[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5901-S5904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 476,
S. 3457, which is the Veterans Jobs Corps Act.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3457, a bill to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a
Veterans Jobs Corps, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Schedule
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next half hour will be for debate on the
Coburn amendment on the AGOA-Burma sanctions bill. Following that
debate, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees. At 11 a.m. there will be
two votes. The first vote will be a cloture vote on the cyber security
bill, followed by a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment to the
AGOA-Burma sanctions bill. The filing deadline for second-degree
amendments to the cyber security bill is 10 a.m. today. Additional
votes are possible today, and we will notify Senators when and if they
are scheduled. We will vote at 11 o'clock, so those people debating the
cloture motion may not get the full hour. They should understand that.
recognition of the republican leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Cyber security
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to start this morning with
a word about cyber security. No one doubts the need to strengthen our
Nation's cyber security defenses. Open source reporting clearly shows
that our defense industrial base, financial sector, and government
networks are all under attack by nation states as well as independent
hackers. The U.S. Cyber Command, the NSA, and the FBI are working hard
to counter these threats. So we all recognize the problem. That is
really not the issue. The issue is the manner in which the Democratic
leadership has tried to steamroll a bill that would address it.
Members on both sides of the aisle have recommendations for improving
our cyber defenses, and some of them thought this bill would provide an
opportunity to propose those ideas through amendments, especially since
Democrats did not allow for an opportunity to do so in committee. Yet,
despite preventing Members from amending the bill in committee, the
anticipated open amendment process, once this new bill got to the
Senate floor, never happened. It just never happened. Despite being on
the bill now for the third day, no Senator from either party has been
allowed to vote on any amendment.
Look, this is a big, complicated, far-reaching bill that involves
several committees of jurisdiction. Democratic leaders have not allowed
any of those committees to improve the bill or even vote on it.
Frankly, I was a little surprised the majority leader decided to file
cloture and end debate before it even started. An issue of
this importance deserves serious consideration and open debate.
Instead, the majority
[[Page S5902]]
leader waited until the last week before August to even take it up.
Rather than give this issue the time and attention it deserves,
Democratic leaders brought it up with only 3 days left before recess
and then tried to jam something through without any chance for
amendment.
The few days the bill was on the floor, the majority limited its
consideration to debate only and then filled the tree and filed
cloture. But, of course, that is kind of par for the course around
here. This is the 65th time the majority leader has filled the
amendment tree and filed cloture--the 65th time. Just to give a point
of comparison, the last 6 party leaders did it 40 times combined. The
last 6 party leaders did it 40 times combined. So the majority leader
has set a historic pace for blocking amendments. No amendments in
committee, no amendments on the floor--take it or leave it. That is the
story of the Senate under the current leadership.
The notion that we should just roll over and wave through these bills
without having a chance to improve them and that Democratic Senators
would be willing to be rolled in such a way is ridiculous, especially
on a bill of this significance. I remind my Democratic friends, none of
you were able to offer or have a vote on your amendments. By filing
cloture and filling the tree, your amendments were blocked as well. The
senior Senator from Missouri authored three amendments and cosponsored
three others. None of those will get votes if cloture is invoked. The
senior Senator from Arkansas has two amendments and cosponsored
another. None of those will get votes if cloture is invoked. The senior
Senator from Louisiana has authored two amendments and cosponsored one
more. None of those will get votes if cloture is invoked. As of this
morning, 29 Democratic Senators have filed 74 amendments, not counting
the ones used to fill the tree. That is a lot of amendments. They will
not get any votes. I may not support all of these amendments. In fact,
I am sure there are many I will probably oppose. But that doesn't mean
the Senators who proposed them should not be entitled to have a chance
to make their case.
Instead of just being rubberstamps for the majority leader, I
encourage these Senators to stand up for themselves and their
constituents and demand to be heard. After all, the majority leader
himself said earlier this year that given the complex nature of this
subject, it was essential to have a thorough and open amendment process
and even committed to ensuring it.
Let me read what the majority leader committed to on this bill in
February of this year. The majority leader said:
Given the complexity and significance of the legislation,
it is essential that we have a thorough and open debate on
the Senate floor, including consideration of amendments to
perfect the legislation, insert additional provisions where
the majority of the Senate supports them, and remove
provisions if such support does not exist. For that reason, I
have committed to my colleagues that we will have an
amendment process that will be fair and reasonable . . . this
legislation will have been subject to as fair, thorough, and
open a process as is conceivable.
