Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 150 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 150 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6985-S6995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 419,
the DOD authorization bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative 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. Madam President, the first hour will be equally divided and
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the
majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the
final half. We expect to begin consideration of the DOD authorization
bill today.

Disabilities Convention

On April 14, 1945, a very young Robert Dole lay gravely wounded in
the mud of a war-torn Italian hillside. He had been hit with shrapnel
which tore through his shoulder and his spine. But 24 years later,
after years spent rebuilding his body and building a political career,
the future Senate majority leader gave his maiden speech on the Senate
floor. His first floor speech here in the Senate was about the
challenges faced each day--even in this the richest of nations--by
people just like Robert Dole, people with disabilities. That is what he
spoke about. He described the discrimination disabled Americans faced
as ``maybe not exclusion from the front of the bus, but perhaps from
even climbing aboard it.''
Over the next 27 years of his Senate career, including 11 years as
majority leader, and throughout his years in the private sector, Bob
Dole would remain a vocal advocate for Americans with disabilities.
Since Senator Dole fought for passage of the Americans With
Disabilities Act in 1990, barriers have been lifted, helping people
with disabilities in this country live the full and productive life
they want and deserve.
There is no finer example of the extraordinary goals Americans can
achieve in spite of their disabilities than Bob Dole's inspiring
career. In my mind's eye, I can see Senator Dole on the Senate floor
standing straight and tall, slim, and articulate--as I indicated
yesterday, always with something funny to say. But what people did not
notice was that one of his arms was inoperative. He always kept a pen
in that hand so people would not grab his hand or something like that.
But it was distinctive. That was the distinctive Robert Dole. He was
such a force here in the Senate, and to think that he did it all after
having been really blown up in a war.
The United States has been a leader in expanding disability rights
across the globe. U.S. law has been the gold standard for the rest of
the world. But the United States must continue to lead by example and
must do more to protect American citizens traveling and working abroad.
The disabilities convention before the Senate today--a treaty
ratified by 125 nations--would advance those goals. This convention
would give us

[[Page S6986]]

an opportunity to strengthen our leadership on disability rights around
the world. It is another step toward ensuring that all people with
disabilities in any country are treated with dignity and given the
right to achieve to their full potential.
Ratification of this treaty will not cost the U.S. taxpayers a single
dime. It will not require any changes in our existing law. It has the
support of veterans groups and disability groups around the country. It
has the strong backing of a bipartisan group of Senators and leading
Republicans such as George H.W. Bush as well as Senator Dole. He called
me a few days ago to tell me how much he wanted this passed.
Like passing the Americans With Disabilities Act, ratifying the
treaty is the right thing to do. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, ``If you
would lift me up you must be on higher ground.'' If the United States
wishes to be a global example for the huge strides people with
disabilities can make when barriers to succeed are removed, we must
take the high ground.
I thank Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senators McCain, Lugar, Durbin, Barrasso, Coons, Tom Udall,
Moran, and others, and especially Senator Harkin, who is the father of
the Americans With Disabilities Act, leading the way on this issue.
With their help, I hope we can quickly ratify this treaty.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Fiscal Cliff

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the past few weeks Americans
have started to really focus on the debate we are having here in
Washington about how the two parties can work together to prevent a
short-term economic crisis in January and an even bigger budgetary
crisis later on. So it may come as a surprise to many to see that with
just a few weeks to go before a hard deadline on solving the short-term
issue, President Obama has decided to hit the road--hit the road--this
week to drum up support for his favored approach. It is hard to
believe, really. I mean, every week he spends campaigning for his ideas
is a week we are not solving the problem. It is completely
counterproductive. The election is over. He won. Congratulations. We
have a hard deadline here, however. He is still out on the campaign
trail kind of celebrating. This is a problem.
If the President really wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be
talking with the members of his own party right here in Washington,
trying to broker an agreement, not out there firing up crowds and
giving speeches. He is the only one who can do it, the only one who can
bring folks together to broker a consensus solution that can pass a
Democratic-controlled Senate as well as a Republican-controlled House.
This has been my message for weeks. I reiterated it on Monday. I repeat
it today.
There are some important points to keep in mind as well. Yesterday I
came to the floor to remind folks that we did not get here by accident.
The only reason we are even facing these twin crises right now is
because Democrats have spent taxpayer money with total abandon over the
past 4 years and done nothing to address the main drivers of the debt.
Our Democratic friends like to say we cannot simply cut our way to
prosperity. Well, leaving aside for a moment the fact that no one is
actually proposing we do that, we cannot spend our way to prosperity
either. That is exactly what Democrats have been trying to do for 4
years. We have been trying to spend our way to prosperity. It has not
worked yet and is not likely to work in the future.
This is not complicated. We are not in this mess because Washington
taxes too little, we are in this mess because Washington spends too
much. The American people know that. And we are not going to get out of
it until Democrats get serious about real spending cuts and meaningful
entitlement changes. So this morning I would like to speak in a little
more detail about why it is that we need to strengthen and protect
these entitlement programs through reforms that match them up with the
Nation's changing demographics.
Democrats like to pretend they are the great protectors of Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They make solemn pledges all the time
about how they will not even entertain a discussion about reform. What
they do not say is that ignoring those programs is the surest way to
guarantee their collapse.
All we are calling for is an honest conversation. We all know these
programs are in trouble. Let's figure out a solution. When it comes to
entitlements, Republicans are guided by a simple principle: We do not
want Americans to age into a system that no longer exists. We do not
want Americans to age into a system that no longer exists. We want to
protect them and to protect people's investment in them. But we can't
do it alone. Reform is something that can only be done by both parties
together. That is the reality. And there has been a scandalous lack of
leadership on this issue for years among Democratic leaders in
Washington because they think it is a winner politically.
What I am saying is that the Democrats just won the election.
Congratulations. Turn off the campaign and recognize the opportunity
that divided government presents to actually do something to strengthen
these programs and protect them for future generations. That is all
Republicans are asking for. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are
critical to the economic and health care security of millions of older,
lower income, and disabled Americans. We want to make sure they remain
viable not only for today's seniors but for their children and their
grandchildren and that they do not consume so large a share of Federal
spending that we do not have the money to pay for other necessities.
Here are the facts, just the facts. Longer lifespans and Federal
spending patterns threaten the viability of all of these programs as
well as the economic well-being of our country and our children. Think
about it. The number of Americans over the age of 65 will increase from
40 million in 2010 to 54 million at the end of this decade and then 72
million a decade after that. Americans are living longer, more
productive lives. That is great and a testament to modern health care
here in the United States, but it creates obvious challenges for which
we need to prepare. We cannot just let seniors age into promises that
can no longer pay promised benefits. It is not right. Yet already
Medicare and Social Security are both paying out more benefits than
they take in from taxes. Medicare and Social Security are paying out
more benefits than they take in from taxes now--not some other day,
now.
The problem is particularly urgent in Medicare, which paid out nearly
$30 billion more than it took in last year and which is on the road to
bankruptcy in about 10 years--10 years from now, a bankrupt Medicare.
This is not alarmism. It is math. It is a fact. And the studies that
illustrate the gravity of the problem come from members of the
President's own Cabinet who serve as the Medicare trustees.
In discussing the Medicare Part A trust fund, for example, the
Medicare trustees report that expenditures for this program have
exceeded income every year since 2008, and projected expenditures
continue to do so every year until the fund becomes exhausted in 2024,
which is not that far away.
What do the President's own trustees think we should do about all of
this? This is from their report:

