[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 145 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6765-S6774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 419, S. 
3254, the Defense Department authorization bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3254) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next hour will be equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the 
majority controlling the first half and the Republicans the second 
half.

  The filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the Sportsmen's 
bill is 4 o'clock today. We are trying to work on an agreement with the 
Republicans to vote on the Sportsmen's bill and cyber security and have 
a path forward on the Defense authorization bill. We hope to have an 
agreement in the next couple of hours.


                    Senator Grassley's 11,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague Chuck 
Grassley on the occasion of his 11,000th vote. Senator Grassley has 
cast more than 6,400 consecutive votes--more consecutive votes than any 
Senators currently holding office in the Senate. This is truly a 
remarkable accomplishment that speaks to his dedication.
  I know he considers it a sign of respect for his constituents and for 
the Senate. Senator Grassley is a farmer, assembly line worker, who 
served in the Iowa State legislature and was elected to the House of 
Representatives here in Washington in 1974 and to the Senate in 1980.
  Senator Grassley learned the value of hard work early on the family 
farm. Today his son runs that farm but Chuck still dedicates himself to 
working on the farm on many occasions, and then after that comes back 
to Washington.
  As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and past chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley also takes his constitutional 
oversight responsibilities very seriously. He has long worked to make 
the judicial branch more open and transparent. To that end he has 
sponsored a bill to allow cameras in the courtroom and proposed 
creating the post of inspector general. He has been one of the most 
ardent protectors of whistleblowers. As a member of the Agriculture 
Committee, Senator Grassley brings real-world experience from his Iowa 
farm to be an advocate for American farmers in Washington.
  Even when Senator Grassley and I do not agree on issues, I believe we 
always have the greatest respect for each other. I know I do for him 
and I feel confident he does of me. He is a principled, dedicated 
lawmaker and a genuine person.
  One little side note. I came to the Senate and was elected in 1986, 
so early in 1987 I gave my maiden speech here in the Senate. It was on 
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, something I tried to accomplish in the 
House but, frankly, I did not get to first base. That is an 
understatement. They paid no attention to

[[Page S6766]]

me. So when I came here, that was my speech. I was way back there by 
the candy drawer.
  I gave a speech on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The Presiding Officer 
was David Pryor from Arkansas. He was the chair on the subcommittee 
dealing with the IRS and finance. Senator Grassley was listening to my 
speech in his office. Senator Pryor sent me a note when I finished that 
he had written while he was presiding, saying: I really like your 
legislation. I want to work with you to get it passed. I was stunned. 
One of the most senior Members of the Senate was interested in what I 
had to say. In the House, I repeat, they would not listen to me. I 
tried to talk to the chairman of that subcommittee. He would not even 
do a meeting with me. I still remember his name. I am not going to 
mention it.

  Senator Grassley contacted me and said: I want to work on this 
legislation. They worked with me. My first year in the Senate we passed 
the historic Taxpayer Bill of Rights to make the taxpayer a little more 
equal to the tax collector. It was landmark legislation. It would never 
have happened but for Senator Grassley. So I admire what he has done 
for America in many different ways but certainly in that manner.
  I know my friend, the Republican leader, is going to speak about 
Senator Grassley. I explained to his staff I have to run to another 
meeting so I have a couple of minutes of things to say that I think are 
important.


                       Rising Above Partisanship

  The work before us in these waning days of this Congress represents a 
test of our character, that of this body, a test of our willingness to 
rise above partisanship for the good of this great Nation.
  Although I was disappointed that the Senate was unable to vote on 
final passage of Senator Tester's Sportsmen's package, I hold fast to 
my optimism that we can pass that. We have a great deal to accomplish 
during the next 6 weeks to safeguard our country's financial health and 
protect middle-class families. But we will not complete anything 
without bipartisan cooperation. As Senate Majority Leader George 
Mitchell once said, ``Bipartisanship means you work together to work it 
out.''
  So I hope to see that type of cooperation on display when the Senate 
votes to reconsider the stalled cyber security legislation. If we can 
work together to address these two issues, the Sportsmen's package and 
cyber security, it will set a tone of cooperation that could 
characterize the remainder of this Congress and next Congress as well.
  National security experts say there is no issue facing this Nation 
more pressing than the threat of cyber attack on our critical 
infrastructure. Terrorists bent on harming the United States can all 
too easily devastate our power grid, our banking system, and our 
nuclear plants. A bipartisan group of Senators has worked for 3 years 
to craft legislation that would do just that. Yet Republicans 
filibustered this worthy measure in July. It is imperative that 
Democrats and Republicans work together to address what the national 
security experts have called ``the most serious challenge to our 
national security since the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago.''
  So I found it encouraging when a number of my Republican colleagues--
Senators McCain, Hutchison, Kyl, Chambliss, Coats, and Blunt--recently 
wrote President Obama advocating legislative action on cyber security.
  They wrote:

       An issue as far reaching and complicated as cyber security 
     requires . . . formal consideration and approval by Congress 
     . . . Only the legislative process can create the durable and 
     collaborative public-private partnership we need to enhance 
     our cyber security.

  Senator Lieberman, the chairman, and ranking member Collins have 
worked their hearts out. They have compromised with these people and 
many others to have a bill that is now before us. This group of 
Senators that I have just named say they remain committed to the 
legislative process. Today they have an opportunity to demonstrate that 
commitment. On several occasions since Republicans filibustered the 
cyber security bill this summer, I have asked my colleagues to bring me 
a list of amendments they wish to debate. As we consider this 
legislation today, they have yet another opportunity to do so. They can 
show their commitment to the cyber security threat by advancing this 
worthy measure and moving forward with a productive debate on the 
issue. This is yet another opportunity for this Congress to prove it 
can cooperate and compromise when it matters most. But it will not be 
our last opportunity.
  Before the end of the year, we must craft a balanced agreement to 
reduce the deficit and protect middle-class families from a tax hike. 
As cyber terrorism represents a serious threat to our national 
security, so the looming fiscal cliff represents a serious threat to 
our economic security.
  I am heartened to see that a number of Republicans, including a 
number of prominent conservatives, have opened the door to a balanced 
agreement. Bill Kristol, a leading conservative commentator, said:

       It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on 
     millionaires. It really won't.

  That is what he said. And Glenn Hubbard, an adviser to the Romney 
campaign, and an adviser to the last President Bush, conceded that any 
agreement must include revenue increases.
  It is simple math. To protect the middle class, it will be necessary 
to ask millionaires and billionaires to contribute a little more as we 
work to reduce the deficit. Democrats understand we will not get 
everything we want from a bipartisan accord, but Republicans should 
realize they will not get everything they want either. They should not 
prevent us, as my esteemed predecessor said, from working together to 
work it out. That was Senator Mitchell.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                    Senator Grassley's 11,000th Vote