That was the majority leader in February of this year.
There is widespread agreement that a cyber security bill should
eventually pass. We need to improve information sharing between the
private and public sectors. And there is a clear indication that we
will need to responsibly debate this matter in the very near future. If
cloture is not invoked today, I suggest we work in a bipartisan fashion
to complete the bill, and I suggest that the next time we take it up,
we allow the Senate to be the Senate. Let Senators have their proposals
considered on the floor, especially if the Democratic leadership is not
going to allow them to be considered in committee.
Mr. President, on another matter----
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Arizona for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. I see the majority leader wants to speak, but my question
is, isn't it true that there has been a series of meetings including
the sponsors of the bill, those of us who believed significant
modifications needed to be made, and large numbers of Senators have at
least tentatively come to some agreement that we think could move this
legislation forward in a fashion that recognizes the importance of the
issue and yet dramatically, in our view, improves the legislation? I
hope the Republican leader and majority leader would not interpret this
vote--which clearly cloture will not be invoked--as an impediment to
the process that I think was moving on a path where we could have
reached some agreement and addressed this issue and this legislation
conclusively.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I say to my friend from Arizona, he is entirely
correct. A vote not to finish the bill today is a vote to actually have
amendments and an opportunity to modify the bill, as we all know is
necessary, including my friend the majority leader, who indicated as
much back in February.
I know the majority leader is on his feet and wants to discuss the
matter further. I know he may have time commitments, but I do as well.
I have two other issues I wish to address, and then I will be happy to
yield the floor.
The Economy
Two years ago tomorrow, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner declared in a
now-infamous New York Times op-ed entitled ``Welcome to the Recovery''
that because of the actions taken by the Obama administration during
its first 1\1/2\ years, the U.S. economy was, as he put it, ``on the
road to recovery.'' I think it is pretty obvious that the Treasury
Secretary jumped the gun on that one. Far from putting us on a path to
recovery, it is now obvious that President Obama's policies have made a
bad situation worse.
Secretary Geithner was right to say that the President's policies
were having an effect on the economy. He was clearly wrong to conclude
that they were anything approaching a lasting, positive effect on the
economy. On the contrary, we can see that the policies of the
President's first 2 years in office put us decidedly on the wrong path.
Two years after Secretary Geithner's op-ed, 23 million Americans are
either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work
altogether. Half of the college graduates cannot find a decent job, and
with little or no income, many have decided to move back home with mom
and dad. Two years after Secretary Geithner all but declared victory,
GDP growth is still at an anemic 1.5 percent. Foreclosures are still
quite common. More Americans than ever are on food stamps. Two years
after Secretary Geithner welcomed Americans to the recovery, more
Americans are signing up for disability than are finding jobs. More
Americans are signing up for disability than are finding jobs. All of
this after the President and a Democrat-led Congress passed his major
policy initiatives.
In the face of all these things, you would think the administration
would change course, go in a different direction. After all, if it
claimed credit then for what it thought was a recovery, it would have
to claim credit for what we actually see, now--not exactly apparent.
As it turns out, the administration is happy to claim credit when it
thinks things are going well but even happier to cast blame when it
thinks things are not going well. So 2 years after touting the impact
the President's policies were having on our economy, the administration
now acts as though they have been irrelevant. They act as though an
additional $5 trillion in debt isn't affecting people's anxiety about
the Nation's future. They act as though a $1 trillion health care bill
that hammers the private sector isn't affecting business activity.
They act as though the President's perpetual threats to raise taxes
aren't impacting investment. They act as though somehow the President's
attacks on free enterprise aren't putting a chill on risk-taking. They
act as though a barrage of new regulations isn't keeping businesses
from hiring and expanding. They say it is Bush's fault, it is headwinds
from Europe, it is the Tsunami, and it is the Republicans.
The President can't have it both ways. He can't be responsible for
the economy when he thinks it is going well and disavow responsibility
when it clearly isn't. He is either responsible for it or he isn't.
