defend this Nation, as we are still
involved in conflict in Afghanistan, we face a major crisis with Iran
over their continued development of nuclear weapons--we just saw the
Iranian ability to commit acts of terror all over the world, the latest
being in Bulgaria--the fact that Syria is now coming apart and in
danger of--because of this administration's failure to lead--that there
can be chemical weapons not only spread around Syria but also in other
places as well. There is a danger of chemical weapons that are
presently under Bashar Assad's control flowing to Hezbollah, presenting
a grave threat to the security of Israel.
All these things are happening in the world without this body acting
on the most important piece of legislation as far as our national
security is concerned, and the majority leader of the Senate apparently
has decided not to bring it up and wants to bring up cybersecurity
instead. It is a grave injustice--a grave injustice--to the men and
women who are serving this Nation and sacrificing so much.
I hope the majority leader of the Senate, who by right of his
position and in the majority decides the agenda for the Senate, will
change his mind and bring up the Defense authorization bill, which I
assure him we can have passed by this body, as always, in a near
unanimous vote, if not totally unanimous vote, for the benefit of the
security of this Nation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Class Warfare
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words today about the
current debate over ``class,'' a term that has been ubiquitous in this
election year. Its usage in political rhetoric is, I believe, misguided
and wrong and even dangerous. Most prominently, we have a President who
talks incessantly about class, particularly the middle class. Maybe you
have noticed that.
He defines class strictly by your income. In the President's
narrative, someone who makes $199,000 a year is a member of one class,
and someone who makes $200,000 belongs to another class. Does that make
sense? Indeed, each day the President is out on the campaign trial
championing himself as the great protector of what he calls the middle
class, and pitting those Americans against their fellow citizens by
arguing that the wealthiest class is victimizing them through the Tax
Code.
If wealthy people are not made to pay more, he argues, the middle
class will be stuck in their current stations. What one class wins, he
implies, the other class loses. In this, I believe he is wrong.
Moreover, I believe such a formulation is contrary to four centuries of
American history.
First, I think ``class'' is a loaded term that is not appropriate for
our debates about income, mobility, and tax policy. Implying there is a
rigid class structure in America suggests some people were born
innately superior to others, and that where you were born is where you
stay.
That is not what we believe in America. A true class-based society is
one in which one ruling class employs another class that labors but
cannot own property or move out of their class.
This is not who we are in America. We do not have an ingrained class
system. There are no noble bloodlines. We do not have an aristocracy or
commoners or people who are legally unable to own land, for example,
because of their class. Spreading economic resentment weakens American
values and ideals, and it ignores the uniquely meritocratic basis of
our society where you can succeed if you work hard, and you can do
well.
Generations arrived here in America to get away from class societies
in Europe. They believed in that meritocracy. They wanted the
opportunity to make it in the land of self-government and equal rights
and opportunity, to work and compete and to build something of their
own, something they could perhaps one day pass on to their children.
In America we believe everyone can achieve the American dream
regardless of background. And how many rags-to-riches stories are there
out there? There are countless. How many from one generation to the
next, and by the third generation you had an incredibly more successful
generation than the first. Think of all the people who had a big dream
and built something or made something that changed lives; maybe a
company that employs a lot of people or a product that makes life
easier or maybe even just more fun. We have different talents to offer
and different ideas of success and what we want to do with our lives,
and that is all part of the American story.
As columnist Robert Samuelson noted recently, four modern-day
Presidents--Obama, Clinton, Johnson, and Eisenhower--all came from very
modest backgrounds. So we don't need the current President touring the
country and defining every American's values and status based upon a
class system he has made up.
If we want to talk about income and mobility, which is the basis of
the class debate, let's do that. And that leads to my second point.
Income in America is fluid; that is, there is ample evidence that
people can and do move among income groups. Our economists study this.
They divide our country into quintiles and they talk about how people
move from one quintile into another quintile, and they do this
throughout their life. You know, younger people start in the lower
quintiles and as they get education and get work and then get improved
work and more experience, they move into higher quintiles.