  Mr. McCONNELL. Our good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has cast 
his 11,000th vote. Since the founding of the Republic, only 2,000 men 
and women have served in the Senate. Only 23 have cast more votes than 
Chuck Grassley. No other current Senator has gone as long as he has 
without missing a single vote. He has not missed a vote in 19 years.
  This year, Senator Grassley marks 54 years of public service to the 
people of the Hawkeye State. While some Members of Congress have a 
tendency to lose touch with their constituents, Chuck Grassley has 
always worked hard to make sure he never did that. He has made it his 
business to stay connected to the folks back home by holding at least 
one townhall meeting a year in all of Iowa's 99 counties, and by 
responding to every letter, postcard, e-mail, or phone call. Of course, 
we are all familiar with his tweets. Much like the Senator himself, 
they are truly one of a kind.
  Senator Grassley also stays close to the land by working his family 
farm. He does that even while keeping up his duties here in Washington. 
He may be a U.S. Senator, but he has always preferred to be known as 
``a farmer from Butler County.'' Visitors to the Grassley farm say it 
is not uncommon to see Senator Grassley pulling a cell phone out from 
under his baseball cap while riding on his tractor.
  Over the years, Chuck Grassley has distinguished himself by his 
tenacity and his commitment to the public interest. His first major 
legislative achievement was the passage of the Federal False Claims 
Act, which over the years has saved taxpayers more than $17 billion. As 
chairman of the Finance Committee, he led bipartisan bills through 
Congress that cut taxes by $2 trillion, leaving more money in the 
pockets of hard-working Americans.
  Senator Grassley has a lot to be proud of in his career. He and 
Barbara are also rightly proud of their 58 years of marriage. They have 
five children, and many, many grandchildren. He has been a farmer, a 
father, a government watchdog, a steward of the Nation's finances; in 
short, he is a real statesman. The Senate would not be the same without 
him. The Nation, I firmly believe, would be a lot worse off without the 
remarkable service of Senator Chuck Grassley.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened to the speeches of the majority

[[Page S6767]]

leader and the Republican leader. I would like to add my statement of 
congratulations to my longtime friend Senator Grassley for reaching 
this milestone of 11,000 votes in the U.S. Senate and to our State of 
Iowa and to our Nation.
  Senator Grassley and I were elected the same year, sworn in the same 
day of January 1975, although he preceded me to come to the Senate by 4 
years, but I can say without any fear of contradiction that Senator 
Grassley and I have had a wonderful working relationship. Obviously, 
anyone who knows our records knows we don't always agree on things all 
the time, and that is the way it ought to be around here; we have good 
debates, but we have always been friends.
  The one thing I also know is that we have always worked together for 
the betterment of our State of Iowa. I think politics tends to end at 
that doorstep, and when it comes to Iowa, what is good for our State, 
we have always worked very closely. We have always had a great 
camaraderie, and our staffs have worked together very closely over the 
years. So, again, I wish to commend the senior Senator from the State 
of Iowa.
  I now have the distinction of being the most senior junior Senator in 
the Senate. It used to be Fritz Hollings for years. Now I am the most 
senior junior Senator, and I couldn't ask for a better colleague and a 
better friend on that side of the aisle from the State of Iowa than 
Senator Chuck Grassley. I congratulate him on reaching this milestone.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been here as a colleague in the 
Senate during those 11,000 votes. I don't want to ruin his reputation 
back home, but we have a significant number of those votes where he and 
I voted the same way, and, of course, he and I sit together or sit side 
by side on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I congratulate him. 
These are milestones worth being noted.
  Senator Grassley and his wife Barbara are friends of Marcelle's and 
mine, and I congratulate him. His wife Barbara was kind enough both to 
recommend my wife for a cancer awareness award and then to introduce it 
just before we recessed. It has been that kind of relationship. Those 
of us who live in rural areas, as the distinguished Presiding Officer 
knows, acquire certain bonds, so I applaud the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to thank several of my colleagues 
who have recognized me for casting my 11,000th vote yesterday. I want 
to acknowledge the fine things Senator Reid, the majority leader, said, 
Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, Senator Stabenow, Senator 
Harkin, and Senator Leahy, and I wanted them to know I appreciate very 
much the recognition they brought. I hope it is nothing special, 
because I believe I am just exhibiting the work ethic of Iowans 
generally, who work very hard.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have another subject, if I might. 
Incidentally, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following hour 
will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees, with the majority controlling the first half.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will take from the majority side.


               Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

  Mr. LEAHY. As we all know, Congress is now back from an extended 
recess. When we left, there were a number of significant items pending 
either on the floor of the House or on the floor of the Senate. 
Yesterday I spoke about one major piece of legislation we passed here 
in the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and that was the 
farm bill. It has, of course, implications to a State such as Vermont 
but also to every single State in this country. It has everything from 
milk price supports to drought and disaster relief. This was a 
bipartisan vote strongly supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. 
It has been stalled in the House, and I hope, now that the election is 
over, they can bring it up and pass it.
  But there is another urgently needed piece of legislation that we 
have passed here in the Senate, and it is time to pass it in the House. 
I know we have issues such as disaster relief for the victims of 
Hurricane Sandy. We should do that. We have the fiscal cliff that 
threatens our economy. That is extremely important. We should have 
confirmation votes on scores of judicial nominees. We have 19 of them 
pending on the floor. All of that is important. All of these things can 
be done in the time remaining for us. But one of the important 
legislative priorities is the VAWA, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act. I wrote the bill with Republican Mike Crapo of 
Idaho. This was and is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It won the 
support of all the women Senators in this body, Republican and 
Democratic alike. It passed by an overwhelming margin in this body. The 
distinguished Presiding Officer was a strong supporter of it. This 
Senate-passed bill deserves to be on our short list of priorities for 
the rest of the year.
  I was pleased to see that the President and Speaker Boehner have 
indicated a willingness to work toward a bipartisan solution to avoid 
the fiscal cliff. But on VAWA, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act, the time for posturing has long passed. Congress 
has failed to pass the bipartisan Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act. It passed the Senate with 68 votes more than 200 
days ago. We need to take it up and pass it in the House.
  I am committed to ensuring that VAWA addresses the changing needs of 
all victims. I stand ready, as I have from the start, to work with all 
Members of both parties. I look forward to hearing from the Republican 
leaders in the House and to seeing this important measure enacted.
  You know, both parties could have celebrated the passage of yet 
another bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill after the Senate's 
convincing vote in April. There have been a lot of victims since April. 
They could be receiving the critical protections included in the 
Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill.
  In the month since the Senate passed the Leahy-Crapo bill, we have 
been reminded of the importance of VAWA. I will give you a couple of 
examples. Let me tell you, these are very grim stories. But let me tell 
you some very grim stories about what is happening.
  In Wisconsin, a gunman opened fire in a Milwaukee-area spa. He 
wounded four people and he killed three people, including his estranged 
wife. The Republican Governor of Wisconsin called for tougher domestic 
violence laws because the gunman had previously abused his estranged 
wife. The Leahy-Crapo bill will strengthen the ability of States and 
service providers to identify domestic violence cases with a 
significant risk of homicide and take effective steps to protect 
potential victims.
  In another case, an Amherst, MA, college student who was raped by a 
classmate bravely stepped forward in the pages of her school newspaper 
to describe the lack of response from the school administration. That 
young student--she is not alone by any means--along with countless 
others like her, deserves attentive and respectful treatment in the 
wake of such a heinous act of sexual violence. Our bill would encourage 
such a response with new campus protections.
  If we don't take congressional action, these and other crucial new 
protections in the Leahy-Crapo bill will not be able to help victims 
and prevent crimes nationwide. These recent events remind us that 
innocent lives are on the line when it comes to domestic and sexual 
violence. These victims of rape and domestic violence cannot wait. It 
is unacceptable to delay these protections. I was astounded to hear 
that some of the objections in the House were because we covered all 
women--all women--in the act, immigrants, gays, straight, Native 
Americans, whoever it might be.
  Mr. President, I still have nightmares about some of the crime scenes 
I went to as a young prosecutor in Vermont at 2 and 3 o'clock in the 
morning. I remember seeing the battered bodies of victims, battered and