The Treasury Secretary had it right 2 years ago when he said: The
President's policies have had a big impact on the economy. What he got
wrong
[[Page S5903]]
was the fact that the impact was actually negative. If we were to ask
ourselves whether Americans are better off now than they were 2 years
ago, the answer would be obvious. The President's policies have clearly
made it harder for Americans to find jobs and to keep those jobs.
If the President wants to cast blame for the economic mess we are in,
he should look no further than his own policies. If he is more
concerned about the future of the country than his own reelection, he
would work with us to go in a different direction. For 3\1/2\ years,
Republicans stood ready to work with him on the kind of policies that
would empower the private sector to lift us out of this recovery once
and for all. Comprehensive tax reform, an all-of-the-above energy
policy, eliminating burdensome regulations, these are the kinds of
things we can do together. We are ready whenever he is.
Finally, on one other subject, and I apologize to my friend the
majority leader for delaying him further.
Tribute to Carl Kaelin
Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my old friend Carl Kaelin of
Leitchfield, KY. Carl was recently appointed national inspector general
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States at the national
convention in Nevada. Carl is the first Kentuckian to become VFW's
national inspector general, one of the highest positions in that
organization.
Carl has a long history of serving his country, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, his community and veterans across the State and, indeed, the
Nation. He served in the U.S. Army as a crew chief of an OV-1 Mowhawk
aircraft in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969. Upon his return in 1969, he
joined VFW Post 1170 in Middletown, KY, becoming a VFW life member.
Carl has served the VFW in a number of positions over the years,
including as post and district commander and, at the age of 33, as
Kentucky's youngest State commander.
In these capacities and on the VFW National Council of
Administration, Carl worked tirelessly on behalf of America's heroes,
our Nation's veterans. In addition to his selfless work with the VFW,
Carl has also been active with Kentucky's Joint Executive Council of
Veterans Organizations and served as mayor and city councilman of the
city of Lynnview, KY.
Over the years, I have had the great fortune of working with Carl on
a number of issues to ensure our Nation's veterans receive the care and
the benefits they deserve.
I congratulate Carl Kaelin and his wife Linda on his new position and
thank him for his military service and tireless dedication to our
Nation's veterans. I also thank him for his friendship over the years.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wasn't planning on making a statement
today. I felt we should leave the time for the vote we are having at
11. It is my understanding that under the rule, Senator Coburn and
others will have a half hour to debate the Burma sanctions; is that
right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. The time left over will be whatever time is left over for
the debate on the motion to proceed to the cloture vote; is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
tax Planning
Mr. REID. I will talk about cyber security in 1 minute. Let's talk
about the minority leader's continual harangue against the President of
the United States. Underscore all of this with what my friend the
Republican leader said at the beginning of this Congress: The No. 1
issue for him in this Congress is defeating President Obama, and that
is how the Republicans have acted. To talk about a Republican tax plan
would have to bring a smile to one's face. Yesterday, an organization
called the Tax Policy Center--now remember last year Mitt Romney called
the Tax Policy Center ``an objective third party'' and cited one of
their studies to bash Rick Perry in the Republican primary. So this
objective third party said yesterday about Romney's tax plan that my
friend the Republican leader wants the American people to grab. The
only people to be grabbing that are very rich people.
The vast majority of Mitt Romney's tax plan would go to people just
like him, people making millions of dollars every year. Under Romney's
plan, folks making more than $3 million a year would get a tax break of
almost $250,000 per year. So how will he pay for this massive handout
to the top 1 percent? He will hand the bill to 95 percent of the
American people. Under his plan, my friend the Republican leader
wants--I hope everyone within the sound of my voice listens to this
because the Republican plan would require the average middle-class
family with children to pay $2,000 more in taxes to take care of the
millionaires. Ninety-five percent of families in this country would be
asked to pay more so people such as Mitt Romney can get a tax break.
Now, that is a great program, a wonderful program.
Last year, I repeat, Mitt Romney called this Tax Policy Center an
objective third party when he was once again changing his position
during the Republican debates leading up to his nomination. Now that
the group has exposed his plan to hike taxes for 95 percent of the
American families while handing out more giveaways to millionaires, the
Tax Policy Center is suddenly too liberal, his spokespeople say, to be
trusted. I would suggest, when we are talking about trust, we need to
look no further than the person my friend the Republican leader wants
to be President of the United States.