The financial projections in this report indicate a need
for additional steps to address Medicare's remaining
financial challenges. Consideration of further reforms should
occur in the near future. Not some other day, now.

Again, these are the President's own trustees. They are the ones
saying we need to do something about the problem; not just me, the
Medicare trustees.
Yet Democrats are telling those on the hard left, don't worry about
it, don't worry about it. They won't do anything to reform and protect
theses programs. For some reason these groups all applaud, as if this
is some kind of an achievement--as if this is some kind of an
achievement, allowing entitlements to crumble. That is the kind of
leadership vacuum we have had on this issue from Democrats in
Washington literally for years. Here is a concrete example of what I
mean.

[[Page S6987]]

The Medicare Modernization Act requires Medicare trustees to send a
funding warning letter whenever Medicare begins to rely on the Treasury
for more than 45 percent of its financing. The law then requires the
President to submit a plan to Congress on how he plans to address the
shortfall. The trustees issued their first such warning back in 2007,
and they have continued to issue one every year since. President Bush
submitted his plan. This President has ignored the warnings every year
he has been in office, every year.
Here is another example. In 2010 the Director of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office warned that ``the single greatest threat to
budget stability of the Federal Government is the growth of Federal
spending on health care.'' Yet how did President Obama and his allies
respond to these warnings about overspending on health care? He
increased Federal spending on health care by $580 billion. That was
their response, to increase spending on health care by $580 billion.
That was their solution.
As for Social Security, the only thing we hear from Democrats is that
they don't want to talk about it. Don't want to talk about it? Why in
the world wouldn't they want to talk about the fact that this vital
program started spending out more than it took in in 2010 for the first
time in nearly 30 years, and that its trustees now estimate that it
will keep spending more than it takes in for 75 years unless we
strengthen it?
But, again, it is not just a question of when these programs go
broke, it is also about the strain they continue to put on the rest of
the Federal budget on their way to going broke. Look, I understand that
when it comes to government spending, those on the hard left have no
limiting principle. No limiting principle. They don't think about this.
They think every dollar secured is sacrosanct forever and forever,
amen. But when you are in charge, when you are the steward of the
Nation's finances, you don't have that luxury. You are actually
responsible.
These are just a few of the ways in which Democrats have been slowly
undermining the very programs they claim to champion, making it even
harder for us to reform and strengthen them in the future. The good
news is these challenges are neither unprecedented nor insurmountable.
We have done it before. When a President of one party has decided to
sit down with leaders of the other party in Congress, we have faced up
to challenges such as these and made the tough choices necessary to
resolve them.
In 1983, President Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill to reach an
agreement that increased the retirement age and laid the groundwork for
preserving Social Security for decades to come. In 1997, Medicare faced
total insolvency by 2001. President Clinton, working with a Republican
Congress, reached an agreement that added decades to the life of the
Medicare trust fund.
We can do this. We can do this. But the President, as I have said,
has to lead. That is the issue. It is that simple.

Rules Changes

Madam President, we have been having a spirited discussion this week
over the plans of the Democratic majority to break the rules to change
the rules. That is how my friend from Nevada repeatedly described it
when Republicans considered doing something similar several years ago
but wisely chose not to.
At the end of the following year, my friend was poised to become
Senate majority leader, which was back in 2006. With the experience of
having served in the minority in his mind, the majority leader, the
soon-to-be majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, made a commitment
to practice the Golden Rule, as he put it, by running the Senate with
respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.
Unfortunately, he appears to have repudiated that clear commitment.
Unfortunately, he no longer recognizes, as Senator Byrd did, by the
way, that the Senate was not established to be efficient but to make
sure minorities are protected.
Then my friend recognized that is what the Senate is all about. That
is what he said back then. Now he says the primary consideration is
``efficiency.'' He seeks to minimize concerns about this majoritarian
power grab by characterizing the effect as ``tiny,'' just a little
change, a ``minor change,'' as changing the rules just a little bit.
But when one of my new Members asked the majority leader if this
change occurred what recourse he would have to ensure he ever got an
amendment to the bill, the majority leader quipped, ``You can always
vote against the bill.'' In other words, my friend from Nevada
acknowledged that if this change occurred, the minority will no longer
have any ability to ensure that it and those whom it represents have a
meaningful voice in the legislative process.
My new colleague was surprised, but I can't say I was. After all, the
majority leader brazenly told Senator McCain that ``the days of
amendments are over.''
The record of the Democratic leadership, of course, backs this up. It
is engaged in a systemic effort to use and abuse Senate procedures to
marginalize the voice of the minority in the legislative process. Let
us review the record.
It used to be unprecedented to use Senate rule XIV frequently. This
rule allows the majority to bypass committees and write bills behind
closed doors. Doing so deprives all Senators, Republicans and
Democrats, of the chance to have their committee work actually make any
difference.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the majority has
used this rule to bypass committees nearly 70 times--70 times. When
Republicans were last in the majority under Senator Frist, we used that
rule less than half as often, only 30 times to be specific, which is a
much lower rate, proportionately speaking.