[[Page S5242]]
Take one statistic here. The Tax Foundation found from 1997 to 2007--
the 10-year period they studied--only 50 percent of the taxpayers who
reached millionaire status did so more than one time. In other words,
high income status is often the result of 1 or 2 years of financial
success, frequently based on the sale of an asset or some other
temporary event.
Here is another notable factoid: A Kauffman Foundation survey of more
than 500 successful entrepreneurs found that 93 percent came from
middle-income or lower income backgrounds. The survey notes that
entrepreneurship did not run in the family for these people. Quoting
from the survey:
The majority were the first in their families to launch a
business.
A Treasury Department study on income and mobility in America found
during the 10-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the
taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher
income group by 2005. Similarly, people in the top income group dropped
to lower groups, thus making way for others to move up. The point is
there is no such thing as a permanent middle class or any other class
in America.
There are other measures of income mobility. As columnist Robert
Samuelson noted, one litmus test for mobility in America is whether
people rise above their parents economically, and this happens
frequently. Citing a new report from the Pew Mobility Project, he notes
that 84 percent of Americans exceed their parents' income at a similar
stage in life. Income gains were ``sizable across the economic
spectrum,'' he writes. Indeed, in the bottom fifth of income earners,
median income grew by 74 percent over just this decade.
While income mobility has slowed during this economic downturn, the
overarching point is that nobody in America is stuck where they are
because of a ruling class of greedy wealthy people.
Here is my third point: To borrow a phrase from Congressman Paul
Ryan, the real class threat is a class of bureaucrats and crony
capitalists using their government connections to try to rig the rules
and rise above everyone else.
One example is ObamaCare. Recently released documents show that
industry lobbyists and Democrats worked very closely in drafting
ObamaCare. After it became law, the Department of Health and Human
Services granted approximately 1,700 temporary waivers from the new
annual limit requirements of the law. When the Federal Government is
handing out lucrative favors, it is easy to predict what will happen.
Companies hire armies of lobbyists and politically connected
organizations--in this case, primarily, labor unions--will get special
treatment. And that is exactly what happened here.
It is not just ObamaCare. Cap-and-trade would have enriched
politically connected energy firms. Even without cap-and-trade, many of
Obama's political supporters have reaped huge benefits from the
administration's green energy industrial policy. The Solyndra scandal
demonstrates what can happen when government tramples free markets in a
misguided attempt to pick economic winners and losers.
As University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales reminds us in his
new book, ``A Capitalism for the People,'' being ``probusiness'' is not
the same as being ``promarket.'' All too often, the Obama
administration has embraced spending policies and regulations that
favor certain businesses but are fundamentally antimarket. If a Federal
policy is probusiness but antimarket, it is most likely an example of
crony capitalism.
The irony here is remarkable. Even though President Obama tours the
country advertising himself as the defender of the little guy and a
guardian of the middle class, he has consistently embraced policies
that promote crony capitalism.
That is not the type of capitalism that made this country so
prosperous, and it is not the type of capitalism the American people
support. Citizens across this country are eager for policies that
promote free markets and equal opportunities for all businesses, all
industries, all entrepreneurs, all people. Those are the principles
upon which our country was founded. Americans firmly reject the idea
that certain companies and industries should receive preferential
treatment for political or ideological reasons. Centuries of evidence
from around the world demonstrates crony capitalism leads to
corruption, a decline of social trust, and economic stagnation. That is
certainly not the future Americans want.
Instead of policies that favor politically connected entities and
take even more money from successful Americans, let's clear the way for
more opportunity and mobility in a true free market system. Higher
taxes and more government are not the answers. We should not make it
more difficult for Americans to get ahead.
