[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6502-S6510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 504, S.
3525.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 504, S. 3525, a bill to protect
and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing,
and shooting, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The 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. 504, S. 3525, a bill to protect and
enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and
shooting, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin III, Jeanne Shaheen,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden, Max
Baucus, Daniel K. Inouye, Kent Conrad, Mark Pryor,
Christopher A. Coons, Michael F. Bennet, Kay R. Hagan,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, Ben Nelson.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required
under rule XXII be waived with respect to both cloture motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the President pro tempore of the Senate is
on the floor and seeks recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
H.J. Res. 117
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, as we near the end of the current
fiscal year, the Senate is considering H.J. Res. 117, a continuing
resolution to ensure that the Federal Government will remain
functioning through March of next year in the absence of regular
appropriations. Last Thursday, the House passed this measure by a vote
of 329 to 91.
This bill provides total discretionary spending of $1.047 trillion.
This is the funding level the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended on an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 27 to 2 and the level
agreed to last year in the Budget Control Act, but this bill is $19
billion more than what was approved by the House in the Paul Ryan
budget. I am encouraged the House has finally repudiated its own
budget. I am only sorry it has taken them this long to come to their
senses. One of the primary reasons Congress now faces this CR is that
the House broke this agreement on spending.
I want my colleagues to know I support this measure even though it is
far from perfect. In fact, I would say it is not a good bill, but
passing it is much better than allowing the government to shut down
over a lack of funding.
Continuing resolutions are not new. As some of my colleagues are
aware, I have served in this Senate for 49 years and 9 months. During
my tenure, this Congress has completed its work and enacted all of its
spending bills without needing a continuing resolution on only three
occasions. In 49 years, three times. This is not a record we should be
proud of, but it demonstrates how difficult it is to agree on funding
for each of the thousands of Federal programs that the Appropriations
Committee reviews annually. However, never before in history has the
Congress passed a stopgap resolution in September to fund the entire
government for half the coming fiscal year. It is unfortunate that it
has come to this.
Seven months ago, as we began this legislative session, the mood was
quite different. There was broad support for acting on appropriations
bills. Several Members on both sides of the aisle came to the floor to
speak about restoring regular order and passing all 12 appropriations
bills. Both the Republican and Democratic leaders spoke in favor of
considering all of these bills. The Appropriations Committee was urged
to conduct a budget review as quickly as possible and report bills to
the Senate for consideration, and our subcommittees embraced this
challenge. We shortened our hearing schedule, conducted thousands of
meetings with executive branch officials and the public, and began to
mark up bills shortly after receiving our allocation from the Budget
Committee.
In most years the Senate Appropriations Committee begins its markups
in June. This year the committee reported its first two bills in April
and had nine bills ready for floor consideration by the end of June.
By July the committee had reported out 11 bills, 9 of which were
recommended with strong bipartisan votes, and by that I mean 30 to 0 or
29 to 1. Despite the work of the committee, none of those bills have
been considered by the Senate. The decision by the House to break faith
with the Senate and the administration on funding levels and the
inclusion of outrageous legislative policy riders in their bills
drained the enthusiasm for acting on those measures. But the real
culprit thwarting the efforts of the committee was a handful of my
colleagues who insisted on delaying the business of the Senate.
We have heard our distinguished majority leader cite the statistics.
In 382 instances in the past 6 years he has been forced to file cloture
to break filibusters. It is becoming very clear filibusters are
crippling the Senate. This year, this Senate has been in session for
105 days. By my count, on 31 of those days the Senate has done nothing
but consider motions to proceed, as we are doing with this motion, or
to invoke cloture. That means nearly 30 percent of the Senate's time
this year has been completely wasted.
Moreover, the Senate has only voted on amendments and legislation on
21 of those days that we were in session. On 21 out of 105 days, we
actually legislated and worked. The rest of the time was spent on a
backlog of nominations or breaking filibusters.
I have never experienced anything like this in my many years in the
Senate. It is true that for some time the use of filibusters has been
increasing, but this year it has truly exploded. I do not oppose
filibusters. I believe the filibuster is one of the most critical tools
Senators have to protect the rights of our constituents. This
is especially
[[Page S6503]]
true for small States, such as Hawaii, which are at a disadvantage in
the House of Representatives compared to States with very large
delegations. In fact, the first speech I delivered in the Senate was in
defense of the filibuster. I supported the filibuster. Times were
different then.
For example, I waited until April of that year before speaking on the
Senate floor, and I spoke on the filibuster. When I delivered my maiden
speech, legendary Senators such as Everett Dirksen, Richard Russell,
Mike Mansfield, and John Stennis were all in attendance. Truly, times
have changed, but the most striking difference between then and now is
that a filibuster was used very rarely in those early days and only for
matters of extreme importance to Members and their States.
I did not agree with those who used the filibuster in the 1960s to
try to stop civil rights legislation. I disagreed with those who used
the filibuster against health care reform in 2010. But in both cases I
defended the right to do so.
This year the Senate has been held up, delayed, and rendered
ineffective for at least 30 percent of its time by the abuse of the
filibuster. These filibusters were not to highlight important policy
differences, nor were they to protect a Senator's constituents.
Instead, in virtually every case it was simply to thwart the ability of
the Senate to function.
So today is a sad day. The Senate is forced to take up a 6-month
continuing resolution instead of acting upon regular appropriations
bills. The bipartisan zeal for regular order last spring has been
crushed by dilatory tactics of a few Members who have wasted the
Senate's time. At some point, this body needs to alter either its
behavior or its rules.
In addition to discretionary funding, this resolution also provides
$99 billion for overseas contingencies as requested and necessary for
the coming year. Further, it continues funding at current levels to pay
for disasters under FEMA and to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in the
Social Security Program. Each of these is consistent with the
authorities included in the Budget Control Act.
In addition, the bill before the Senate provides only the bare
minimum that is necessary to maintain the functions of our Federal
Government. The administration sought approximately 78 proposals to
ensure that critical programs and authorities could be continued for
the next 6 months. This bill includes only about half of them because
the House was unwilling to allow more.
Provisions deemed essential by the Secretary of Defense to preserve
authorities for ongoing programs in support of our efforts in
Afghanistan and in Iraq are not in this measure. Special provisions to
allow the Department of Defense to award contracts for critical
programs were denied. Additional funding to activate new Federal
prisons that currently sit empty was not included.