When a bill that has bypassed committee goes straight to the floor
under the current Democratic leadership, there often isn't an
opportunity to participate there either. In fact, according to the
Congressional Research Service, the current Democratic leadership
continues to break records there as well. It has blocked Senators from
both sides of the aisle from offering amendments on the floor 68
times--68 times. That is a conservative figure in which the majority
has simply made it impossible for any Senators to offer any amendments
on the floor. For if the Democratic leadership indicates it won't let
us offer any amendments to a bill, and in response we don't allow the
majority to get on the bill, then there is no tree to fill that shows
up in the statistics, but there is a filibuster. Of course, the
filibuster statistic doesn't indicate the reason for the filibuster in
the first place. Let me say that again. The filibuster statistic
doesn't indicate the reason for the filibuster in the first place.
But even this conservative figure is 70 percent greater than the
number of times the six prior majority leaders combined--combined--shut
their colleagues out of the amendment process. Our friend, the majority
leader, cavalierly dismisses this unprecedented blocking of Senators of
both parties from offering amendments. He said this behavior has ``no
bearing on what's going on around here.'' It has ``no bearing on what's
going on around here.''
Well, maybe in his mind it doesn't, but that is a pretty convenient
and, frankly, self-serving attitude coming from the one who is picking
the amendments. It is a little bit bigger deal to the other 99 of us
who don't get to offer any amendments, when our constituents elected us
to be a meaningful voice for them.
Of course, that wasn't the majority leader's view when he was in the
minority and had to live under that procedure. Senator Frist as
majority leader blocked his colleagues from offering amendments a
relatively modest 15 times in 4 years--15 times in 4 years. Do you know
what the reaction of my friend from Nevada was when Senator Frist did
this a relatively modest number of times over 4 years? He said it was
``a bad way to run the Senate.'' He said it was a ``very bad
practice.'' He said it ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.''
Well, if it was a bad way to run the Senate, if it was a very bad
practice, if it ran against the basic nature of the Senate to do it 15
times in 4 years, what would be the fair way to characterize the
practice when it happened nearly 70 times on bills, especially when
many of those never went

[[Page S6988]]

through committee? Is it fair to conclude that this sort of stewardship
of the Senate might be more than just a few tweaks shy of how this
institution, which is supposed to protect the rights of all Senators,
including those in the minority, is supposed to function?
But the current Democratic leadership wasn't content to stop there in
marginalizing the minority. Because the minority isn't allowed to offer
amendments in committee and isn't allowed to offer amendments on floor,
some of our Members began to put forth legislative ideas by moving to
suspend the rules.
This wasn't exactly a level playing field for us because of the
requirement in the Senate rules that motions to suspend the rules
receive 67 votes to prevail. But even if the deck was stacked against
us, it was a chance for us to put our ideas and those of our
constituents before the body.
Well, of course, that was even too much, too much legislative freedom
for the majority. Even if the majority started with a 27-vote built-in
advantage under the rules to defeat these motions, having to bother
with them was just too much, just too much of a bother. It got in the
way of efficiency. So the majority leader used a simple majority to
change Senate procedure to shut down the minority there too.
Even that is not enough. That is not enough. The same Democratic
leadership now wants to take away the right to extend the debate on
motions to proceed to a measure. Don't worry, they say. Don't worry
about it. Trust us, they say. We would never take away the right to
extended debate on the measure itself.
Really? Really? In light of the systemic effort to marginalize the
minority at every turn, are we supposed to believe that the current
majority won't subsequently cite ``efficiency'' as a reason to take
away that Senate rule as well? Are we supposed to believe this
assurance when the Democratic leadership so easily discards past
unequivocal commitments to respect the rights of the minority?
On the record of this Democratic leadership, there is no basis, none,
to believe that the proposed changes are ``tiny,'' that they are
``minor,'' that they would affect the Senate just ``a little bit'' or
that they would stop there. To my colleagues who have never served in
this body in the minority, who have never served under different
leadership, this is not how the Senate is supposed to function.
To my Democratic friends in particular who have never served in the
minority but no doubt will at some point, are you prepared to live
under the rules you are now demanding? Are you prepared to be shut out
from even offering amendments when the shoe is on the other foot?
We in the minority cannot fairly expect the majority to allow us to
offer every amendment we wish to a bill. I understand that. We need to
exercise self-restraint and good judgment as well. We know we will not
get every amendment we wish to offer. But the majority cannot prevent
us from offering amendments in committee, block us from offering
amendments on the floor before cloture, and change Senate procedure so
it can rule out of order motions we want to offer after cloture and
then turn around and assert that these systemic practices ``have no
bearing on what's going on around here.'' That is an abdication of
responsibility.
I would encourage my friend the majority leader not to employ a
heavy-handed procedure. With the House of Representatives in control of
Republicans, it is important to note here, what short-term advantage
would be gained by all of this nuclear option activity? The House of
Representatives is in the hands of my party. So you will have degraded
the Senate, created a bad precedent for the next time you are in the
minority, and sent measures to the House nowhere. But in the long term
it will establish a precedent for breaking the rules to change the
rules that our Democratic colleagues will have to endure when they are
next in the minority.

Now, what we should be doing, Madam President, is we should work
together on a bipartisan basis to resolve our respective differences.
That is what the Standing Rules of the Senate anticipate, and that has
been how changes to Senate rules have occurred in the past. We can
reach agreement, as previous majority leaders have done, without making
the Senate irrelevant.
The time for the majority leader and myself to discuss these matters
has come.
Madam President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

Order of Procedure

Under the previous order, the following hour is equally divided and
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the
majority controlling the first half.
The Senator from Illinois.

Entitlement Programs

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the minority leader, Senator McConnell,
has addressed two issues: the entitlement programs as well as rules
changes. I would defer to my colleagues from New Mexico and Oregon to
address the rules changes. I would like to briefly respond to Senator
McConnell on entitlements.
There is no question that as a Senate and House of Representatives we
should address the longevity and solvency of Social Security and
Medicare. It should be part of our conversation about the deficit
facing this country and the debt of our Nation. But the way we approach
it, the changes we make, are significant. It should be looked at
carefully.
On the issue of Social Security, I might remind those following this
debate that the answer from the Republican side for years has been to
privatize Social Security; to get government out of the business of
retirement and let individuals take their life savings in Social
Security and invest them. That debate disappeared when we had a
recession recently--in the last 7 or 8 years--and people saw their life
savings evaporate, melt away, as a result of downturns in the stock
market. They started envisioning what would have happened had they
retired at that moment in time with their Social Security savings. So
the Republican answer of privatization of Social Security is a
nonstarter and never mentioned in polite company in these times because
it is not a credible position.
My belief is Social Security has performed admirably since its
creation under President Franklin Roosevelt. I can recall in 1983, when
we revised Social Security in anticipation of the baby boomers'
arrival, we said: We will collect more money while they are still
working so we can take care of them when they arrive in large numbers
after they retire.
That is exactly what has occurred, with 10,000 people turning 65
yesterday in America, 10,000 today, 10,000 tomorrow, and 10,000 a day
for the next 18 years. The boomers have arrived, having paid a lifetime
into Social Security, and, rightfully, they expect their coverage to be
there when they need it. It will be. But beyond the 21 or 22 years of
solvency and longevity, I believe we should take a step further.
Having studied this for some time--the Simpson-Bowles Commission and
other places--I think it is thoughtful and perhaps careful for us to
take a look at the future of Social Security and that we need to create
something like the Simpson-Bowles Commission on Social Security to
report back to us in 6 or 8 months with a plan to increase the
longevity of Social Security for 75 years. I think we can do that, and
we can do it in a sensible way since we have 20 years to make small
changes and then let them play out to give solvency to Social Security.
We can then bring the issue to the floor and let bipartisan groups of
Senators offer alternatives, if they wish.
But let's do this on Social Security separate from this deficit and
debt debate. Social Security does not add one penny to the deficit. It
is an important program, a critical program. Let's take care of it in
the future, but let's do it separate from the debt debate.
Medicare is another story. Medicare has 12 years of life left. Let me
make a point of saying it has 8 of those years because of President
Obama's leadership. He said: We will reduce the reimbursement to
providers under Medicare over the next 10 years because we are going to
increase the number of people under health insurance coverage under
ObamaCare. As we reduce the compensation to providers, we will buy