We should certainly not believe Americans are to be distinguished by
their income in any given year or be presumed to have different values
or value because of that. To say America has a middle class presumes we
have a lower class or an upper class. Think about it. You can't have a
middle without something on either side. Is it true we have a lower
class and a middle class and an upper class? Some Americans are better
off financially than others. That is certainly true. But that is no
basis for dividing us into arbitrary classes to favor one over another.
My guess is that all this talk about class, while it has a tendency
to divide Americans, is more about trying to identify with the common
man, and that is something all politicians try to do. ``I am just like
you. I am just like the average guy.'' Abraham Lincoln talked about
identifying with the common man. He said he thought God made a lot of
them, and I think that is true. Most people in this country like to
think of themselves as basic, common citizens, and they do not
particularly like somebody identifying them as a class in order to
suggest they are better or worse than somebody else.
That is why I think, even though this divides America, the discussion
about class is probably simply an effort to say ``I am for you.'' And
some politicians don't like to say ``I am for everybody'' because that
would imply they are for people who are very successful. Well, why
shouldn't we be for people who are very successful? They are probably
people who have accumulated wealth because of something they have
accomplished in life--usually by studying hard, working hard, sometimes
by creating some special kind of product.
Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They were smart people who created
something people wanted and were willing to buy, and they got very
wealthy because of that. Is that bad? Bill Gates has created a
foundation, and he and his wife have contributed more to charity than
probably any other thousand people you can name. That is a good thing.
They have created more jobs than many other people in this country
have. They have created products that have enabled us to lead much
better lives. The same thing is true of Steve Jobs and thousands and
thousands of other entrepreneurs. So there is nothing wrong with being
successful, being rewarded for that, because most likely it has given
many other people an opportunity.
There was a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal that talked
about the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan. The article noted they
weren't a very impressive team before Michael Jordan came and the team
wasn't making very much money and neither were any of the players. When
Michael Jordan came, after he established how great he would be, he was
given an enormous, almost unheard-of salary. Did the other players say:
That is not fair? No. Actually, all the other players got big salary
increases too--nothing like Michael Jordan, but they got huge salary
increases. Why? Because he made the team better and it began to succeed
and, eventually--you all know the story--the world championships, the
whole franchise did well--the people selling popcorn in the stands, the
people parking the cars, and certainly every one of the members of the
team made much more money than they ever would have had Michael Jordan
not come to the team. But Michael Jordan still made many times more
than any of them did.
This is a point President John Kennedy made when he talked about
reducing the tax rates in the country on business--on capital gains--so
that businesses could create more wealth so they could do what? They
could grow and hire more people. He said a rising
[[Page S5243]]
tide lifts all boats. If the economy is doing well, if we have wealthy
people who are doing well, we have less wealthy who will also do
better.
That is what America has always been about. We don't take it away
from the person who makes a lot of money. Maybe it is because they are
lucky with a God-given talent they have or their good looks and their
acting ability. Whatever it is, those people generally participate in
activities that create wealth for others as well. They also create
products or services or even entertainment we enjoy. So Americans don't
look askance at these people. We celebrate them. We are happy for their
success. Frequently it helps us too, besides which they pay a lot of
taxes.
Likewise, for those people who are less fortunate, I don't know of
any politician who wants to talk about the lower class. That almost is
a pejorative term. It is as though these are lesser people. Well, the
reality is maybe it is somebody down on his or her luck. Maybe it is
somebody just starting out so they are not making as much money as
somebody who has been in business a lot longer. Maybe it is a student,
for example, or somebody who suffered misfortune, somebody who doesn't
have a good education, or maybe a recent immigrant to the country.
There is nothing lesser about those people. We are all Americans. They
may be in a lower income group, at least temporarily, but there is no
reason to distinguish between the people in that income group and
however the President defines the middle class.