[[Page S6768]]

bloodied bodies of victims. I never remember a police officer there 
saying: Wait a minute, we have to find out whether this victim is gay 
or straight, whether this victim is an undocumented immigrant or a 
Native American. We have to determine that before we can decide whether 
we are going to do anything. The distinguished Presiding Officer was 
mayor of our Queen City of Burlington. He never would have allowed any 
member of the police force in that city to pick and choose. None of us 
would.
  So let's face up to reality. Let's stop saying we can't pass this 
bipartisan bill because we have to limit it and we have to pick and 
choose who are victims. I have said it over and over again on this 
floor: A victim is a victim is a victim. So let's come together. Let's 
send the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill to the President without further 
delay. Let's stop the deaths, the beatings, and the rapes that are 
occurring. How many of us could pick up an article in the paper and 
read of one of these things and not be shocked? Every one of us, as a 
Member of Congress, has the ability to do something to stop this. This 
is an easy bill to pass. It passed by a wide, strong, bipartisan effort 
here in the Senate. Let's just take it up, call a vote in the House on 
it.
  I have heard from enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of 
Representatives. If this bill came up for a vote, it would pass. I 
think it is slamming the door in the faces of people who might be 
abused if we don't bring it back.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished chair of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee on the floor, and, as I mentioned earlier, just a 
few minutes ago and yesterday, her leadership brought about one of the 
most sweeping, cost-saving, best 5-year farm bills this body has 
passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.


                             The Farm Bill

  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the former 
chair of the Agriculture Committee and a very distinguished Member who 
leads in so many areas, whether it is our dairy producers, whether it 
is organic farmers, whether it is nutrition entitlement. We wouldn't 
have the 5-year farm bill that we passed in the Senate without Senator 
Leahy's leadership. So his words are very kind, but I am very 
appreciative of all he has done.
  I so much appreciate our senior Senator from Vermont coming to the 
floor and speaking out about the need to get a farm bill done. That is 
why I am here today as well--to echo the Senator's words from yesterday 
and today. We need to get it done, as we all know. We have seen 45 days 
since the farm bill expired, and there is absolutely no reason 
whatsoever not to get this done.
  Before speaking about that, though, let me also thank our chairman 
from the Judiciary Committee for his words about the Violence Against 
Women Act because every victim of crime, every victim of domestic 
violence needs to be covered under this law. I am very grateful for all 
the Senator has done to make sure all victims are covered, and that is 
another bill that needs to get passed in the House of Representatives.
  In talking about the farm bill, I also want to say congratulations to 
another distinguished member of my committee, Senator Grassley, for his 
11,000th vote, which he cast last night. I know Senator Harkin was here 
on the floor as well speaking about that--two incredibly talented 
members of the Agriculture Committee. I wish to congratulate Senator 
Grassley, who has been a real champion and leader on the reforms that 
are in our bill--really some historic reforms in the bill. He has led 
that effort, and I congratulate him as he has reached a very important 
milestone.
  Farming is the riskiest business in the world, and this year it is 
even riskier. I believe that because of what is happening with climate 
change, it will be even more risky in the future. It is incredibly 
important that we step up and get a farm bill that gives our farmers 
the tools they need to manage their risks.
  In the spring, we experienced late freezes that wiped out fruit crops 
in a number of States, including in Michigan, where our cherry growers 
were just about wiped out and currently have no access to crop 
insurance, although part of our farm bill is creating a path for them. 
We are very pleased to be creating a path for them to have crop 
insurance, but it was devastating in the spring.
  Then this summer there were recordbreaking droughts that left crops 
withering in the fields, and in our bill we address issues of drought 
for lifestyle producers, which is incredibly important and, by the way, 
fully paid for by the savings of our bill.
  Then we saw Hurricane Isaac flood croplands, and Hurricane Sandy has 
caused destruction like nothing we could have imagined.
  In a year when there were so many reminders of the need for risk 
management for our farmers, there is absolutely no excuse not to finish 
the job and get a farm bill done by the end of this year. I am 
optimistic we are going to be able to do that.
  I hope my colleagues will remember how we came together in June to 
pass the bipartisan Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act in the 
Senate. I thank my ranking member and colleague Senator Roberts for his 
leadership in this effort. We truly did this together, working across 
the aisle, listening to all the Members of the Senate. As you know, we 
eliminated 100 different programs and authorizations that did not make 
sense anymore or were duplicating something else. We streamlined 
programs to make them work better for farmers and ranchers and we saved 
taxpayer money and cut $23 billion in spending.
  At this time, when we are looking at coming up with a way to reduce 
the deficit and put us on a path for balancing the budget, I cannot 
imagine why we would not want to take the savings from our bipartisan 
farm bill and include that in this much needed agreement that we need 
to come to by the end of the year.
  This was not only a bipartisan effort but, because it was deficit 
reduction, it is one of the few deficit reduction bills--maybe the only 
one--we actually have passed this year, and we need to make sure it 
gets all the way to the finish line. We cannot afford to walk away from 
the reforms in this bill. We cannot afford to walk away from our dairy 
farmers who are right now operating without any kind of safety net. The 
current policy does not work for them so just extending that makes no 
sense. It is a disaster waiting to happen. We cannot afford to walk 
away from our dairy farmers.
  We cannot afford to walk away from livestock producers who need the 
permanent disaster assistance we passed in the Senate farm bill. By the 
way, it is in the House bill that came out of committee. That is also 
bipartisan.
  We cannot afford to walk away from the critical priorities in 
conservation of our land, air, and water, of energy, not only of 
biofuels but the new jobs available in bio-based manufacturing, which I 
am seeing happen in Michigan as well as all across the country. We 
cannot afford to walk away from support for our specialty crop growers, 
fruit and vegetable growers, so important for our families' health and 
for the economic strength of our country as well. Also, as to forestry 
and nutrition, which affects so many families and so many children in 
schools, we cannot afford to walk away from important funding and 
policy reforms in each one of these areas.
  We just need to get this done. This is not rocket science; it is a 
matter of making it a priority and spending a little bit of time and 
getting it done. Voters in the election made one thing very clear. They 
want bipartisanship. They want us to work together as we have done in 
the Senate, both in the Agriculture Committee and on the floor, to be 
able to get a 5-year farm bill. They want us to simply get things done. 
The House of Representatives has a chance now to follow our lead, to 
pass a bipartisan bill that reforms agricultural programs, that cuts 
the deficit, ends direct payments and other unnecessary subsidies, and 
gives farmers the risk management tools they desperately need going 
forward.
  Everywhere I go I hear from farmers who say they need us to get this 
done. They get up early in the morning. They work hard all day. They 
come home late. When there is work to be done, they do it. They have to 
do it. They do not put it off until another day for whatever excuse. 
They do what has to

[[Page S6769]]

be done, and they expect us to do what has to be done.
  Now we are 45 days past the expiration of the last farm bill. We are 
looking at January and beyond when a series of changes will happen 
automatically unless we pass a new bill. It will be very difficult on a 
number of fronts. We could see chaos in the markets and confusion for 
farmers as we revert back to what is called permanent law, which is a 
collection of policies from the Depression era. They are poorly suited 
to the way agriculture is done today. Again, it makes no sense.
  We cannot let this happen. There is no excuse for not getting the 
bill done by the end of the year. We have done it in the Senate when 
everyone said it was impossible. We put the votes together in just a 
couple days, with 73 amendments and went through and voted on every 
single one of them. Then we voted to pass the bill and got the job 
done. Now it is time for our House colleagues to do the same. I am 
looking forward to working with the leadership of the House Agriculture 
Committee. I have great confidence that we can sit down together and 
produce a final bill to bring back to the Senate that will allow us to 
get this done before the end of the year.
  Now is the time to do it. I urge our House colleagues to put this on 
the top of their list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Vermont.