This bill denies necessary authorities for dozens of programs. In
some cases, the administration will find cumbersome work-arounds. For
others it will have to slow down work on ongoing programs, and this
increases costs and brings about inefficiency. Many programs will
simply have to cease activity and await additional action on
appropriations bills.
We urged the House to include many of the provisions requested by the
administration, but they refused. The bill would have been far better
had more of these requirements been met. Yet I would point out that the
House has not played favorites. No department was granted the
authorities it required. The Defense Department has not been singled
out for special help by House Republicans. If anything, it has been
treated more harshly than many other agencies.
So I support this bill because opposing it is not a responsible
alternative. No one should be interested in delaying or defeating this
bill. We simply cannot afford to shut down government operations.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill which will
preserve our government. It is lean and it is stripped down, but it
contains the funding and minimal authorities essential to ensure that
the services provided for all Americans can be continued over the
coming months.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this continuing resolution results from
an agreement reached between the President and the congressional
leadership for a 6-month, clean CR that adheres to the fiscal year 2013
spending levels set out in the Budget Control Act.
The continuing resolution does not make reductions in programs for
which the President requested less money in fiscal year 2013, nor does
it make cuts that have been proposed by the Congress. Neither does the
resolution increase funding for programs Congress or the administration
deemed to be high priorities, with a few exceptions. The continuing
resolution does not contain any new oversight provisions to guide
agencies, nor does it include any new riders to limit the activities of
the executive branch. In short, it puts the portion of government that
we call discretionary on automatic pilot. Enactment of this resolution
will, for the time being, avoid a disruptive government-shutdown fight.
The resolution represents a lost opportunity. We have lost the
opportunity to provide agencies with at least some certainty about
funding for this fiscal year. We have lost the opportunity to make
informed judgments about which programs are effective and deserving of
additional resources and which programs should be reformed or
terminated. Contracts will not be let in a timely and efficient manner,
and acquisition and construction costs will rise with delay. The morale
of the Federal workforce will suffer. Perhaps most importantly, we have
lost a chance to supplant the looming sequester.
Elections have consequences, as they most certainly should, but
elections should not have the consequence of rendering Congress
unwilling or incapable of performing its most fundamental duties in the
times leading up to those elections. In my view, the thoughtful and
dutiful appropriation of funds for our national defense and other
government operations is such a fundamental duty.
I deeply regret that the majority leader chose not to call up a
single appropriations bill. Chairman Inouye has shown impressive
leadership of our committee in reporting 11 of the 12 bills out of our
committee. Most were reported on a broad bipartisan basis. The chairmen
and ranking members of the subcommittees have put a lot of time and
thought into the bills. The staffs have worked very hard producing this
legislation. The other body has also produced a bill. It has passed
seven of the appropriations bills in the other body and I suspect would
have passed the others had there been any sign of movement in the
Senate.
We can only speculate as to why none of the bills have been
considered here in the Senate. Other issues were deemed more pressing
or expedient for one reason or another. Perhaps votes on amendments to
spending bills were deemed to be politically perilous, whatever the
reasons.
At a time when addressing our Nation's fiscal situation is so central
to our duty as Senators, it seems more imperative than ever that
Members of this body have an opportunity to offer amendments to shape
the spending bills. Our problems are sufficiently large that it will
require all of our good ideas to make the day-to-day operations of
government as efficient and effective as possible. This might mean we
have to take votes on difficult amendments. But would that really be so
traumatic?
As a result of our inaction, we are compelled to pass this continuing
resolution to fund the government. I would have preferred a shorter
term CR in order to motivate action on the appropriations bills, but 6
months is what has been agreed to.
Proponents of this 6-month CR argue that the prospect of a government
shutdown should be taken off the table so that we can focus on the
complex issues facing us in the coming months. But do those issues look
any more simple now that we are about to pass this CR?
All manner of taxes are scheduled to go up on January 1. Medicare
reimbursement rates will be cut dramatically. The debt ceiling looms.
And due
[[Page S6504]]
to the inability of the supercommittee to propose a debt reduction
package, we are facing a budget sequester that very few people seem to
think is a good idea.
Perhaps passage of this CR will help us address these pressing
matters. I hope that it will. But I am not so sure it changes things
that much.
Regardless of who wins what in the upcoming election, we have a great
deal of unfinished business to resolve in the coming months.
None of my colleagues likely relish the prospect of voting in March--
up or down--on either a trillion-dollar omnibus bill or a trillion-
dollar full-year CR. Yet that is where we are headed if we continue to
do nothing.
Appropriations bills are not simply opportunities to spend more
money. They provide regular opportunities for effective oversight of
Federal agencies. And when we take the time to bring them to the Senate
floor, they provide regular opportunities for the elected
representatives of all the people to shape, as well as fund the
operations of the Federal Government. I hope the Senate will not
continue to deny the people that opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I believe the record should show how
much we appreciate the work of the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi, the vice chairman of the committee, Thad Cochran. We have
demonstrated to our colleagues that bipartisanship works in this
Senate. All they have to do is watch us operate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Remembering Jennifer Green
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today with great sadness to inform
the Senate that Jennifer Green, a valued member of my staff and a
cherished member of the Senate family, passed away last weekend after a
brief illness. It is a comfort to all who knew Jennifer that she spent
her last hours in a room filled with the family she cherished so
deeply, but no room on Earth would have been large enough to hold all
those who mourn her, who have been touched and made better by
Jennifer's beautiful smile, big heart, and easy friendship. She is
sorely missed in my office, throughout the Senate, and even across the
country.
Jennifer worked in my office for the past 14 years, but she served
the Senate for nearly a quarter century, starting with the Sergeant at
Arms when she was just 20 years old. Jennifer was often the first face
visitors to my office would see. She did more than just arrange Capitol
tours or point them to the nearest DC attraction; she worked out a
botched hotel reservation, found a glass of water to soothe an
overheated toddler, listened to worries about a failing farm, a sick
grandparent, or a threatened job.
Many of my constituents arrive in the office a little overwhelmed by
Washington, perhaps a little angry at Congress, but after meeting
Jennifer, they left knowing they had a friend here. Jennifer put a
human, caring face on the Senate--a service to this institution that
affected the way hundreds, and probably thousands, of Wisconsinites
viewed their government.