Why is the middle class more deserving or special than people who
don't make as much money as those in the middle class? The point is,
people are deserving all up and down the economic ladder. It isn't just
about money, anyway. The person who makes an average income--who
provides for his family, provides them a good home, good tutelage as a
parent, strong values, maybe sends them off to college and helps them
to prepare for their life as a productive citizen--is just as important
as the wealthy person in this country. A teacher may not make much
money but influences the lives of thousands of young people to be
better citizens in this country--more educated--and that influence goes
far beyond the salary the individual teacher makes. So you can't judge
value by how much money someone makes, and you certainly can't identify
with one class and say: That is the class I am for.
The President, in particular, represents all Americans. He should be
for all Americans. And I don't think there is anything called middle
class values that are different from the values of other people in this
country. Tell me what is different about the values of someone who the
President identifies as middle class? Does that mean middle income? If
so, what income and what year? Because a person will be in a lower
income group one year, in a middle income group the next year, and
maybe 10 years later in a higher income group. Has that individual's
values changed? No. Americans are Americans, and it doesn't matter how
much money we make in a given year. What matters is that as a country
we have found a degree of success that others can only dream of because
we create opportunity for everyone to succeed, and we teach that to our
kids.
I think it is destructive for the leader of the country, the
President, to be suggesting something else--that you should consider
what class you are in in this country: If you are middle class, that is
great, I am for you. Well, what about the other classes, and what about
the person who is middle class today under the President's definition
but wasn't yesterday and might not be tomorrow?
I just think the whole discussion of class is wrong. It is not what
we do here in America. You can divide people for statistical purposes
into income levels, into wealth levels, into levels of education. We
divide ourselves for statistical reasons into all kinds of categories,
but at the end of the day, we don't suggest that one group has
different values than the other or that one is better than the other
one. And I think that is the pernicious effect of the President's
rhetoric--constantly talking about the middle class. I don't even know
if I am in that group or not. Am I in the middle class? I make less
money than the President suggests identifies the wealthy, that is for
sure, but I don't think my values are any different or any better than
those who make less money or more money than I do. In my view, money
isn't even the measure of what this should be all about anyway.
I hope that as the campaign goes on, maybe we can focus a little bit
more on what unites us rather than what divides us, on the values that
I think we all subscribe to, and on the things that would make us a
better country not just in economic terms but in other terms as well.
And if we are focused on economic terms, then let's focus on those that
will make us better off economically: a better education, a better home
environment, strong communities, a government that is willing to help
when that is necessary, and certainly governmental policies that reward
what? That reward education; that reward hard work; that reward savings
and investment; that reward entrepreneurship, people working to create
something, to create a business; that reward job creation so that you
don't have a law like ObamaCare that says: You are OK if you have 49
employees, but as soon as you have 50 employees, then here are a whole
bunch of expensive burdens you are going to have to take on--tax
burdens, penalties, and regulations. That is not something that favors
building a business beyond 49 employees. It doesn't favor job creation
beyond 49 employees. These are the kinds of issues we should be
debating. What will make our country better both in economic terms and
in all of the other terms that define us as a society?
I hope that as the campaign goes on, we will focus a lot more on what
we hold in common, that we share, and that we can do better with,
rather than those that divide us and especially that divide us in
political terms.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
AURORA, COLORADO SHOOTINGS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the horrific shooting that happened last
week in Aurora, CO has shocked our Nation. Our hearts and our prayers
go out to the victims, to their loved ones, and to all those whose
lives have been forever marred by this tragedy. Twelve have died, and
58 more have been injured, many seriously.
We certainly give thanks to the first responders and to the medical
personnel who responded so quickly and so capably. Most of all, we
mourn those who we have lost.
Sadly, no state in our Union is immune to the horror of lives cut
short by violence. In my State of Illinois, there have been too many
lives lost, too many families shattered, too many children caught in
the crossfire in my hometown of East St. Louis and some neighborhoods
of Chicago.