                 Deficit Reduction and Social Security

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think the American people and Members 
of Congress, now that the election is over, are paying a great deal of 
attention to the so-called fiscal cliff and to deficit reduction in 
general. As we discuss deficit reduction, which is clearly a major 
issue for our country, it is important for us to remember how we got to 
where we are today. Where we are today is approximately a $1 trillion 
deficit and a $16 trillion national debt. I hope everyone does remember 
that back in January 2001, when Bill Clinton left office and George 
Bush assumed the Presidency, at that moment in history this country had 
a $236 billion surplus and economists were projecting that surplus 
would grow and grow in the future.
  The reason, to a very significant degree, that we are where we are 
today in terms of the deficit has everything to do with the fact that 
we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we did not pay for those 
wars--which, by the way, by the time we take care of our last veteran, 
will cost us more than $3 trillion. When we do not pay for expensive 
wars, we add to the deficit.
  When we give out a huge amount in tax breaks, as we did under the 
Bush administration, and a lot of those tax breaks went to the 
wealthiest people in this country--when we give tax breaks to 
millionaires and billionaires and we do not offset them, we also add to 
the deficit. When we pass a Medicare Part D prescription drug program 
written by the insurance companies--more expensive than it should be--
and we do not pay for that, we add to the deficit.
  In the midst of this Wall Street-caused recession, one of the points 
many people have not seen is that today, at 15.2 percent of our GDP, 
revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 years. When workers lose their 
jobs and businesses go under, less revenue comes into the Federal 
Government, adding to our deficit crisis. That, to a significant 
degree, is why we are where we are today.
  When we talk about deficit reduction and how we go forward, there is 
another reality we have to address; that is, the middle class of this 
country is disappearing. Not only is unemployment, in real terms, close 
to 15 percent, but median family income in the last 10 years has gone 
down by over $3,000.
  Meanwhile, in the midst of all that, we have the most unequal 
distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. We 
have the top 1 percent owning 42 percent of the wealth in America while 
the bottom 60 percent owns just 2.3 percent. In the last study we have 
seen on income distribution, between 2009 and 2010, 93 percent of all 
new income went to the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent shared 
the remaining 7 percent. We are seeing a disappearing middle class--
people on top doing fantastically well and very high rates of poverty.
  I say all that as a prelude to suggest how we should go forward in 
terms of deficit reduction. The main point I wish to make is it is 
absolutely wrong, it is immoral in my view, and it is bad economics to 
move forward on deficit reduction on the backs of the elderly, the 
children, the sick and the poor. What we as a Congress have to do is to 
make several points very clear.
  There are a number of folks out there talking about cutting Social 
Security. Let's get the facts straight. Social Security has nothing to 
do with the deficit because it is independently funded by the payroll 
tax. Let me quote maybe an unlikely source on that issue; that is, on 
October 7, 1984, President Ronald Reagan said:

       Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social 
     Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on 
     employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social 
     Security that money would not go into the general fund to 
     reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security 
     trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with 
     balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.

  That ends the quote from President Ronald Reagan, October 7, 1984. I 
do not often agree with Ronald Reagan, but he was absolutely right.
  I am very pleased that just a few days ago majority leader Harry Reid 
said pretty much the same thing: Don't mess with Social Security. It 
has nothing to do with deficit reduction. I hope very much that the 
Senate will agree that as we go forward on deficit reduction, Social 
Security should be off the table.
  Many of us want to make sure Social Security is solvent for the next 
75 years. How do we do it? I have ideas. Others have different ideas. 
But it is not part of deficit reduction.
  In my view, at a time of great recession, when so many people are 
hurting, we must not cut Medicare. We must not cut Medicaid. There are 
ways to do deficit reduction which are fair. Let me suggest some of the 
ways we should do it.
  The President has been very clear. This is what he campaigned on; 
that it makes no sense at all from an economic or moral perspective 
that we continue Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent, people who 
are making $250,000 a year or more. If we end those tax breaks, that is 
$1 trillion going to deficit reduction.
  Right now, one out of four profitable corporations in this country, 
including corporations that make billions of dollars a year, is paying 
nothing in taxes. Some of them have actually gotten a rebate from the 
IRS. Before we talk about cutting Medicare, Medicaid or education, 
let's make sure we do away with the loopholes many large, profitable 
corporations are currently experiencing.
  One of the particularly outrageous examples of tax avoidance that is 
taking place right now has to do with the tax havens that exist in the 
Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and in other countries. There are estimates 
that we are losing over $100 billion a year because corporations and 
wealthy individuals, instead of paying their Federal taxes to this 
country, are stashing their money in tax havens in other countries. 
That is wrong. That is an issue we must address.
  Last, when we talk about deficit reduction, we have to remember we 
have tripled defense spending since 1997. We now spend as much money on 
defense--or almost as much--as the rest of the world combined. No one 
disagrees that there is enormous waste, bureaucracy, and unnecessary 
weapons systems in the Defense Department that we can eliminate while 
we maintain the strongest defense in the world.

  Let me conclude by saying this: Yes, we have to go forward with 
deficit reduction but, no, we cannot and must not do it on the backs of 
the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. There are ways to do 
it that are fair which ask those people who are doing phenomenally well 
to start paying their fair share of taxes, and that is the position 
this Senate should take.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham, and Ms. Ayotte pertaining to

[[Page S6770]]