Of course, no one, not visitor or staff, could leave the office
without an update on Jennifer's family, especially her beloved mother
Beatrice Spicer, her father Floyd Spicer, her brothers and sisters, and
her son Lorenzo Green. She was so proud of this fine young man, as we
all are. Through Jennifer, we got to watch a mischievous little boy
grow to a talented and strong man serving our country as a member of
the U.S. Coast Guard. She made sure everyone got a good look at the
handsome--and big--framed picture she kept in her cubicle of Lorenzo in
uniform.
Jennifer made us all feel as if we were part of her wonderful family.
She was always the first to ask to see the picture of a new baby, quick
to drive a colleague to the doctor or listen to a staffer who lost a
parent, ready to swap a recipe or dissect the Redskins' latest
performance. And that was not just my experience and that of my staff--
Jennifer knew just about everyone who works on the Hill. We have had a
steady stream of visitors stopping by the office to share memories and
express their condolences. Thank you all for the comfort that has
brought our staff.
Jennifer's funeral will be held in her hometown of Princeton, WV,
this Saturday. I urge anyone who wants to attend or to leave a message
for the family through the funeral home to contact my office for
details. We will also be organizing a memorial service for Jennifer
here in the Senate in the coming weeks, and we will make sure all
offices get plenty of notice so that her many friends can be there.
Everywhere you look in the Capitol, there are plaques, pictures, and
statues commemorating the men and women who built this great
institution, but these, like all things physical, oftentimes fade or
are forgotten. Jennifer touched the heart of the Senate, the people who
work here, and the people who visit. Hers is a legacy and a
contribution that time cannot erase.
For everyone in my office and for the entire Senate, I offer my
deepest condolences to Jennifer's dear family. I hope you can find
comfort in knowing of all the good she did and the joy she brought in
her time here. We will all miss her profoundly and hold her in our
hearts forever.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a copy of Jennifer's obituary.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Jennifer Denise Spicer Green
Jennifer Denise Spicer Green, 46 of Lusby, MD, departed
this life Saturday, September 15, 2012, at Georgetown
University Hospital in Washington, DC. She was born February
23, 1966 in Princeton to the union of James F. Spicer and
Beatrice Spicer and was the youngest of five children.
Jennifer first accepted the Lord at Mt. Calvary Missionary
Baptist Church in Princeton and after moving to Maryland she
became a member of the Maple Springs Baptist Church in
Suitland, MD. She was a graduate of Princeton High School and
was a former employee at the Dairy Queen in Princeton. Her
first government position was doorkeeper of the Senate
Chamber, and she then worked as an elevator operator in the
Unites States Capitol in Washington, DC. Jennifer continued
her service as mail carrier under the Senate Sergeant at Arms
Office for the Senate Post Office. She then became a data
entry operator to U.S. Senator Paul Simon of Illinois and
later accepted a position as front office receptionist with
the Special Committee of Aging. During the changing of
legislature, Jennifer moved to Charlotte, NC, where she
worked with the American Heart Association and Gerrard Tire
and Automotive. Upon moving back to Maryland, Jennifer
accepted the position as receptionist with the Senate Finance
Committee and then spent the last sixteen years with the
office of Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin in the positions of
Mailroom Manager, Photographer, and Intern Supervisor. During
this time she also worked part time for Senator Evan Bayh of
Indiana, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, Senator
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Senator Bob Casey of
Pennsylvania. She was preceded in death by her maternal and
paternal grandparents. Survivors include her loving son,
Lorenzo J. Green of the U.S. Coast Guard stationed in Alaska;
parents, Beatrice E. Burton Spicer of Princeton and James
``Floyd'' Spicer of Atlanta, GA; step children, LaQuosha
Jackson, Willard Green, Jr., Byron Green, Latonya Green, and
Trea Green; three godchildren, Brittany Coleman, Mykisha
Avery, and Amanda Spicer; two brothers, Joey A. Spicer and
James ``Toby'' Spicer both of Princeton; two sisters, Cindy
E. Townes of New Carlton, MD and Donna M. Spicer of
Mooresville, NC; special cousin that was like a brother to
Jennifer, John ``Dexter'' Coles of Capitol Heights, MD;
faithful friend, Derrick Williams; and a host of aunts,
uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins and additional friends.
Funeral services will be conducted at 11:00 AM, Saturday,
September 22, 2012 at the George W. Seaver Chapel of Seaver
Funeral Home in Princeton with Bishop Romey Coles, Rev.
Charles Stores, Rev. Jesse Woods and Rev. Terrance Porter
officiating. Burial will follow at Restlawn Memorial Gardens,
Littlesburg Road in Bluefield. Family and friends may call at
the funeral home from 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM, Friday,
September 21, 2012 and 10:00 AM until the service hour on
Saturday. On line condolences may be sent by visiting
www.seaverfuneralservice.com. Seaver Funeral Home in
Princeton is serving the Green family.
Mr. KOHL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Tribute to Ryan McCoy
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and honor my
friend Ryan McCoy, a departing member of my staff. Ryan McCoy is, in
fact, much more than just a member of my staff; he has been the energy
behind many of my legislative goals, and he is also a close friend.
While no tribute of words could ever match the debt of gratitude he
truly deserves, I would like to pay tribute in the official records of
Congress to someone who fought to make a
[[Page S6505]]
difference both for the State of Utah and for our country.
C.S. Lewis said:
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to
another: ``What! You too? I thought I was the only one.''
My friendship with Ryan McCoy, my former legislative director, was
born in that very way described by C.S. Lewis. We met back in 2009 when
I was speaking to a group of Utahans about a topic near and dear to my
heart: article I, section 8 of the Constitution. I spoke of my passion
for the Constitution and for the principles of limited government
embodied therein, and my message apparently struck something of a chord
with Ryan, who had recently taken a greater interest in finding ways to
restore those same principles. We spent several hours after the speech
talking about what the Constitution meant to both of us. I had not
always thought about running for office, but when Ryan suddenly
prepared a PowerPoint presentation for me about the problems we face as
a country and about the ways in which he and I, working together, could
make a difference, I started thinking much more seriously about it.