[[Page S6989]]

more life for Medicare. And we did, literally--12 years. We need to do
more; 12 years is not enough.
What I said yesterday and will repeat today is we cannot come up with
a solution on Medicare in the next 2 or 3 weeks. We shouldn't even try.
It is too important, it is too serious when it comes to this fiscal
cliff debate. But Medicare entitlement reform should be part of our
conversation over the next 10 years in deficit reduction. Let's find a
way to do it that does not reach the extreme of the Paul Ryan budget,
which created premium supports which literally foreclosed opportunities
for seniors to have Medicare coverage when they needed it the most.
Let me also add to my colleague's comments that the notion about
extending the eligibility age for Medicare is one we ought to think
about long and hard. To think a person would retire at the age of 64 or
65 and not have Medicare coverage until 67 raises an obvious question.
These people in their midsixties, probably with a health history, will
find it difficult to buy health insurance on the open market or afford
whatever is available. I want to make sure there are no gaps in
coverage for those who need it the most--retired Americans who have a
health history and can't find affordable health insurance. So before we
jump at the notion of increasing the eligibility age for Medicare,
let's make certain there are insurance exchanges, good competition, and
affordable health care available for those seniors. That should be part
of the conversation about this entitlement reform.
Let's get to entitlement reform, but let's start where we should.
Let's bring in the revenue and taxes needed for deficit reduction. That
is the President's plan. We sent a bipartisan bill to the House--a bill
passed in the Senate--to protect every American family making $250,000
or less so that they have no increase in their income taxes on January
1 after the cliff. It is in the hands of the Speaker of the House. He
could call it today. He could pass it today. I hope he will. That is
what the President is asking.
What we are also saying is those who have lived the American dream,
have been successful and blessed with wealth and a good position in
America, should be willing to give a little more in taxes so another
generation would have a chance to attain that American dream. Asking
those in the highest income categories to pay a little bit more to
reduce our deficit is not unreasonable. It is the President's starting
position, and should be, before we get into serious discussion about
deficit reductions over the long period.
I will now yield to my colleagues and thank them for their
leadership. I will say, as a way of introduction, what the Republican
Senate leader failed to mention, which that in the last 6 years we have
had no fewer than 386 filibusters on the floor of the Senate. Senator
McConnell, as their leader, has led us into more filibusters than ever
in the history of the Senate. That is why most people who tune in to C-
SPAN and look at the Senate floor say: Where are the Senators? Why
aren't they here working? We have been stuck in Republican filibusters
to a record level.
What my colleagues are addressing is a way to avoid that in a
sensible manner which could apply to either party in the majority or
the minority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.

Senate Rules Changes

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to be here with my
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Tom Udall, to talk a little about
the issue of how this body, which was once considered the world's
premier deliberative body, can actually discuss and decide things in
this modern era--a modern era that has seen unlimited paralysis, with
huge hurdles placed in the way of addressing the large issues facing
America.
The last couple of days we have heard a lot of passionate terms--
terms such as power grab and suppression of minority rights, broken
promises or abuse of the rules. I must say all of those allegations
create a smoke screen designed to take away from thoughtful
conversation about a broken system, about the dysfunction of the
Senate. So let's take a step back and recognize that the goal of this
discussion about rules is to simply enhance or restore the ability of
this body to deliberate and decide issues.
Perhaps during the time we have the honor to serve in this body we
will be able to once again claim that we are the world's greatest
deliberative body. The conversation often starts with the Constitution
and about the design of this body as being the cooling saucer, as
President Washington was alleged to have claimed. And, indeed, the
early debate over this body did say let's take a longer term for
Senators--6 years rather than 2--so they are more insulated from the
public debate. Let's have the indirect election of Senators. States
used to have a legislative process to decide who would represent them
in the Senate rather than direct election. Let's do that so there is a
little more insulation for Senators to be able to thoughtfully consider
issues, whereas the House might be a little rash.
But, colleagues, there is a huge difference between being a cooling
saucer and a deep freeze. Indeed, we have become a deep freeze.
Let's take a look at this first chart. This chart essentially shows
the rise in the number of cloture motions. If you can't see the
details, what you can see is the trend of this great soaring number. I
think what captures attention is that during the 6 years Lyndon Johnson
was majority leader in this body he had to file just one cloture
motion--just one--in order to get to a final simple majority vote.
During the 6 years that Senate Majority Leader Reid has presided here
we have had 386 filibusters. Realizing that each one can consume a week
of the Senate's time, we quickly see the paralysis that has invaded
this body.
When Members talk about the frustration of not getting to
appropriations bills and how few of them we have considered and
debated, we know why. It is because of the incessant, day-in-and-day-
out filibusters launched by members of the minority. This must be
addressed.
I first came to the Senate to observe this Chamber in 1976. I was an
intern for Senator Hatfield. I sat in the staff gallery and covered the
debate that summer over the Tax Reform Act of 1976. There were no
cameras on the Senate floor, no e-mail, so I would run down and meet
Senator Hatfield outside of the elevators and brief him on each
amendment. I watched as every hour or hour and a half an amendment was
brought up, it was debated in this body, and it was voted on. There was
no filibuster of a motion to proceed. There was no filibuster of
amendments. There was no 3-week deep freeze during the negotiation of
what amendments would come up because it was understood we were here as
a majority body to debate issues.
The filibuster would be a rare exception, occurring once or twice in
one's career, when someone would stand and say: There is a principle so
profound at stake, an interest of such concern to me personally, to the
Nation, or to citizens of my own State that I am going to break and
interfere with the majority decision and hold this floor and make my
case before the people. But that is not what we have now. So there are
various ideas being put forward on how we can restore the filibuster as
something that happens in front of this Chamber, in front of the
public; that there is accountability and transparency that facilitates
debate. Rather than throwing accusations about abuses of power, let's
just have a thoughtful debate about how to make this Chamber work.
One question is whether we should have filibusters on the motion to
proceed. I have a little chart that shows what has happened. It used to
be unheard of that the motion to proceed was filibustered. In the time
period between about 1930 and 1970 the motion to proceed was only
filibustered 12 times or roughly once every 3 to 4 years.
What we have here is 57 filibusters in 2007-2008 of just the motion
to proceed. In other words, we see this growing trend of trying to
paralyze the Senate from even getting to a debate on an issue. This
makes no sense because whatever one is filibustering at the front end
one can do at the back end. So we need to consider the possibility of
saying, no, this does not enhance debate.
Filibustering to prevent the Senate from debating cannot possibly
enhance debate. So we need to be thoughtful about whether we continue
this change, this change that has emerged since 1970.