the submission of S. Res. 594 are printed in today's Record under 
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as the Senate reconvenes this week 
here in Washington, many States are still working to clean up the 
wreckage left behind by Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane 
on record, and the States are already making new preparations to 
protect against future extreme weather events.
  Hurricane Sandy will be remembered both for the large area it 
affected and for the devastation wrought by its fierce winds and 
massive storm surge--more than 100 lives lost, 8.5 million homes and 
businesses without power, $20 billion in property damage, and possibly 
another $30 billion in lost business. Hurricane Sandy was no doubt an 
extreme weather event and she is likely to be the second costliest 
Atlantic storm in U.S. history at more than $50 billion.
  Sandy slammed into the east coast, causing destruction from the Mid-
Atlantic up through New England. The States of New Jersey and New York 
were hit especially hard, and our thoughts and prayers and our promise 
of prompt and meaningful support go out to all of those affected across 
the region.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, moderate to major flooding occurred 
along the entire southern coastline, with some areas experiencing 
severe erosion and destruction.
  Houses were swept off their foundations in our southern coast 
communities such as Matunuck, shown in this photo I have in the 
Chamber. As shown in this picture, here is our former colleague in the 
Senate, now Governor Chafee, inspecting the interior of a house with 
its front having been washed off. And you can see the neighboring 
cottage that is in the ocean. Other small cottages have been actually 
destroyed by the ocean in that location.
  Beaches and dunes were driven down by the waves and wind, and thick 
sand and stone deposits covered up roads, as was the case on Atlantic 
Avenue in Misqaumicut, which was just being dug out here in this 
photograph.
  Nearly 30 percent of Rhode Island's residents were directly affected 
by this storm. President Obama granted Governor Chafee's request for a 
Federal disaster declaration in four of our State's five counties. More 
than 130,000 Rhode Islanders lost power and 8 cities and towns were 
forced to implement evacuations. The whole State will be affected by 
the as of yet unknown millions in damage and lost business.
  But Rhode Island is resilient. Some businesses hit hard by Sandy and 
the subsequent nor'easter have already reopened. Others are working 
hard to reopen soon. Here in this picture we can see Atlantic Avenue 
from the sky. And the owners of Paddy's Beach Restaurant, shown here, 
as well as their neighbors all along the beach, are determined to 
reopen for the summer tourist season.
  I remember walking through this little notch here with the owners of 
Paddy's, and looking at this scene of devastation around them, and the 
owners saying: That is not so bad. We can rebuild. We will be back on 
our feet in no time. They already had friends and volunteers on site 
with hammers and shovels and saws, cleaning up and getting things put 
right.
  The Ocean State of Rhode Island has a special relationship with the 
seas, and that special relationship requires that we accept challenges 
presented by extreme ocean weather, and it is part of our day-to-day 
life on the coast to be part of that proud and rewarding tradition.
  But many of us recognize that this tradition, as President Obama 
reminded us on election night, is--to quote the President--``threatened 
by the destructive power of a warming planet.''
  It is difficult to say whether extreme weather such as Hurricane 
Sandy was specifically caused by climate change. But we do know that a 
warming planet increases both the severity and the likelihood of these 
storms; that it, to use one analogy, loads the dice for extreme 
weather.
  The atmosphere and oceans are getting warmer. We know that. As oceans 
get warmer, storm systems such as Sandy gather more moisture and energy 
from them and grow stronger. John T. Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth of the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, estimate that 
when Hurricane Sandy struck, ocean temperatures along the east coast 
were nearly 5 degrees above normal, in part attributed to global 
warming.
  Warmer oceans expand. We know that too. This expansion, along with 
melting glaciers and snowpack, has resulted in a measurable and 
continuing rise of sea levels along our coasts. And, of course, as sea 
levels rise, tides and waves and storms and storm surges reach farther 
inland.
  Sandy caused a whopping storm surge. That is the column of water that 
is formed by the winds and the pressure system of a major storm. That 
surge peaked at about 5\1/2\ feet in Newport, RI, less than the 9\1/2\ 
feet in the Battery in Lower Manhattan but still significant.
  At the Newport tide gauge, mean sea level is up 10 inches. Mean sea 
level is up 10 inches from our devastating famous Hurricane of 1938, 
and these extra inches of sea level increased Sandy's storm surge by at 
least that amount. Experts predict that the sea level rise will 
continue up to 3 to 5 feet more in Rhode Island by the end of the 
century.
  If we do not recognize the need to reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions and to prepare our infrastructure for climate change, future 
superstorms will be even more damaging than Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane 
Sandy was, in some respects, a preview of coming attractions. By 2100, 
the ocean will sit higher, be warmer, and feed more moisture and heat 
into storms. In addition, the oceans will be far more acidic, but that 
is for another speech.
  Tomorrow, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which the 
Presiding Officer serves on with such distinction, will hold a 
legislative hearing on the Water Resources Development Act. I 
appreciate very much Chairman Boxer's response to storms such as Sandy 
and the foresight she had to include a postdisaster program in the 
draft that will help States such as mine recover from extreme events 
such as Hurricane Sandy.
  Also included is the Northeast coastal restoration program aimed at 
building the natural and manmade barriers and buffers that helped 
protect our lives, our infrastructure, and our natural resources from 
great storms such as Sandy.
  When average temperatures rise, we can also expect daily temperature 
records to be broken. When the average sea level rises, we can also 
expect an increase in peak coastal flooding. In fact, we have seen 
thousands of daily temperature records broken and costly coastal 
flooding and the pain and damage caused by these extreme events has 
inevitably turned the Nation's attention to climate change.
  That is why a growing chorus of voices is convinced and concerned 
about climate change. A University of Texas poll asked respondents in 
March and then again in July of this year if they thought global 
climate change was occurring. It is interesting. The percentage of 
Democrats convinced of global climate change went from 83 percent in 
March up to 87 percent amid the high heat and drought of the summer of 
2012.
  Among Independents, the percentage rose from 60 percent in March to 
72 percent in July as news of the unusual weather spread around the 
country. Even among Republicans, the number of believers who 
acknowledged that climate change was prevalent went from 45 percent to 
53 percent. The party whose hallmark in Congress is denial of climate 
change, that put forward the view that climate change is a hoax, now 
actually has a majority of voters who recognize this reality. So this 
Chamber is getting further and further apart from the reality of the 
public, even from the reality of the Republican public.
  In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Bloomberg of New York 
wrote:

       Our climate is changing . . . And while the increase in 
     extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and 
     around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk 
     that it may be--given the devastation it is wreaking--should 
     be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate 
     action.

  The only place where denial still prevails is in Congress where 
polluter

[[Page S6771]]

money has such influence. But polluter money cannot change the facts. A 
study recently published in Science shows that greenhouse gases 
captured in air bubbles stretching back 650,000 years show that the 
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 27 percent higher than 
its highest recorded level at any other point in that time.
  This year, an Arctic monitor has registered atmospheric 
concentrations of carbon dioxide at 400 parts per million for the first 
time; the first time ever that a carbon dioxide sensor has hit this 
ominous milestone. For tens of thousands of years, for 800,000 years 
actually, 8,000 centuries, we have been in a range of 170 to 300 parts 
per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Now we are starting to 
see measures of 400. We are in unprecedented and uncharted territory.
  We know we will need to adapt our coastal infrastructure to keep 
communities safe and prosperous in this changing climate. We will be 
relocating roads and bridges. We will be bolstering utilities and 
protecting water and wastewater infrastructure. We will be revising our 
flood maps and our emergency planning.
  The Senate needs to do its part to ready us for adaptation in the 
face of a changing climate. We can address these issues in legislation 
such as WRDA and Defense reauthorization, even in the budget debate. 
But the overwhelming majority of scientists is convinced that our 
climate is changing, and all the evidence shows they are right.
  Indeed, the evidence shows it appears to be their worst-case 
scenarios that are the correct ones. We must be willing to take the 
necessary actions to prepare both for the new normal climate change is 
bringing and for the new extremes climate change portends.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for 
his hard work. I rise to talk for 1 minute about this lameduck session 
today. We are in the second day of a lameduck session following the 
elections of a week and a half ago.
  We face an impending fiscal cliff. We face the end of the year. We 
face a day of calling, a day of reckoning. I think I have an obligation 
as one Member of the Senate, and I think everybody has the same 
obligation, to come to this floor and talk about the solutions and 
resolutions, not problems and what we can and cannot do.
  We are in a very dangerous position. I have been in this body one 
other time when we faced a fiscal cliff. It was in September of 2008. I 
will never forget it. The markets had been collapsing. The subprime 
securities had been collapsing. The world was in difficult financial 
times. The President of the United States, at that time a Republican, 
brought forward a plan to solve that problem or at least to forestall 
the collapse of the markets and give us a chance to come back over 
time.
  The House of Representatives rejected it and then the markets went 
down over 800 points in 1 day. Two days later, the Senate came back and 
adopted a plan to move us forward. The markets stabilized, but they 
were already at the bottom. They had fallen by 50 percent.
  Now here we are almost 5 years later, still recovering from the 
depths of the drop of the market at that particular period of time. If 
we do not address the fiscal cliff and take the first step in this 
lameduck session to move forward in terms of sanity on taxation, sanity 
on spending, and sanity on entitlements, then we are going to put 
ourselves in the same position again.