When Ryan and I discussed later his leadership role in my office, his
wife Kara jokingly told him that he had no idea what he was doing. But
the truth is that we needed to know only one thing, just one thing:
that we could make a difference. In the end, I believe that was our
greatest asset. Ryan and I shared a vision for change in Washington. We
knew it would not come easily, but it had to come from people who
wanted to make a difference. It had to come from people who had lived
in difficult economic circumstances and felt the need for change as it
tugged at their own pocketbooks and at their own individual freedoms
being eroded by an ever-expanding government.
At a meeting a few months after we met, Ryan spoke of the common
goals we shared. He said that our movement would be based on a clear,
unequivocal message that it was time to change course for our country.
Ryan and I shared this vision, and Ryan knew others would catch on to
it. In the nearly 2 years he served as my legislative director, he
worked hard, he worked tirelessly, he worked constantly to keep us
focused on these legislative goals and to keep us true to our
principles.
It is safe to say that I would not be here today without the hard
work and dedication of Ryan McCoy. Once here, I would never have been
able to do many of the things I have done without Ryan McCoy's expert
assistance. Ryan will be remembered in my office as a respected leader
and as a man who truly loves his country.
Too often in the hustle and bustle of Washington, we tend to take our
staff members for granted. It is when they leave that we truly see the
impact they have had and the wide breadth of influence they had while
they were here.
As much as we will miss Ryan, we will also miss his wife Kara and her
shared enthusiasm every bit as much. I thank Kara. She and Ryan have
become an important part of my life, an important part of my family, an
important part of my office family.
In addition to thanking Kara, I also want to thank Ryan and Kara's
children, Connor, Tate, Gage, and McCall, for loaning their dad to me
for these few years. Kara once told me that during a particularly busy
time in the Senate, one of their children--I do not remember which
one--actually came to her and asked her where their dad had gone and
whether or when he might be returning. I appreciate their sacrifice,
and I hope they will grow up knowing their father is a true hero of
mine--and always will be--one who works tirelessly for his country and
for their future. I wish them the best back in Utah, and on behalf of
myself, Sharon, and my entire staff, I extend my love and sincere
appreciation to each of them.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Tax and Economic Policy
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, two enormous challenges will await us
when we return from recess. Our economy is still not yet fully
recovered from a devastating recession, and the prospects for our
middle class and for those aspiring to be in the middle class or to get
back into the middle class remain uncertain. Meanwhile, our budget
remains sorely out of balance, and our long-term debt crisis is putting
our Nation's fiscal future at risk. These two challenges are, of
course, linked. We cannot hope to solve our long-term debt problem
unless we get our economy growing again, and we cannot hope to rebuild
our prosperity unless we resolve our budget problems.
So we will have big decisions to make when we come back, but in the
meantime the American people will be wrestling with the same issues:
What should we do to grow our economy and reduce our debt? What are the
right investments to make?
How should we pay for them? What sacrifices must be made in the name
of fiscal responsibility? Who is going to make them? That is the debate
our Nation will have over the next 6 weeks. Those are the questions we
must be prepared to answer when we return. So before I go home to
Minnesota to share my thoughts with my constituents, I wanted to take a
few moments to share them with my colleagues.
My view of what we should do in response to these challenges is based
upon what we have done in response to similar challenges in the past.
We are not the first Congress or the first generation to struggle with
these issues. At the end of 2011, our national debt had reached 100
percent of our gross domestic product. That is frightening. But after
World War II, our debt was 121 percent of GDP.
To be fair, we had something to show for it. We had won World War II
and the world was a very different place in 1945 than it is today. But
the point is that we were tested. How did we respond? Well, we invested
in the things we believed would grow the economy. We invested in
education, things such as the GI bill, which helped my mother-in-law,
widowed at age 29, go to college.
We invested in Pell grants which helped my wife Franni and her three
sisters go to college. We invested in infrastructure. We built 40,000
miles of highways in the 1950s. We invested in innovation and we won
the space race which, in turn, led to the creation of whole new
industries such as personal computers and telecommunications.
Those investments paid off and our economy experienced three decades
of incredible growth, growth that flowed to the top, to the middle, and
to the bottom. Between 1947 and 1977, wages for the top fifth, the top
fifth of workers, grew by 99 percent, and wages for those in the bottom
fifth rose by 116 percent. I know that is hard to believe. The wages of
the bottom fifth grew more than those of the top fifth. But that
happened.
Even though we remained a Nation in which many kids like my wife
Franni grew up in poverty, we had enough to invest in a strong safety
net that helped those kids like Franni and her sisters and her brother
work their way into the middle class. We bounced back from World War II
to build an economy with a middle class that was strong, secure, and
accessible to almost everyone.
Thanks in large part to the growth generated by that thriving middle
class, we were able to lower our national debt to about 31 percent by
1981; so 121 percent at the end of World War II, to 1981, about 31
percent. Since then our economy has had some good times and some bad
times. We have raised taxes and we have lowered taxes. We have had
surpluses and we have had deficits.
As this chart shows, our debt relative to GDP has gone up and down.
We have seen the results of a variety of approaches to the issues we
face today. In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan was elected on a
platform that appealed to concerns that the government taxed too much
and spent too much. His approach was later called ``starving the
beast.'' Here is how he explained it. This is a quote. This is
President Reagan.
There are always those who told us that taxes could not be
cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can
lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of
voice and breath or we can cure their extravagance by simply
reducing their allowance.
Cutting taxes, cutting revenue to the government. When Reagan took
office, he fulfilled his campaign promise and signed into law a huge
tax cut, and on cue we began to amass enormous deficits almost
immediately. In fact, President Reagan's Budget Director at the
[[Page S6506]]
time, David Stockman, has explained that 1981 was when the era of large
permanent deficits began.
The deficits were so bad in his first year, in 1981, that President
Reagan had to increase taxes in 1982, and again in 1983. In fact, he
ended up raising taxes 11 times; not because Ronald Reagan was a
Socialist--at least I really do not think so--but, rather, because he
could not ignore the arithmetic.
Still that first tax cut was so big that over the course of his
Presidency, our national debt nearly tripled. It did not grow rapidly
during the administration of George H. W. Bush. Then he handed it off
to President Clinton. And what he handed off was at that point the
largest deficit in the history of our country.