[[Page S6990]]

We need to look at the problem of motions being filibustered going to
conference committee. A conference committee is a chance to negotiate
with the House on a bill that has been passed by both bodies. Why
should we possibly obstruct a bill from getting to conference
committee? Yet we rarely have a conference committee now because of the
routine threat to filibuster the motions necessary to get to conference
committee. Yes, we should still be able to debate and filibuster what
comes back from conference committee. Absolutely. But to prevent
negotiations--again, that doesn't seem reasonable in any frame other
than to paralyze this body, which is paralysis not about debate, it is
about preventing debate.
I put forward the notion of the talking filibuster. That is simply to
say that the American people believe that if you are going to object to
a simple majority vote and say there should be more debate, then there
should be more debate--more debate on this Chamber floor. So I am
proposing that after cloture, when you have a majority but not a
supermajority, that Members be required to actually debate. I can tell
my colleagues that the public reaction to this is so strongly in the
affirmative. And there are other ideas being put forward that merit
thoughtful consideration.
Today the minority leader said the test should be whether you feel as
though a proposal would work when you place yourself in the minority.
Both Senator Udall and I have expressed that very position from the
beginning of this conversation 2\1/2\ years ago, that whatever we
support on this floor needs to be something we would accept in the
minority, and that means it enhances debate and dialog without crushing
in any way the right of the minority to be heard.
Madam President, at this moment I yield the floor for my colleague
from New Mexico, who has done a spectacular job at framing that we have
a responsibility to American citizens to enable this Chamber to work
and that we have an opportunity at the start of every 2 years to have a
thoughtful and considerate debate on how to fulfill that
responsibility.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
that the remaining time on the Democratic side be equally divided
between Senator Murray and me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I say to Senator Merkley,
who has been a good friend and partner on this issue of filibuster
reform, I couldn't agree more with his comments and with the kinds of
things he has been talking about: commonsense proposals to make the
Senate work.
What Senator Merkley and I have been talking about is the way we can
have the Senate do the work of the American people. We just went
through an election. We know our States are hurting. People want to
create jobs. They want us to deal with health care costs and make sure
there is quality health care. On education reform, we haven't even
reauthorized the No Child Left Behind Act or dealt with education. So
all of those issues are front and center. As we know, the last couple
of years, because of the filibuster and because of the delay and
because of the obstruction we have had go on, we haven't been able to
get to those issues. And I think Senator Merkley has experienced what I
have when we have talked to our friends on the Republican side--they
agree it is not working.
Really what we are trying to do is come up with commonsense proposals
such as the Senator has talked about to make the Senate work. The first
one is very simple. It is to make sure that the motion to proceed to a
bill will not be debatable. We are talking about not allowing
filibusters on the motion to proceed because, as we have seen on the
chart here, we are in a situation where we now cannot even get on the
bills. So this is a commonsense proposal.
One of the other areas we are trying to address deals with conference
committees. There are three debatable motions--three motions that can
be filibustered to get us into the conference committee. We have not
gone to conference as a result, and so we don't resolve differences
between the House and the Senate--another important area we could
reform and really make the process work much better.
The final one is one Senator Merkley and I have worked on. Senator
Specter, a Republican who at the very end of his career became a
Democrat, talked about it as the talking filibuster. He said: If you
are going to object, if you are going to slow down the Senate and
prevent the Senate from doing anything, you should have to come down
here and talk about it. That is really the essence of what we are
trying to do--shift the burden onto the people who are obstructing to
say: Come down here and talk about it. And as Senator Merkley has said
several times, it could be that what you talk about, you become a hero
or you become a bum in the eyes of the American people. But the reality
is that the Senate is deliberating, the Senate is doing its work, the
Senate is engaging--we are engaging each other and having a debate
about those particular issues.
I think these are commonsense proposals, and the minority should
understand that we have thought through these proposals in such a way
that if we were in the minority, we could live with them. That is the
crucial fact here. We are not trying to ram something through that we
couldn't live with in the minority. I believe this place can work a lot
better and we can do a better job if we just work with each other and
try to come up with rules and not abuse the rules.
My colleague and our leader, Senator Murray, has joined us. Senator
Durbin was here earlier. I know the time has been equally divided. It
was shortened a little bit with Senator Durbin's talk at the beginning
of our half hour. At this time, I yield for Senator Murray's remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues.
We have been hearing a lot recently about the inability of our
Nation's elected officials to come together on a balanced and
bipartisan budget deal. Here in Washington, DC, this issue is often
viewed through the prism of partisanship and political point-scoring.
The conversations and the coverage are very focused on the moment
that we are in--this debate, the next few weeks, the next year--but for
families who are sitting around their tables and in communities across
America, this issue is about a lot more than that. It is about their
lives and their futures. It is about tough questions too many of them
have to ask themselves every day: Will they be able to afford to stay
in their homes? Will they get the support they need to get skills and
get back on a job? Are they going to be able to send their kids to
college or go to the doctor when they get sick? Is Medicare going to be
there for their parents or for them or for their children? Are their
taxes going to go up next year?
Those are the questions they are asking, and they want their elected
officials to come together around real answers and real solutions and
smart policies that work for families like theirs.
These are the people I am fighting for as we work toward a balanced
and bipartisan deal in this lameduck session of Congress. Those are the
questions I feel very strongly we need to be answering. That is why I
am absolutely focused on making sure any deal we make over the next few
weeks works for middle-class families and for our seniors and for our
country, and that is why I have been very clear that I will not sign on
to a deal that throws the burden of deficit reduction right on to the
backs of families and communities who have already sacrificed so much.
As cochair of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction last
year, I made it very clear: Democrats were willing to compromise, we
were willing to make some tough concessions, but only in the context of
a balanced and fair deal that called on the wealthy to pay their fair
share as well. As we all know, Republicans didn't just refuse to meet
us halfway then, they wouldn't even step out of their corner. They
insisted that seniors and the middle class feel all of the pain in that
deal and that the wealthiest Americans--millionaires and billionaires--
be protected