  I happen to think one of the best lines in President Obama's speeches 
in his first campaign, and he reiterated it in the last one, was when 
he talked about we are a country not of the red States of America or 
the blue States of American but of the United States of America.
  My predecessor, Zell Miller, former Governor of Georgia, once said: 
We do not find most Georgians on the very far right or the very far 
left. We find them in Walmart. They want a fair deal and a fair price 
and a good deal and they want to be treated right. The American people 
want to be treated right. They do not want to see their taxes go up at 
the end of the year. They do not want Congress to turn its back on 
cutting its spending where it can. They want us to get entitlements so 
they are fixed for the long run, not in danger of expiring in the short 
term.
  We are this close to being able to find common ground, if we will 
only take the first step by sitting down at the table. In the last 2 
weeks I have heard the first step from both sides of the Democratic and 
Republican Party. John Boehner, 1 week ago, acknowledged that revenues 
could be a part of the solution. He acknowledged he wanted to do it 
through tax reform. President Obama has reiterated, as he did today in 
his press conference, that he wanted to raise rates on those in the 
upper income. But when pointed to and when asked by a reporter: Mr. 
President, that means there is no line in the sand? That means it has 
to be that tax increase or nothing at all, the President refused to 
take the bait. He said: I will listen to other ideas. He said: I will 
sit at the table. He said: But it has to be meaningful common ground. 
It has to be plans to truly deal with our fiscal cliff, deal with our 
spending and deal with entitlements and deal with our taxes.
  Let me just for a second, if I can, opine on what all of us know: It 
is a three-part problem, our debt and our deficit. It is spending. It 
is revenues. It is entitlements. It is not that we do not know what the 
answers or the solutions are. They are all on the table. They have been 
visited by the Gang of 6, by Simpson-Bowles, by a lot of the brilliant 
people in this Chamber, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, who is 
unfortunately leaving us, has talked about it time and again; Senator 
Coburn from Oklahoma. Why don't we put those things on the table, sit 
down around the table and figure out a formula for success to keep us 
from going off the fiscal cliff?
  It is one thing to gain the confidence of the world and investors and 
the world body politic; it is quite another to lose it. If we ever lose 
that confidence, if we ever go off that cliff and people no longer 
think this is still the greatest place on the face of the Earth to 
invest their money, then America has a harder struggle to come back 
than it would ever have by facing our problems now.
  So for a brief couple minutes, I wish to talk specifically about 
those things that can be done. First of all, in terms of spending, we 
can cut discretionary spending. But we all know discretionary spending 
and our deficit are about equal and have been for about the last 5 
years, which means if we cut all Federal discretionary spending, cancel 
the government for 1 year, all we are doing is balancing the budget; we 
are not saving any money. We all know we cannot do it totally by 
cutting spending, but we do know we should, which means we should bring 
appropriations bills to the floor, we should debate those bills on the 
floor, we should hold our agencies accountable, and manage things on a 
cost-benefit analysis--do what Jeanne Shaheen and I have talked about 
in terms of a biennial budget. Have 1 year dedicated to spending, the 
other year dedicated to oversight. We can find savings and we can find 
revenue to reduce our deficit, but that will not do all of it.
  Entitlements. We have to look at entitlements. But that does not mean 
we take away anyone's Social Security or anybody's Medicare because I 
do not consider them entitlements in the first place. The Presiding 
Officer paid 1.35 percent of his income every day of his working life 
for his Medicare and he deserves to get it.
  The Presiding Officer paid 6.2 percent of his income for his payroll 
deduction for his Social Security and he deserves to get it. But we all 
know those programs were started in 1968 and the 1930s and eligibility 
should be reformed. We should find a way to make eligibility be 
actuarially sound, as they did in 1983, when Ronald Reagan and Tip 
O'Neill raised the eligibility for me so I could not get Social 
Security at age 65, I had to wait until age 66.
  Did I miss it? No, I did not think I would live that long in the 
first place. But when I did get there, I appreciated the fact that they 
saved Social Security for me in 1983. We need to save it for our 
children and our grandchildren today, and we can do it by looking at 
eligibility in the formula. We do not have to raise the tax or lower 
the benefit. We might means test the COLA in terms of Social Security, 
but we can

[[Page S6772]]

fix it if we just sit around the table and talk about it and not take 
away anybody's eligibility.
  Medicare is tougher. We can means test benefits in terms of 
copayments. We can take plans such as Paul Ryan's and give people 
options. Whatever we do, we can sit down around the table and find a 
way for the future, find a way to save the Medicare the American people 
have paid for.
  In terms of the safety net, nobody wants to do away with the safety 
net. But it is time we looked at the safety net and the cost-benefit 
analysis and the eligibility for the benefit programs so we manage them 
appropriately such as you would any other expenditure of government.
  Then we go to the Tax Code. That is where we are today. That is the 
stumbling block, seeing where we are going to move forward on taxes. 
Time is running out. I will be the first person to admit it would be 
hard to come up with a comprehensive reform in 7 weeks to fix the Tax 
Code.
  But it would not be hard to come up with a comprehensive agreement 
this month, now in this session, to do it early next year and put off 
pushing us off the fiscal cliff. Get a new speed bump next year. Give 
us the time to sit down around the table and find common ground. Maybe 
it is means testing deductions, which raises revenues without raising 
rates. In fact, there is a great argument, and the argument comes from 
1986, when Reagan and O'Neill again lowered the top tax rate from 70 
percent to 28 percent and raised revenues in the same taxable year, all 
because we raised the base upon which the levy was charged.
  We raised more revenue which, in the end, is the name of the game. My 
main point is this: We should not be sitting around twiddling our 
thumbs. The clock is running. We face a fiscal cliff. There are some in 
this Chamber who have said: Oh, we just need to go off it. We will pay 
the price. Then we will finally sit down and do what is right. I would, 
with all due respect, say that is pretty stupid. We have gone off a 
cliff once before in 2008. We are still reeling from it today because 
we did not deal fast enough with the decisions we had to make as a 
Congress to address the problems of the people who elected us to come 
and manage their affairs.
  I would submit to you that it is about time the American Government 
did what every American family has had to do in the last 5 years: sit 
around our kitchen table like they have sat around theirs, talk about 
our income like they have talked about theirs, cut their budgets and 
spending where they have had to because they have had to tighten their 
belts. Don't you think the government ought to at least ask of itself 
what it has required every American family to do?
  So instead of talking about what we can't find agreement on, why 
don't we start talking about what we can find agreement on? We don't 
have to just penalize one taxable class of Americans and declare a 
political victory but not solve our problem any more than we have some 
obfuscation in terms of tax reform that really is ``now you see it and 
now you don't.'' We can do meaningful reform that accomplishes the 
raising of revenues and more equity in the Tax Code, we can cut 
discretionary spending where appropriate, and we can reform our 
entitlements. Over time we can get our fiscal house in order.
  The great thing about our problem is that it is not a problem that 
has to be solved in one fell swoop, but we have to make a commitment to 
begin to reduce deficits and, in turn, eliminate them so we will reduce 
debt. We need a game plan over the next decade that causes us to do 
that. When we do, we will return to the greatness America has always 
known. But if we don't, it will not be a good place to invest people's 
money, our rates will go up on our debt service, and America will have 
a hard time returning to the preeminence it has known.
  So my message today is this: The President, in his press conference, 
said all issues were open on the table. John Boehner, in his leadership 
remarks, said the same thing in terms of revenues a week ago. Let's sit 
down at that table and let's start talking about those solutions. Let's 
start giving ourselves meaningful goals and not just use the threat of 
destroying our economy and our investment in our country as a threat to 
cause us to do nothing. Let's do something. Let's do the people's 
business. Let's face the music and make it a symphony.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 3414