In President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package, he added two
new tax rates, marginal tax rates, at the top end: 36 percent for
income above $180,000, 39.6 percent for incomes above $250,000. The
Republicans objected rather vehemently, arguing that asking the top 2
percent pay a little more would send the economy into a recession,
which, of course, would be detrimental to the goal of reducing the
deficit.
The bill passed without a single Republican vote in either House. But
the Republicans' dire predictions turned out to be wrong, extremely
wrong. Between 1993 and 2001, this country experienced an unprecedented
expansion of our economy. We created 22.7 million net new jobs. We
decreased the number of Americans in poverty to record lows. We
increased the median household income and we created more millionaires
than we ever had before.
Not only did President Clinton's deficit reduction plan reduce the
deficit, it eliminated the deficit. President Clinton was able to hand
off to President George W. Bush a record surplus. In fact, in January
of 2001, we were on track to completely pay off our national debt by
the year 2011. However, as we know, President Bush chose a different
course. Whether you agree with the two wars we entered into during his
administration, the new entitlement program that we created, or the two
tax cuts we passed, the fact of the matter is we did not pay for any of
those things. They all went on our national credit card.
While the two tax cuts tilted toward those at the top--they did help
some at the top do extremely well during the Bush administration--it is
hard to say the things we put on that credit card created the kind of
durable broad-based prosperity we saw in the 1990s or that we built in
the 30 years after World War II, for that matter. It would be hard to
say, because when President Obama took office from President Bush, the
economy was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of over 800,000 a month. And
when the bill came for the Bush policies, we were staring at a
projected $1.1 trillion deficit for 2009. That was the projected
deficit that President Bush left for President Obama.
So far I have talked about President Reagan and his approach of
cutting revenue in order to force the government to cut spending. We
saw what happened. We could not or did not cut enough spending to keep
our budget in balance. We had huge deficits even when Reagan tried to
backtrack and raise more revenue. I have talked about President Clinton
and his approach of raising taxes on the top 2 percent in order to
bring the budget into balance. We saw what happened. The economy grew
and we generated a record surplus. I have talked about President Bush
and his approach of cutting taxes and incurring large expenses without
worrying about the ramifications on the deficit. We saw what happened.
Deficits ballooned and when the economy crashed, it crashed hard.
So what about President Obama? What has his approach been? Well, if
you ask some people, including unfortunately many in this Chamber, they
tell you that President Obama's approach was to go on a massive
spending spree. Well, it is not true. Over his 4 budget years, Federal
spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an
annual increase of 0.84 percent.
You can hash these figures out, but here is a chart that comes from
Market Watch, a publication of Dow Jones which also owns the Wall
Street Journal, that shows Obama's increase in spending from 2010 to
2013. These are Reagan's. These are numbers from the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, from the Office of Management and Budget.
You can see the growth of Federal spending. This is lower than it was
under any of the Presidents I talked about.
Indeed, the article that ran with this chart concludes that the
growth of Federal spending under President Obama is the lowest it has
been since the Eisenhower administration during the wind-down from the
Korean war. But remember that besides a $1.1 trillion deficit,
President Obama inherited an economy that in the month he took office
lost over 800,000 jobs. That was January. The next month, February,
2009, he lost about 700,000 jobs. But that is also the month in which
we passed the Recovery Act. By the way, when the Recovery Act was
passed in February of 2009, the unemployment rate was already above 8
percent.
The Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus, is what people usually
point to when pressed to explain why they think President Obama has
increased spending. But the truth is that more than one-third of the
Recovery Act was tax cuts. The stimulus cut taxes for 95 percent of
American families. Another one-third was fiscal aid to the States,
which were feeling the same budget crunch as the Federal Government
but, in most cases, didn't have the option of running a deficit in
tough years. Without the Recovery Act, imagine how many more teachers
and firefighters and police officers would have had to have been laid
off, and imagine what that would have meant to our economy, never mind
what it would have meant to our communities. But the one-third that
gets the most attention was the one-third that went toward creating
jobs.
Did it work? There are a few ways to answer that question, but the
answer is the same every time: Yes. First, we can look at our chart and
see that once the Recovery Act began to be implemented we started
losing less jobs and then we started creating jobs. We have had 30
straight months of private job creation--of growth.
Secondly, we can ask economists. The most reputable economists,
including----
Mr. REID. Would my friend yield?
Mr. FRANKEN. Certainly.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we are going to have no more votes today--
no more votes today. It is obvious to me what is going on. I have been
to a few of these rodeos. It is obvious a big stall is taking place, so
one of the Senators who doesn't want to be in the debate tonight will
not be in the debate. He can't use the Senate as an excuse.
There will be no more votes today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair. That is too bad.
I was going over what happened, reviewing what happened once the
stimulus package had been passed in February, when unemployment was
over 8 percent. And we can see as it started taking effect we lost less
and less jobs and have since had 30 straight months of private sector
job growth. I said we could ask economists. Most reputable economists,
including those of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, agree
the Recovery Act created or saved anywhere from 2.5 million to 3.5
million jobs.
In the words of Mark Zandi, the economic adviser to Senator John
McCain in his 2008 Presidential campaign, the Federal policy response
to the financial crisis, including the stimulus, ``probably averted
what could have been called the Great Depression 2.0.''
But we don't have to take the word of Mark Zandi. We don't have to
take the word of all the other reputable economists. We don't even have
to take the word of the Congressional Budget Office, although the CBO
sort of exists for those of us in Congress. We can ask Jamie, Cecil,
and Sheila.
This is Jamie, working on the Duluth Lift Bridge a couple years back.
This is a picture of Cecil, who is working on a highway extension
project. Let's give Cecil his due. He is working on a highway extension
project in Brooklyn Park in the suburban Twin Cities.
[[Page S6507]]
Then we have Sheila. This is Sheila in front of her Bobcat working the
night shift on an I-94 improvement project.
These are people who were put back to work by the stimulus. Despite
claims by some that the only jobs created by the stimulus went to
government bureaucrats, we will notice Jamie, Cecil, and Sheila are
not, in fact, government bureaucrats. Thankfully, we do not let
government bureaucrats operate heavy machinery.
What can we say about the approach of President Obama so far?
He slowed the growth of Federal spending to its lowest level since
Eisenhower. He has cut taxes--not just in the stimulus package but many
times during his first term--to the tune of more than $850 billion.
When the economy was at its low point, he made investments and put
people back to work in the short-term and prevented things from getting
even worse.
