[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.

                          ____________________