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 
p.m., the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity of Act of 
2012, be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be agreed to and that 
there be up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3414; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to the 
cloture vote on S. 3414, upon reconsideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Wind Production Tax Credit

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I want to start by welcoming 
my colleagues to what I hope will be a highly productive lameduck 
session of Congress. We have immense challenges facing our country, but 
I believe we can come together and accomplish the tasks before us, 
hopefully in a truly bipartisan way.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, one of the issues I have been really 
concerned about for some time is the production tax credit for wind 
energy, which is known by its acronym of PTC. I would like to 
acknowledge that the Presiding Officer's State, Minnesota, has a big 
presence in wind energy.
  I have come to the floor, as my colleagues know--and maybe, in some 
of their minds, too often--I come down here every morning we are in 
session--just about every morning since June--to talk about the 
importance of extending this job-creating tax credit.
  The PTC has helped create literally tens of thousands of good-paying 
middle-class jobs all across our Nation, it has in turn spurred the 
growth of the wind energy industry, and it has strengthened American 
manufacturing, which we all deeply care about, and it has helped free 
us from foreign sources of energy. That is quite a trifecta of 
successes, make no mistake about it. It has also underlined the fact 
that energy security is national security.
  But as the expiration of the PTC draws near--and it draws near at the 
end of this year--the inaction here in the Congress has brought a dark 
cloud literally over this important American industry, and our workers 
are paying the price. Manufacturers across our great Nation and all 
along the wind industry's supply chain have been forced to lay off 
thousands of workers just in the past several months, and I wish to 
share one example. Vestas, which is a leading manufacturer of wind 
turbines that has a large presence in my home State of Colorado, has 
laid off hundreds of workers. Literally, hard-working Americans are 
losing their good-paying jobs because Congress has delayed action to 
extend this tax credit, which I should point out has broad bipartisan 
and bicameral support, so both the Senate and the House--both parties--
have support for extending it. Enough is enough.
  Luckily, we have made some progress. Earlier this year the Senate 
Finance Committee passed a bipartisan tax extenders bill that would 
extend a number of important tax provisions, and among them was the 
production tax credit. Unfortunately, this package, which is critical 
and is so important to our economy, has sat on the shelf for many 
months now. As comrades tell me, and I share with you as

[[Page S6773]]

my colleagues, that is just simply unacceptable.
  As I mentioned, I have made these regular trips down to the floor, 
and what I have been able to do is highlight individual States and how 
the wind industry has created jobs and generated power for each of 
those individual States. In fact, I am 20 States in and I am nowhere 
near done, and that is because almost every one of the 50 States has a 
presence in the wind energy industry.
  Today I am going to turn to Wisconsin, which has a well-established 
manufacturing sector historically, and that manufacturing sector has 
retooled to support the wind industry. In fact, if you look at the map 
here, Wisconsin has over 22 manufacturing facilities that make parts 
for the wind energy industry.

  In addition to the manufacturing sector, Wisconsin has also made big 
gains in wind power generation. So you can build turbines, blades, the 
towers, and the cells, but also, if you have a wind resource, you can 
then harvest that wind. Wisconsin has made big gains in harvesting that 
wind.
  The farms there, the wind farms, already provide enough electricity 
to power 150,000 homes, and the projects that are currently proposed in 
Wisconsin could multiply that number fourfold. If you look at the 
economic implications, they are very impressive. In fact, according to 
the National Renewable Energy Lab, which I have to say is located in 
Colorado, if even half of the proposed projects were completed, they 
would provide a cumulative economic benefit of over $1 billion. That is 
$1 billion. Let's do our part in helping make that investment happen by 
extending the production tax credit.
  As I have pointed out, the PTC has helped these Wisconsin facilities 
prosper and grow, but this looming expiration would threaten some 3,000 
jobs that are supported by this industry in Wisconsin.
  It is also important to note that when the big companies that gain 
some of the attention in the wind energy world, such as Siemens or 
Vestas, announce layoffs because of uncertainty over the PTC, there are 
a lot of other small businesses in the industry that are affected by 
those decisions. There are literally thousands of parts in a wind 
turbine--some 8,000, to be exact. So when you see the industry take a 
step back, a lot of those small businesses are affected, and they feel 
the downturn as well. We all are really concerned about those families 
and those communities and the small businesses that are hurt by those 
sorts of job losses in Wisconsin and all over our country.
  As I close, Madam President, there is a tremendous amount of work the 
wind energy industry has done to help restore America's manufacturing 
base. With all of that potential looming in front of us, we just can't 
let our inaction stand in the way.
  My message to all of us is pretty simple. We need to pass the 
production tax credit as soon as possible. PTC equals jobs, and we need 
to pass it ASAP. I can't say it enough times. There is no reason for 
this delay. It has caused the loss of good-paying jobs, and it has set 
back our energy independence goals. If we don't act soon, foreign 
competition will get the upper hand and pass us by. There is no 
question that the rest of the world is moving very quickly to implement 
their own wind energy projects and to build the wind energy turbines. 
Let's not let this scenario become a reality. Let's move in the way the 
Senate Finance Committee has shown us we can move. Let's extend the PTC 
here in the Senate. I know the House could follow suit.
  Simply put, let's just pass the production tax credit as soon as 
possible. If we are focused on the economy, if we are focused on jobs--
it is what we heard from the voters just a short week ago--let's get 
the production tax credit extended.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think we all know that everybody 
in America is pretty much talking about the fiscal cliff, and that what 
will happen at the end of this year will have an enormous impact on the 
economy of our country and its future. There is no doubt about it. In 
fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the 
impending tax hikes that will take effect at the end of this year if we 
don't do something along with the spending cuts called sequestration 
would plunge us into a recession in the first half of 2013. It would 
also set off credit downgrades and drive up interest rates on credit 
cards, mortgages, and personal and government debt. They predict 
unemployment will rise above 9 percent, and the cuts in spending, half 
of which will be in the defense sector, certainly is going to leave 
America vulnerable.
  If there is anything Congress and the President are responsible for, 
it is the national security of our country. We can stop this fiscal 
cliff.
  We can answer the calls of the American people who have said clearly, 
loudly, and repeatedly: Get together and make things happen.
  I am happy to see our distinguished Madam President is sitting in the 
Chair and agreeing because we know there is common ground. We have seen 
groups of our Senators, Republicans and Democrats--a Gang of 6, a Gang 
of 8, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, all of these entities--that were 
bipartisan in nature and they came up with solutions. Did we agree with 
100 percent of what was in those plans? No. But there are nuggets we 
can start from, and what we have to do is sit down and start.
  Republicans are saying tax increases in this economy are not the 
right formula. We know if we tax 100 percent of every person who makes 
over $200,000 it is not going to affect the deficit. It is not going to 
have the impact I think people expect when they hear: Oh, we will tax 
the rich, since it will not affect us, and that will solve the deficit 
problem. It will not. It will have no impact on the deficit.
  Who will be hit if these tax increases go into effect--which they 
automatically will at the end of December if we don't do something? Who 
will be hit? Well, it is going to hit the middle class, small 
businesses, family farmers, retirees, and married couples.
  If the individual income tax brackets are not extended, the current 
six brackets will be five brackets. It will revert to pre-2001. The 
lowest end is the one that is going to go up in percentage the most. 
The 10-percent bracket will go to 15 percent, and the 15 percent stays 
at 15 percent. So the people who were paying 10 percent will now go to 
15 percent if we don't do something.
  The rates of the remaining four brackets will also increase: 25 
percent becomes 28, 28 to 31, 33 to 36, and 35 to 39.6, almost 40 
percent. On top of that is the individual alternative minimum tax. We 
have each year extended the tax relief for what we call the AMT, the 
alternative minimum tax.
  The alternative minimum tax was put in place to target a few 
millionaires. Now, because of inflation and wage increases, it is 
targeted right at the middle class. Unless that relief is renewed this 
year, it will boost 2012 taxes for 31 million Americans in the $30,000 
to $40,000 wage range.
  Now, really, do people making $30,000 or $40,000 deserve to have a 
new alternative minimum tax on top of the tax they are going to pay, 
which will be 25 or 28 percent? I don't think so, Madam President, and 
it is not what the AMT was meant to target.
  The increase in tax rates are going to certainly affect our small 
businesses. The economic engine of America is small business. The 
economic engine of America is not big business, although big business 
is very important, and it is not government. It is small business. Over 
60 percent of the jobs created in America are created by small 
business. Yet they are the ones who are not hiring. They are the ones 
who see their slim margins of profit getting so much slimmer they are 
not hiring people because they think the costs are going to be higher 
because of the new taxes that are impending.
  Seventy-five percent of small businesses pay taxes at an individual 
rate because they are S corporations or are flow-through businesses. So 
if we look at them and then look at those rate increases, that is going 
to be an immediate impact on every small business owner who is 
organized in that way. With over 20 million Americans still looking for 
work, do we really want to have this kind of economic hit? We need our 
small businesses to feel confident, and so we need stability.