There was another road we could have taken. That approach would have
involved not just cutting spending but gutting the government, and it
definitely wouldn't have involved making investments to put people back
to work.
We will never know whether that approach--known as austerity--would
have gotten us results such as the ones reflected on the previous
chart, but we do know what happened in countries where they tried this
alternate approach. This is a chart of European countries that went the
austerity route. This is GDP from 2008 to 2012. This would be where
President Obama became President and this is Europe and we all were
seeing a global meltdown. These are countries that did austerity in
Europe, and this is the United States. The evidence tells us our way
worked. President Obama's way worked and theirs did not.
Of course, while we are better off than we were 4 years ago and
better off than we would be if we had tried austerity instead of the
approach taken by President Obama, which, if we look at the growth in
spending, was pretty close to austerity, we are obviously still not
where we want to be, either in terms of our economy or in terms of our
deficit.
What is the right way going forward? First, let us talk about deficit
reduction. It is clear to me that any solution that does not include
both increased revenue and decreased spending simply isn't going to
work. The hole is too big for us to tax our way out or to cut our way
out. We have to do both. The hole is, in fact, so big we can't even get
out of it just by taxing and cutting. We have to grow our way out too.
That is why I think we need to invest in education, and
infrastructure, and innovation. That means early childhood education,
which has a return of investment in every study--quality early
childhood education--of $16 for every $1 spent, and in workforce
training, in roads and bridges and rural broadband, in clean energy and
health care technology.
I don't think only government can create jobs. I know that. But I
know that only government can make those critical investments that will
help the private sector create jobs, and I know it works when we do. It
worked after World War II, it worked under President Clinton, and it
worked in the Recovery Act. Those investments, however, cost money, and
we will not be able to afford them unless we reduce our deficits.
I think people who talk about cutting spending should say what
spending they want to cut. I want to cut spending, so let me tell you
what spending I want to cut.
I want to cut the billions in subsidies we give to oil companies that
simply don't need them. I want to let Medicare negotiate for
pharmaceuticals under Part D, just as the VA does, because prohibiting
Medicare from doing so amounts to a subsidy for pharmaceutical
companies, one that, again, they do not need. I want to make cuts in
our military budget, because as the comprehensive defense review
found--begun under Secretary Gates and completed under Secretary
Panetta--we can make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the
defense budget without compromising our fundamental security and
military interests.
Of course, we can't only cut the things we think are easy calls to
cut. We are going to have to cut some things we don't want to cut.
Speaking personally, I have already had to vote for some of those hard
cuts, and it was not fun. But there simply aren't enough cuts to make.
It is clear to me, if we are going to protect our most vulnerable
Americans--our children, the sick, the disabled, our seniors--and make
the investments that will grow our middle class and our economy, we are
going to have to raise revenue.
Just like President Reagan--but unlike some of today's Republicans--I
know we don't raise revenue by cutting taxes. That is why I support
restoring the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income but after
that allowing the top marginal rate to go back to where it was under
President Clinton. I know that, as they did in 1993, people will argue
that doing so will hurt the economy. But I am equally confident that,
as they were in 1993, they will be wrong.
I know we all come to the debate about our Nation's challenges with
different philosophies and different convictions and I respect that
many of my colleagues feel they would be betraying their own political
core by asking the wealthy to pay a little more or investing taxpayer
dollars in job creation. I didn't feel great about all the cuts I had
to vote for over the last couple years either. But I don't think we are
going to get anywhere if we are so invested in following our own
ideologies that we refuse to acknowledge the lessons of where we have
been or the truth about where we are and where we are headed.
We are not going to get anywhere if we can't agree that, yes, the
government does have a role to play in helping the private sector
create jobs; and, no, we will not cut the deficit by cutting taxes;
and, yes, we are going to have to both raise revenue and reduce
spending if we want to get a balanced budget; and, no, asking the
wealthy to pay a little more will not drive us back into a recession.
We have debated these issues a lot this year and we haven't resolved
the argument. Now we are going home, and it is the American people's
time. It is the American people who get to have their say. I hope that
over the next 6 weeks we lead them in a debate worthy of the challenges
we face--a debate rooted in the facts and mindful of our history.
I hope when we come back we are ready to have that kind of worthy
debate ourselves and then make the tough calls, as our constituents
will in November.
I wish my colleagues well over the recess, and I look forward to
getting back to our important work when we return.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Unanimous Consent Request S. 3576
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I see my friend, the majority leader,
on the floor.
I am surprised they announced no more votes a little while ago. We
are prepared to finish business today. In fact, I intend to offer
shortly the unanimous consent agreement that the majority leader
himself was shopping last night. Our side of the aisle is prepared to
finish up the business for this particular preelection session.
I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to
the consideration of S. 3576, Senator Paul's bill regarding foreign
aid; that there be up to 2 hours of debate, equally divided between
Senators Paul and Kerry or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of
the bill; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative
threshold; that if the bill does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, it
be considered as having been read twice, placed on the calendar; that
following the vote on passage of that legislation, S. 3576, the Senate
proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 418, S.J. Res. 41; that there
be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally divided between Senators Graham
and Senator Paul or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back
of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint
resolution; that if the joint resolution is not passed, it be returned
to the calendar; that following the vote on the joint resolution, the
Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 117, the continuing
resolution; that the motion to proceed be agreed to, there be up to 30
minutes of debate, equally divided between the
[[Page S6508]]
two leaders or their designees, with Senator Coburn controlling 15
minutes of the Republican time, prior to a vote on passage of the joint
resolution; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote
affirmative threshold; that following the vote, the majority leader be
recognized; and, finally, that no amendments, motions or points of
order be in order during the consideration of these measures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have had
the stall for several days now. I wanted to make sure that one of the
Senators who wanted to go to a debate would be able to do that tonight.
So he can go now, because as I announced half an hour ago there is
plenty of time to do the debate.
As I have indicated before, we are anxious to finish the business we
have to do this work period. I am happy to vote on the Paul amendment.
I have said that. I am the one who arranged it so it is possible to
vote on it. I have no regret as to having done that. I am happy to vote
on the continuing resolution, something that has 80 or more sponsors.