The tragic mass shooting in Aurora has sent ripples of sadness and
loss far beyond Colorado. For many people in Illinois, the scene last
Friday was sickeningly familiar. A little over 4 years ago, a mentally
disturbed gunman walked into a lecture hall at Northern IL University
in DeKalb, IL, and opened fire. He killed 5 people, and injured 21
more. We in Illinois know something about the grief Coloradans are
feeling after last Friday's mass shooting, and we grieve with them.
Petty Officer John Larimer of Crystal Lake, IL
We were saddened to hear that a young man from Illinois was among
those killed in Aurora. U.S. Navy PO3 John Larimer of Crystal Lake, IL,
was a fourth-generation Navy man.
He joined the Navy last year and trained at the Naval Station Great
Lakes near Chicago. He was a cryptologic technician. He was stationed
at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, where he was assigned to the U.S.
Fleet Cyber Command. Last week Petty Officer Larimer went to the movies
with his girlfriend, Julia Vojtsek, a nurse who grew up in Algonquin,
Illinois. When the shooting started, John Larimer shielded Julia's body
with his own. Julia said that John ``held my
[[Page S5244]]
head, and protected my whole body with his, and saved me.'' John
Larimer was a brave man who died a hero. He was 27 years old.
His commanding officer, Commander Jeffrey Jakuboski, said the
following of Larimer:
He was an outstanding shipmate. A valued member of our Navy
team, he will be missed by all who knew him.
Over the weekend, John Larimer was remembered by friends and family
for his intelligence, his good nature, his compassion, and his
dedication to his family, his community and his country.
Family members spoke of his ``incredible mind'' and ``quiet
gentleness.'' John's English teacher at Crystal Lake South High School
remembered a good student who was ``incredibly bright and firm in his
ideals.'' He said John ``was a good, strong human being . . . and I
know he would have done incredible things for our country.'' To his
high school principal, John Larimer was ``just a great kid to be
around.''
Whether it was giving a big tip to a neighborhood kid who sold him a
lemonade, or sending letters to the local newspaper calling for
tolerance and respect for the views of others, John Larimer inspired
those around him through the way he lived his life. And now he has
inspired us with the way he died, literally sacrificing his life to
save another.
His passing is a heartbreaking loss to the community of Crystal Lake,
to Illinois, and to our country. I offer my condolences to John's
parents, his brother and his three sisters. All of us will keep John,
his family and his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers.
A night out at the movies is supposed to be a joyful event. That it
could end in such a horrific scene reminds us how precious and fragile
life is.
In the days and weeks to come, we will learn more about what happened
in Aurora and whether there was any point at which this disturbed
gunman could have been identified and stopped.
There will inevitably be discussions about whether we need to change
any of our laws or policies. We owe it to the victims and their loved
ones to see that those debates are guided by an honest assessment of
the facts, what it will take to keep us safe in America, safe from the
gunman who walks into a classroom at Northern Illinois University in
DeKalb or the gunman who walks into a crowded theater in Aurora CO.
I came out of church yesterday, and a woman came up to me and said:
They are talking about putting metal detectors in movie theaters now.
What is next?
I said, sadly: I am not sure. I don't know where we will turn next to
keep America safe from people who misuse firearms, assault rifles, a
100-round clip of ammunition.
All of these things are raising questions in the minds of everyone
about where is it safe anymore.
I said to this woman outside our church: There was a big crowd
sitting in that church today, too. Just as in that movie theater, we
all thought we were safe until this happened.
For today we pause, not to enter into a debate about these important
issues, which we must face, but to remember and honor those who died,
to offer our condolences to those who were left behind, and to pray for
the recovery of all those who were wounded and those who have suffered.
We wish them comfort in this difficult time.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we now on the motion to proceed to S.
3412?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk I wish to have
reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to calendar No. 467, S. 3412, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief to middle
class families.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Tom Udall, Debbie Stabenow, Mark
Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse, Carl Levin, Robert P.
Casey, Jr., Tom Harkin, Tom Carper, Christopher A.
Coons, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Daniel K. Inouye, Richard Blumenthal, Mark
R. Warner.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required
under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________