[[Page S6991]]

from paying a single penny more in taxes.
Democrats rejected that deeply unfair approach, and we decided to
keep fighting for the middle class rather than roll over and let
Republicans lock in new giveaways to the rich and major cuts to
programs on which our families depend. And then we made our case to the
American people. We built our campaigns from the top to the bottom
around the idea that budgets need to work for our middle class and that
the wealthy need to pay their fair share. The Republican approach--the
Ryan budget plan--was literally on the ballot, and Romney and Ryan and
other Republicans were not shy about telling the American people they
didn't think the rich should pay a penny more in taxes in this deal.
Well, not only did Democrats win races across the country, but in exit
polling it was clear that the vast majority of Americans supported our
approach to deficit reduction--a balanced approach, an approach that
cuts spending responsibly but also calls on the wealthy to pay their
fair share. Voters spoke pretty clearly in this election, and they
stood behind Democrats to fight for a budget deal that works for the
middle class.
We are hearing encouraging words from some of our Republican
colleagues who have indicated a willingness to put revenue on the table
and to break the stranglehold DC lobbyist Grover Norquist has on the
modern Republican Party. One of my Republican Senate colleagues said
Republicans should ``put revenue on the table . . . We don't generate
enough revenue.'' And he said he would not be beholden to the Norquist
pledge.
Another has said:

The world has changed. And the economic situation is
different. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill realized that in the
1980s. I think everything should be on the table.

Another said:

I'm not obligated on the pledge . . . The only thing I'm
honoring is the oath that I take when I'm sworn in in
January.

Another Republican Senator recently said:

I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old
pledge. If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt.

Of course, Grover Norquist is fighting back. He called those
statements by my Republican colleagues impure thoughts; he called one
of them a weasel. He is used to blind allegiance from the Republican
Party, and he is not going to take this lying down. But I am hopeful
that more and more Republicans will break away from Grover Norquist and
that they will actually follow up on their new rhetoric with a genuine
willingness to help us call on the wealthy to pay their fair share. And
it should be easy for them because the Senate actually has already
passed a bill to do that and in a way that works for our middle class.
The Senate passed a bill that would extend the tax cuts for 98 percent
of our workers and 97 percent of small business owners and just let the
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled. We have sent
that bill over to the House now. The President said he would sign it.
All House Republicans have to do is pass that bill, and a significant
chunk of the fiscal cliff will disappear for the middle class. When
that is done, we will then continue the serious conversation we need to
have about our country's budget future.
But there is no reason middle-class families should have to go into
the holidays not knowing if their taxes are going to go up. Democrats
and Republicans both agree that the middle class should have their tax
cuts extended. So there is no reason the House should continue holding
that bill and the middle class hostage.
By the way, one conservative Republican in the House agrees.
Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma told his colleagues and reporters
yesterday: ``The first thing I'd do is make sure we don't raise taxes
on 98 percent of the American people.'' He said that was ``the right
thing to do'' and that ``where there is common ground . . . we should
seize that common ground.'' I applaud Representative Cole for that
commonsense and brave position. I am hopeful that he can persuade other
Republicans to do the right thing for our families, small business
owners, and communities across the country who have so much at stake
and who are looking to us to solve this problem. I am hopeful they will
join Senate Democrats and pass that middle-class tax cut, and I am
confident that once we move forward on that bill, then both sides will
sit down and listen to the American people, allow the wealthy to pay
more, and then focus on the questions families are asking about--our
budgets, our priorities, our fiscal health, and the future of the
Nation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.

The Fiscal Cliff

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the fiscal
cliff this country is facing and is coming upon us on January 1. As my
colleagues have been pointing out, Congress must act soon to take on
the numerous expiring tax provisions in the sequester. I believe
President Obama needs to supply the leadership in those efforts. If he
does not, we know taxes are going to go up on all Americans; we know
the economy is going to be thrown back into a recession; and we know
unemployment will return to even higher rates than we have right now.
Our recovery from the last recession has been far too sluggish. We
see that all across the country. It has left too many Americans still
out of work. Today our economy has created 9 million fewer jobs than we
were promised under the President's own stimulus plan. Our economy has
rebounded far more slowly than it did following previous recessions. As
a nation we simply cannot afford another recession right now.
It would be especially tragic if there were a recession caused by a
failure of leadership coming out of the White House. That is what we
are trying to avoid, and we have a very limited amount of time to do
it.
As chairman of the Republican policy committee, we have come out with
a policy paper called ``On the Fiscal Cliff, Entitlement Reform Is
Key'' because what we see is that no amount of tax revenue will fix
entitlement spending when we look at the history of the United States.
Over the last 40 years the average amount of tax revenue was a little
over 18 percent of the gross national product. The highest ever was a
little over 20 percent of the gross national product. Yet when we take
a look at the tidal waves coming at us of Social Security and Medicare,
unless we deal with those two tidal waves we are going to significantly
have problems long term, and that message to the markets is going to be
one that is quite destabilizing.
Tax increases do not solve the spending problem. If we do what the
President requests, which is raising tax rates on people with over
$200,000 a year of income, in terms of spending for next year that
would pay for about 6.8 days. If we did it at the other level of over
$1 million of income as some suggested, it would only pay for 4 days of
spending.
I am very concerned about what I call the fiscal cliff. Yesterday,
Politico reported that some Democrats want to call it the fiscal slope.
It is time for Democrats in Washington to stop searching for better
sound bites and start looking for solutions.
President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to take a balanced
approach. This balanced approach should govern how we deal with other
issues as well and how Democrats work with Republicans in the Senate.
Given the challenges we face, it is unfortunate that some of the
President's closest allies in the Senate are for pushing the exact
opposite approach.

Rules Changes

The majority leader and some members of his party have now proposed
what would be an unprecedented power grab that will forever change this
Chamber's rules. It will make it easier for the political majority to
silence those who disagree with them and even harder to find common
ground. I am speaking, of course, about the Democratic plan to change
the rules of the Senate to drastically limit the use of the filibuster.
I believe the majority leader would take a dangerous step toward
abolishing the rights of the political minority and restricting the
right to free and open debate. They seem to want to break the rules to
change the rules, and I believe it is fundamentally wrong to break the
rules in order to change the rules. This would be a terrible mistake
and a irresponsible abuse of power. The rules of the Senate ensure a
balanced approach to debating important matters such as the fiscal
crisis.