I am happy to have all these votes. In fact, we can do the debate
tonight on the containment resolution and the Paul amendment. But
understand this: We are not separating the vote on the CR and a piece
of legislation that groups around this country have been trying to get
done for years. It has been held up here. As I have said before,
everything shouldn't be a fight here.
The Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, has assembled a broad package
of bipartisan legislation that has wide-ranging support from
Republicans. They are noted publicly in publications here saying they
support it. They will vote for it. It has the support of sportsmen
throughout this country. Getting to vote on this bill should not have
to be a big fight. This is the sort of thing we ought to be able to
simply vote on, and we are going to do that. But we are not going to
separate the two. We are going to have a vote on the CR; immediately
thereafter, we will have a vote on the motion to proceed to the
sportsmen's bill.
We can get the debate out of the way tonight. We can vote tomorrow.
If not, we are going to vote tomorrow after midnight. That will take
care of one vote, and the next will be sometime Sunday morning.
We are not having these votes today, so everyone should understand.
We are not going to do that for the reasons I have already indicated.
So if we want to do this, we can do it early in the morning--that is
fine with me--or we can wait until tomorrow night after midnight and
then come in Sunday morning.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, just so everybody in the Senate will
understand, both Democrats and Republicans, I just offered the consent
the majority leader himself was trying to get last night.
Senate Republicans are prepared to finish the continuing resolution
today, prepared to vote on the Rand Paul proposal today, and prepared
to vote on the Lindsey Graham proposal today. That was acceptable to
the majority leader; it is not acceptable to him today. Obviously,
something changed over on that side of the aisle.
So I just want everybody to understand that I and all the members of
my conference are prepared to finish the business of the Senate that
was before the Senate at the suggestion of the majority leader as
recently as last night.
Mr. REID. While we are educating Senators, I would like to add a
little to that.
We are willing to vote on all these things, but we will do it
tomorrow, not today. We want the debate to go forward. We are in very
important Senate races across the country.
So we will vote early in the morning, get all the debate out of the
way or we will do it tomorrow night after midnight because we are not
going to separate the sportsmen's bill from the rest of the stuff for
obvious reasons.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would only add that is a new development here that
the majority leader is saying.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, there has been no new development.
Everyone--Republican staff, Democratic staff, all my caucus--has known
for a long time that we are going to have a vote on this sportsmen's
package. This is no new development.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a very important matter at 4
today. The Secretary of State is coming to address all of us as to what
is going on in the Middle East and around the world. There will be
intelligence officers here and a lot of other people. So I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 4 to 5 today to
accommodate this very important Senators-only briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding we have a couple
Senators who would like to speak before that.
Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. I have no problem with the Senator from Texas speaking. I
ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be recognized for up to 15
minutes; and when he completes that, the Senate go into recess for 1
hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the majority leader for his courtesy.
Labor Force Participation Rate
Earlier this month, we received another big job report and along with
it a serious disappointment.
The numbers speak for themselves. In August, a remarkable 368,000
Americans left the workforce. They gave up, bringing the labor force
participation rate, as it is known, to its lowest level in more than
three decades.
Fewer people are looking for work in America than at any time in the
last 30 years. That is a national tragedy. The unemployment rate stayed
above 8 percent only because they quit counting the people who have
given up. But it had been above 8 percent for the 43rd straight month.
If, in fact, the same number of people who were looking for work in
January of 2009 are still looking for work today, the unemployment rate
would be over 11 percent. That was the date President Obama took
office, January 20, 2009. So if the same number were looking today as
were looking for work then, it would be over 11 percent, to show you
how those numbers don't reveal the true pain and the sacrifice of
American citizens who are looking for work.
I don't know of anyone who could look at the August job report or the
June or July job numbers and feel good about the economy. I also don't
know how they could now support a tax increase when the economy is
growing at a much slower pace, contrary to their position--including
the President's position--in December 2010, when the economy was
growing at roughly 3 percent of GDP.
Beyond our borders, the Europeans are mired in a debt crisis, the
Chinese economy has slowed down dramatically, and the United States
continues to face major economic headwinds. We can't afford any self-
inflicted wounds.
All I am suggesting is that we maintain the current Federal tax rates
until we can work together in a bipartisan way and adopt real tax
reform. Yet the President occasionally calls that position extreme--
ironically, the same position he, himself, held in December of 2010, as
I said just a moment ago.
It seems the President does not always understand or appreciate the
strong connection between taxes and economic incentives on small
businesses and other people we are depending upon to create businesses
or to grow existing businesses and create jobs and to put Americans
back to work.
We need look no further than the 2010 health care law, the law that
went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two aspects of it were found
unconstitutional but not the tax on middle-class Americans.
In addition to that middle-class tax increase, the law contains a new
excise
[[Page S6509]]
tax on medical device manufacturers that will discourage companies from
building factories and creating jobs in the United States. That is not
just my conclusion.
For example, Cook Medical, which has roughly 4,000 employees around
Bloomington, IN, recently announced it is canceling five new
manufacturing plants it had scheduled to open over the next half
decade. A senior official estimated the new medical device tax will
cost his firm between $20 million and $30 million extra each year. That
is why they are shuttering those additional five plants and killing
those potential new jobs.
Another medical device company in another part of the country--New
York--Welch Allyn, recently announced it will be slashing 10 percent of
its global workforce in response to this new tax.
All of this is, sadly, predictable and it is common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense doesn't seem, to most Americans, to prevail
or to be all that common in Washington, DC, these days. But if we raise
the taxes on these medical devices, it is only logical, it is only
reasonable, it is only common sense to expect that these companies will
produce fewer jobs and, in the process, less innovation.
The irony of this discussion over taxes is we now have a growing
bipartisan consensus in Congress and in Washington, DC, about the need
for commonsense tax reform that would broaden the base, lower the
rates, and help grow the economy by creating the proper incentives.
That was the recommendation of the President's own bipartisan fiscal
commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission in December 2010--the
President's own bipartisan fiscal commission--where Republicans and
Democrats agreed this is a good place to start in reforming our broken
Tax Code, paying down the debt, and getting our country and our economy
growing again. It was also the recommendation of the Domenici-Rivlin
panel, another bipartisan panel. Both recommended a more logical, more
equitable, more growth-oriented Tax Code.