[[Page S6774]]

  I have talked to so many small businesspeople in the last month as I 
have been out talking to people in my home State and in other States. 
What most of them say comes down to they just need to know what their 
tax liability is going to be, and they need to know it is going to stay 
that way for a while. That is how they make their plans. They do not 
want to hire someone if we are just going to have a 6-month fix or a 1-
year fix or a 2-year tax policy. A 2-year tax policy is a nightmare for 
businesses because they cannot make a long-term plan. They can't have a 
strategy that puts three more people on the payroll and then have those 
costs go up at the end of that 2-year period.
  It is important we give our businesses stability and that we show we 
understand they are the economic engine of America and that we want 
them to succeed and to hire people and give new jobs and get this 
unemployment rate well below the nearly 8 percent that it is now down 
into the 6-percent or 5-percent range.
  Now, let's talk about the elderly. All of these years I have heard 
people talking about the importance of saving for retirement, and we 
have encouraged people to do that. The people who have done that are 
looking at a huge tax increase.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. These are people who have done the right thing. They 
have saved. They have tried to make sure they didn't need any kind of 
government handout. They have earned Social Security--and that is not a 
government handout--and they want to know they can make it living the 
lifestyle they want to live because they have saved. But here we are 
talking about raising their taxes on the dividends of any stock they 
might have invested or might have been in their company 401(k) plan, 
and we are talking about raising the capital gains rate.
  In fact, the dividends rate could be as much as 39.6 percent. Nearly 
forty percent on dividends is going to kill a plan for retirement, and 
it is just not right to change the rules when we have had a lower 
dividend tax rate or capital gains tax rate for people who have done 
the right thing and saved for their own security. That is what will 
make a strong economy, and for our retirees to be able to get the rest 
they deserve.
  What about married couples? One of my longstanding priorities in the 
Senate has been to make sure we have a level playing field on 
deductions of State and local taxes. Some States have income taxes, 
some States have sales taxes, some have both, and a few have neither. 
But for those who have both, we give them the choice of a sales tax 
deduction or income tax deduction. That means on their Federal income 
tax they don't pay taxes on the taxes they pay. If they are paying a 
State income tax or a State sales tax, they should be able to deduct at 
least one of those because there is no reason to be taxed on taxes. The 
sales tax deduction expired at the end of last year. If we don't renew 
it, the people who have sales taxes and no income tax are going to be 
severely disadvantaged.
  In my home State of Texas, that makes at least a $500 difference to 
every person who takes those deductions. That can be a lot for 2 
million Texans who claim this deduction, to have an average of $500 
they are paying on taxes. So it is not a level playing field if we 
don't renew that extension. There are eight States that have no income 
tax, and they do have sales taxes. So I am hoping we will have that 
kind of parity in taxation, which we must do by the end of the year to 
allow that equity to take hold.
  A second priority of mine is the marriage penalty. I passed the 
original amendment that would double the standard deduction for married 
couples. This has been a hugely popular tax deduction because in the 
past, when two single people got married, they would go into the higher 
bracket, and they would not get a double standard deduction. Prior to 
2001, 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married, and the 
average cost to them was $1,400. As an example, if a Houston policeman, 
with a taxable income of $50,000, is marrying a data entry clerk who 
makes $30,000, they are going to have a tax increase of about $800 a 
year because the marriage penalty will come back at the end of this 
year.
  We enacted relief in 2001. It was my amendment. And I hope we will 
not leave here December 31 of this year without renewing the marriage 
penalty tax relief. It will mean $800 for married couples, as an 
average, and, for sure, that is something they deserve when they get 
married. They shouldn't have to pay more for their decision to get 
married. So if we don't extend the tax cuts that are in place right 
now, at the end of this year we are going to see tax relief for the 
middle class, small businesses, family farms, retirees, and families go 
away. That relief will go away, and all of their taxes are going to go 
up. That is not even counting the surcharges that are going to take 
effect January 1 of next year in the health care law on dividends and 
capital gains.
  So if the dividend rate goes back up to 20 percent, it is going to be 
23.8 percent. If someone is in the 39.6-percent bracket, it is going to 
be 43.4 percent. So it is something we must deal with.
  The other side of the equation is spending. Madam President, we must 
do something about the $1 trillion deficits we have had year after year 
after year that have made this debt go up from $10.6 trillion 4 years 
ago to $16.2 trillion today. We are about to hit our debt limit, and 
that means we are going to have to increase the debt that is already a 
wet blanket on this economy.
  So, Madam President, we must come together.
  We can do it. We can cut spending. We can address entitlement reform 
that will bring our entitlements into an actuarial soundness. Social 
Security and Medicare have already sustained enormous cuts in the 
health care plan that was adopted 2 years ago, and we can't sustain 
either of those programs if we continue to go in the direction we have 
been going.
  So rather than the sequestration--which is going to take more than $1 
trillion out of federal programs, half of which is going to come from 
defense--we have got to do something about it now.
  We have a 10-year plan that could cut the deficits. But we have got 
to do more. We have got to enact the next step in budget cuts, and it 
has got to include entitlement reform, in my opinion. I know there are 
disagreements about that, but that is the argument and the discussion 
we need to have. It is our responsibility.
  We should be using this time--today, tomorrow, this week--to start 
putting together a framework of discussions, because we will be in 
session from the end of November probably up until right before 
Christmas, and the American people deserve to have a solution, 
something that assures small business that they can count on a tax 
structure that is fair, that can allow them to make a reasonable 
profit, and allow them to hire more people.
  We have got to cut spending so we can manage this government in a 
responsible way without it encroaching on the vibrancy of our economy. 
That is our challenge. I hope this Congress is up to it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________