As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person
coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be
if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the
word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove
he has paid taxes because he has not. We already know from one partial
tax return he gave us he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman
Islands, and a Swiss bank account. I am not making that up. Mitt Romney
makes more money in a single day than an average middle-class family
makes in 2 years or more.
So let's not talk about this great plan the Republicans have to
create jobs. The No. 1 goal in this body by the Republicans has been to
damage the President of the United States. They have refused to work
with us in creating jobs.
Cyber Security
Let's talk a little bit about cyber security. We have people coming
over here saying: We almost have a deal. I have been hearing that for 3
years. We have been working on cyber security for 3 years. They are
over here today asking why we don't have more meetings. This is a bill
that has had meeting after meeting. Chairman Lieberman, Chairman
Rockefeller, and Chairman Feinstein have had plenty of meetings. They
have had meetings with the Republicans, meetings with Independents, and
meetings with business groups. So don't come and lecture us over here
about how my Senators should vote. We know how important this
legislation is. We believe this legislation is more important than
getting a pat on the back from the Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber of Commerce does not support this legislation. That is
why the Republicans are running like scared cats, because the
Republicans will not endorse doing something that is good for our
country and that is protecting us against cyber attacks.
The statements made by the Republican leader speak volumes. This is
another filibuster that could have been prevented by their work to get
a list of relevant amendments to show how serious the Republican leader
is about cyber security. Let's just take a few days from this week. We
have been stalled and stalled in months past trying to get a bill. We
could never get the Republican leader to endorse a bill. We worked with
the White House, and they came aboard. We begged and pleaded to do a
bill together. No, no; because the Chamber of Commerce does not want a
bill.
The first thing we hear about cyber security, to show how serious
they are, is an amendment where they want to repeal ObamaCare. They did
that on the last day of the month of July, when on the first day of
August all these great benefits for women kick in.
The Republican leader was standing here and said, I want to vote on
[[Page S5904]]
ObamaCare. Then he walks out there a few hours later, standing by the
famous Ohio clock, and says, cyber security, we should do it. It will
take a lot longer to do than the time we have. If cloture is not
invoked today, it is for reasons I have just enumerated but principally
because of the Chamber of Commerce. They are opposed to the initial
bill because it was mandatory that these companies do something to
protect America from these attacks from bad people.
So Senators Lieberman and Collins, the two managers of this bill from
the Homeland Security Committee, said: OK. We don't think this is the
right thing to do, but we will not make the provisions mandatory
anymore. That is still not good enough for the Chamber of Commerce. A
voluntary alternative is still something opposed by the Chamber of
Commerce.
I have and numerous other people have come to the floor and talked
about how important this bill is. The bill that is before this body now
that we are going to vote cloture on would be a wonderful step forward.
No, it doesn't do everything everyone wants, but it is a good bill. It
is to protect our country. The leaders of the security of this Nation,
including General Patraeus, General Dempsey, and the people working in
NSA say this bill is more important than Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and North Korea. But the Chamber of Commerce has now interjected
themselves in the security of this Nation. They think they know more
than Patraeus, Dempsey, and all the leaders of this country. They are
telling the Republicans to vote against this, believing they will get
something better later on. Maybe they will, but right now here is what
we have. I think it sends a very bad message to the country that
Republicans are not willing to support this legislation.
To show how serious the Republicans are to get this bill done, they
filed an amendment on a right-to-work law and they filed an amendment
on repealing Dodd-Frank. That is just some of the beginning volleys
they shot over here. My friend, the Senior Senator from Arizona, steps
in and says: We are working on a list.
So I am disappointed, perplexed, and somewhat confused about how the
Republicans want to proceed. It is obvious--it is obvious--until they
get a signoff from the chamber of commerce that nothing will happen on
one of the most important security interests this country has faced in
generations.
So I would suggest that the Republican leader, rather than trying to
denigrate this legislation that has been done with the best interests
of the country at heart--including one of his most valued Senators, Ms.
Collins--do a conference call with the chamber of commerce. Have them
come down here and tell them what they want, and maybe, with what the
chamber of commerce wants, we can work something out, because they are
ruling the place now as far as this legislation goes.
The chamber of commerce, I will repeat, for the first time that I am
aware of in the history of this country, has now become the protector
of our Nation's security interests. That says it all, Mr. President.
____________________