Why, we may ask, is tax reform so urgent? Earlier this month the
World Economic Forum released its new ``Global Competitiveness
Report.'' America is not alone in trying to create jobs and grow our
economy. We are competing with other economies and other countries
around the world. As recently as 2008, the United States was ranked the
most competitive country on the planet.
In the latest index, we fell to seventh. We are heading in the wrong
direction when it comes to competing in a global economy for the jobs
so that Americans can work and provide for their families and put food
on their tables and gain the dignity that goes along with working and
providing for your family.
Harvard Business School also surveyed 10,000 of its alumni to find
out their views of America's competitiveness. At Harvard Business
School, one of the premier business schools in the country, alarmingly
71 percent of those who responded said America would become less
competitive during the next few years. In other words, they were not
optimistic about the direction of the country when it came to
competitiveness and job creation. One of the biggest reasons for their
pessimism is the bewildering complexity of our Tax Code. A large
majority said the tax complexity is either ``much worse'' or ``somewhat
worse'' in the United States than it was in other developed countries.
That is why Americans now spend hundreds of billions of dollars on tax
compliance, because of a broken, unnecessarily complex and impenetrable
Tax Code--unless you have the money to hire armies of lawyers and
accountants to help you figure it out.
One more point about our Tax Code. Over time, our Tax Code has become
larded with special provisions and tax expenditures that represent what
has come to be known as crony capitalism. In other words, the Federal
Government just doesn't spend money, the Federal Government has a Tax
Code that benefits certain industries and sectors of the economy. Some
of them we would largely agree on--such as the mortgage interest
deduction or the interest you pay on your home mortgage. There is broad
support for that, although everyone realizes we need to get all of
these on the table. That is what Simpson-Bowles recommended. Let's get
$1 trillion or more of these special tax expenditures on the table and
look at the ones that still make sense and the ones we should do away
with. As long as the Tax Code is as complicated as ours is, it is a
drag on the economy. It promotes a culture of corruption, where people
come to Congress and they lobby for special tax provisions that are not
available to the broad population that benefit them. It seeks
favoritism and rent-seeking, with companies and industries that try to
gain competitive advantages through tax subsidies.
If we want businesses to spend more time in productive activity and
less time begging the government for tax breaks, we need to fix the
broken Tax Code with a flatter, fairer, more transparent system which
encourages working and saving and investing--not lobbying here in
Washington, DC, for special breaks. If we want our tax laws to be
respected and understood, they need to be clearer, simpler, and more
equitable.
Given how much President Obama talks about fairness of the Tax Code,
you would think he would be all over this. You might expect he would be
an eager champion for tax reform. Instead, the President wants to use
the Tax Code as an ATM machine to subsidize particular industries and
interest groups while punishing others. We need to get them all on the
table, bring them all out into the light of day and address all of
these special tax provisions so we can simplify and make more fair our
tax system, unleashing the growth potential of the entrepreneurial
American economy to create jobs and prosperity that is sadly lacking
now in the current environment.
Unfortunately, President Obama, rather than attack this issue of
crony capitalism, has promoted it. During the long government-run
Chrysler bankruptcy process, the company-secured bondholders received
less for their loans--29 cents per dollar--than the United Auto Workers
pension funds. They got 40 cents on the dollar. The UAW pension funds,
mind you, were unsecured creditors, entitled to less priority than the
bondholders, who were entitled to the highest priority, but because of
the way this was manipulated, the bondholders got 29 cents on the
dollar, the union got 40 cents on the dollar.
During the automobile bailouts President Obama let politics trump the
rule of law. What do I mean by that? I believe that rather than let the
rule of law apply, he injected politics and favoritism in the process.
In his energy policy, which I alluded to a moment ago, he put politics
before his fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer. We agree
that the Federal Government has a role in funding, through the research
and development tax credit and other ways, basic scientific research to
promote innovation. But the President and Congress should not be using
your tax dollars to make risky, politically motivated investments that
benefit specific companies or industries at your expense.
Solyndra offers the most conspicuous example. This now bankrupt solar
energy firm received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Federal
Government. According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration
``remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra,'' even after being
``warned that financial disaster might lie ahead.'' Then, as Solyndra
went bankrupt, the administration violated the law by making taxpayers
subordinate to private lenders.
In other words, even though the taxpayers gave a $535 million loan
guarantee to this company that went bankrupt, the ones who ended up
taking it in the neck were the taxpayers rather than the private
lenders who should have been subordinated to the taxpayers when it
comes to getting paid. If President Obama is as concerned as he claims
about dicey investments with taxpayer money, he should repudiate these
kinds of boondoggles and let the market work to allocate capital.
Washington should not be picking economic winners and losers.
Speaking of winners and losers, the Department of Health and Human
Services granted a series of 1- and 3-
[[Page S6510]]
year waivers from the annual limit requirements contained in the
President's 2010 health care law. These waivers fostered the impression
that certain companies, unions, and institutions would be exempted and
given preferential treatment.
The health-care law thus highlighted an inconvenient truth about big
government: Any dramatic increase in federal regulations and
bureaucratic authority will lead to a dramatic increase in rent-seeking
and crony capitalism.
Finally, a word about the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. Democrats argue that
Dodd-Frank ended ``too big to fail.'' In fact, it codified too big to
fail, because certain companies will now formally be identified as
``systemically important.''
Are we really supposed to believe that ``systemically important''
companies will be allowed to collapse? The more likely scenario is that
these firms will be viewed as too big to fail--both by investors and by
federal officials--the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were.
As University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel has written:
The companies that are cordoned off as systemically
important distort the credit markets, as a result of the
Fannie Mae effect. Because these institutions can raise
capital more cheaply than financial institutions that do not
enjoy implicit government protection, they have a competitive
advantage over smaller institutions. This may dampen
innovation in the financial system and lead to inefficient
allocation of credit to nonfinancial businesses.
In short, regardless of what Democrats may think, Dodd-Frank has
actually strengthened the nexus between Washington and Wall Street.
The rise of crony capitalism under President Obama has led many
people to question America's commitment to free markets and the rule of
law. Likewise, the President's failure to revive our economy has led to
widespread pessimism about America's future. I firmly believe we can
turn things around and restore our global reputation, and I firmly
reject the notion that our decline is inevitable. There is no reason we
can't rejuvenate the Great American Jobs Machine and return to
prosperity. But it won't happen until we get much better leadership
from the White House.
I yield the floor.
____________________