[[Page S6992]]

Among these rules, filibuster is critically important.
The filibuster was created so that competing groups of Senators would
actually have to work together to find responsible solutions--not
solutions based on one political ideology or the other.
Back when he was a Senator, President Obama understood the need for
rules to protect the rights of political minorities. In 2005, then-
Senator Obama said:

If the majority chooses to end the filibuster--if they
choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic
debate--then the fighting and bitterness and the gridlock
will only get worse.

Another former Senator was Vice President Biden, currently the
President of the Senate. He agreed. He said:

At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee
or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation.

At the time, in 2005, some Republicans wanted to vote on well-
qualified judges despite Democrats' insistence not to. They believed we
needed to change the Senate rules to get these votes. Back then,
Democrats called this the nuclear option. That is because of the damage
it would do to the balance and compromise in Washington. Today some of
those same Democratic Senators are preparing to use this nuclear option
themselves.
Anytime one party or group is frustrated with the Senate's
inefficiency, there are always calls to change the rules. The
frustration is natural, but it is also intentional. Our Nation's
Founding Fathers purposely made the pace of the Senate deliberate. They
wanted to make sure there was free debate on important subjects. That
is what has happened now for more than 200 years.
Way back in 1789, the very first session of the first Congress,
Senators used the rules to slow down one of the first votes this body
ever took. Naturally, there were complaints at the time about the
delay. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, explained the
importance of the rules that allowed the brakes to be applied to
policymaking. He wrote:

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary.

Angels have always been in very short supply in Washington, so voters
must keep an eye on government officials and hold them responsible.
Those officials must also keep close watch on each other. At times they
must be able to stop each other from doing harm.
Restricting the right to debate would seriously undermine the ability
of Senators to keep that watchful eye. It will lead to more bickering,
more bad blood, and more bills being written by one party behind closed
doors. There will be less transparency, less consideration of the
unintended consequences in bills and less open discussion for the
American people to see.
The filibuster is not just about stopping bad ideas. More often it is
about amending bills to make them better. It is about taking the time
to have the reasoned discussion that the Founders knew we should be
having. It is about maintaining the balanced approach the President is
calling for in these important talks on the fiscal cliff. It is about
giving members of the minority and the people they represent a chance
to offer their solutions.
Instead of allowing that measured approach the Founders intended,
what we are seeing is the majority leader has already done an awful lot
to limit debate. He has already restricted the rights of minority
Senators and the people they represent. He has bypassed committees at
an extraordinary pace, and he has made unprecedented use of the
parliamentary trick known as filling the tree.
Senator Reid has filled this amendment tree 67 times since he has
been majority leader. That is more than twice as often as the four
previous majority leaders combined. Now the majority leader wants to
cut off debate and abolish the filibuster. He wants to change the rules
by breaking the rules. He would set the precedent that just 51 Senators
could band together to change any rule of the Senate at any time.
Currently, it takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. In
January it might be filibusters on motions to proceed. Then when the
majority gets impatient on something else, it might change the rules
again.
President Obama recognized in 2005 the damage that this kind of
chipping away at minority rights would do to prospects for compromise.
If Senate Democrats succeed now, they will destroy, for temporary
political gain, any hope of achieving a truly balanced solution to the
challenges we face as a nation.
Our political system functions on majority rule but with strong
minority rights. That is true when the minority is outvoted 51 to 49 or
99 to 1. Democracy is not winner-take-all. The right to debate is not a
luxury for the majority to hand out. It is essential to our system of
government. Majorities are temporary. Being forced to listen to someone
give an opinion you disagree with can be exasperating, but as a country
it does us more good than harm.
Way, way back, John Adams wrote on the need for minorities to have
the ability to stop the majority in the legislature. He said:

Every Member must possess it, or he can never be secure
that himself and his constituents shall not be sacrificed by
all the rest.

That was centuries ago. Sixteen years ago, Senator Robert Byrd spoke
to the newly elected Members of the Senate about the history of this
body. He said:

As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the
power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will
be secure.

Through his excessive use of filling the tree, the current majority
leader has gone a long way toward gutting the power to amend. The
proposals he has now made to do away with the power of unlimited debate
would do even greater harm to the liberties of the people. Many
Senators here today were not around 16 years ago to hear that speech by
Senator Byrd, but I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle take his
warning to heart.
If Members on the other side of the aisle are frustrated with how the
Senate is being run, look at how the majority leader has set the
calendar and cut off amendments. Don't take this terrible and
irresponsible step. We are not only arguing about the rights of the
Senators to speak, we are not just talking about maintaining rules for
their own sake, or even the terrible precedent that would be set under
the proposal of the majority leader. We are talking about the rights of
the people we represent, the right to be heard in the Senate.
The Senators who are so eager to change our rules by breaking the
rules should not be so eager to take away the rights of the American
people whom those rules were designed to protect. The cost is simply
too high. We have too much important work to do in the Senate. We
should be focused on doing all we can to avoid the fiscal cliff, to
grow our economy, and to create the jobs the American people need and
deserve.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I want to echo the words of my colleague from Wyoming with
regard to the whole issue of the Senate rules. I come from the House of
Representatives. I came to the Senate having first served in the House
of Representatives, three terms there. The House of Representatives, of
course, is very structured. There is a Rules Committee. If someone
wants to get an amendment considered, debated, voted on in the House of
Representatives, there is a process. They have to go plead their case
to the Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee can decide, no, we are not going to allow that
amendment to be considered; we are not going to allow that amendment to
be debated. They can decide which amendments are offered in what order
and how much time is allowed on each amendment. It is a very structured
process in the House of Representatives, but it makes it very difficult
for an individual Member to be able to have their voice heard in the
House of Representatives.
That is the way it works. I had the luxury, I guess, while I was
serving there of being in the majority. But even in the majority a lot
of times I could take what I thought was a very worthwhile amendment,
reflective of the views of the people who sent me there to represent
them, and they could shoot it down. I never got a chance to have that
amendment debated or voted on.

[[Page S6993]]

That is what is distinctive about the Senate. That is what the
Founders intended with the Senate--to allow for open debate, to allow
individual Members to come down to represent their constituencies and
to debate the big issues of the day in a way that is different and
distinct from the House of Representatives.
I think what many of my colleagues who are proposing this rules
change want to see happen is they want to see the Senate function more
like the House. It was not designed to. This is a very different place.
It was designed to be a very different place where we have debate,
where we have votes on amendments, where individual Members have an
opportunity--particularly members of the minority in the Senate--have
an opportunity to have their voices heard and the voices of their
constituents heard.
So this is an unprecedented power grab by the majority. What the
majority leader is proposing is essentially to break the rules to
change the rules. That will be a legacy, if he is successful, that he
will have to live with because he will change the way that this
institution has functioned for so long. If we think about how this
ought to be done, there is a process by which rules changes can be
considered in the Senate, and it starts with the leaders consulting and
talking about whether some of those changes ought to be put in place,
whether those are appropriate, and then getting the necessary two-
thirds vote that is required under the rules of the Senate to change
the rules.

The Senate is a very different place from the House of
Representatives. What we do ought to reflect that. We should not have
these power grabs and attempts to violate the rules of the Senate in
order to change the rules in a way that is completely inconsistent with
the history and the tradition in the Senate. What the Founders intended
when they created the Senate, distinct and separate from the House of
Representatives, was to allow for debate and votes on amendments.
I hope the majority leader and members of his party will see clearly
to do the right thing and to go about this in the right way; that is,
for the leaders to consult, and if there is a need for changes in the
rules or modifications, let's do it in the way it has always been done,
not by breaking the rules or changing the rules.

Fiscal Cliff

Madam President, I wish to speak as well to the issue that was raised
by my colleague from Wyoming; that is, the fiscal cliff. We are on the
threshold of something that could be very harmful to the economy of
this country, very harmful to jobs. If we go over the fiscal cliff, the
experts are telling us--and by the experts I mean not only private
economists but the CBO and others in Washington, DC, who analyze and
study such things--that we could plunge the country into another
recession, we could see unemployment go above 9 percent if tax rates go
up and a sequester is triggered a little more than 1 month from now.
Longer term, we place unsustainable fiscal imbalances largely because
of entitlement programs that have not been reformed in a way that
aligns our current demographics with the needs of these programs.
Entitlement spending is the largest driver of our national debt over
the long term. Those who argue that we can dig our way out of more than
$16 trillion in debt simply by raising taxes are ignoring reality. We
have to do something to address what is our real problem in Washington,
DC; that is, the spending problem, not the revenue problem. While it is
true Federal revenue has declined over the past few years, it is due to
the great recession, not because tax rates are too low. The average
ratio of Federal revenue to GDP over the past 40 years has been about
18 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office most recent
forecast, under the current tax rates--the tax rates in place today--
revenues from 2013 to 2022, the next decade, would average roughly 18
percent of GDP.
So let's be clear about exactly what the CBO is saying. The CBO is
telling us Federal revenues will return to the historical average over
the next 10 years without raising taxes on anyone. We are going to get
back to the historical average. In fact, according to the CBO, under
the current tax rates, revenues as a percentage of GDP will reach 18.6
percent by 2022, and that is more than one-half of a percent higher
than the historical average.
Clearly, any deal to address our fiscal situation should be first and
foremost about spending, not taxes. Our spending problem is exemplified
by the past few years in particular. If we go back to the fiscal year
2007, before the recession, total Federal revenue was roughly $2.5
trillion and total Federal spending was approximately $2.7 trillion. So
$2.5 trillion in revenue and $2.7 trillion in spending, so we were
still running a deficit of about $200 billion a year. For fiscal year
2012, which recently ended, total Federal revenue was $2.45 trillion,
basically back to the prerecession levels, but total Federal spending
was above $3.5 trillion. So what happened. Tax revenue is back to where
it was before the recession, but Federal spending is now $800 billion--
almost $1 trillion--higher than it was just 5 years ago in fiscal year
2007. It is no wonder that Federal spending and our national debt will
continue to grow for the foreseeable future.
According to the CBO, mandatory spending, which comprised about 60
percent of total Federal spending in fiscal year 2012, is going to
continue to grow, and if we look at what is driving that, it is
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those programs alone represent
over 40 percent of Federal spending currently. Spending on these
programs is projected to grow at an unsustainable rate and we cannot
simply raise taxes to pay for all this new spending. That is the
problem. We have a spending problem in Washington, DC, and not a taxing
problem.
We have to make significant changes in these programs to make our
Federal entitlements sustainable and in line with today's demographics,
and we need Democrats to join us in that effort.
To put a fine point on all that, I wish to mention what the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report, which was issued on
November 12 of this year--just a couple weeks ago--said: ``With the
population aging and health care costs per person likely to keep
growing faster than the economy, the United States cannot sustain the
Federal spending programs that are now in place. . . .''
That is from the Congressional Budget Office.
The President's own fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission,
noted in its official report: ``Federal health care spending represents
our single largest fiscal challenge over the long run.''
Earlier this month, the Washington Post editorial board said,
``Entitlement reform must be on the table.''
Of the debt reduction plan, the Post editorial board went on to say,
``No serious plan can exclude entitlements.''
So we have experts inside and outside the government, we have the
editorial boards of newspapers around this country, all recognizing
what the real issue is; that is, the fact that Washington spends too
much and it spends too much on programs that are unsustainable for our
future.
What we have to be able to do is to come up with ways in which we can
reform these programs to make them more sustainable. Of course, if we
look at Medicare spending alone, in 1967, it was proposed that by 1990
Medicare would spend about $12 billion. That is what the Congress
projected when they created that program in 1967. That calculation, by
the way, included inflation. If we look at actual Medicare spending in
1990, it was $110 billion--almost 10 times the amount that was
estimated in 1967. This year, we will spend $550 billion on Medicare.
Ten years from now, the Congressional Budget Office projects we will
spend $1.1 trillion on Medicare.

With regard to Social Security, for the past 2 years, this program
has been operating at a cash deficit. If we look at the next 75 years,
benefits promised to current and future beneficiaries exceed payroll
tax revenue and trust fund redemptions by $8.6 trillion. The present
course of Social Security is unsustainable, and the trustees report
projects that the trust fund is going to be exhausted by the year 2033.
In order to protect Social Security for future generations, it, too,
must be reformed. We have to take on what is driving Federal spending
and that is

[[Page S6994]]

entitlement programs. We have to reform them. Raising taxes is not the
solution.
The President's only proposal so far is to raise taxes on small
businesses to generate this next year what would be $68 billion in
revenue which, by raising the two top tax rates in the process, would
hit nearly 1 million small businesses. What is ironic about that is
raising taxes on the small businesses that create jobs in this country
and that grow our economy--actually raising taxes on them to generate
$68 billion would fund the government a little under 1 week. That is
what we are talking about. The dimensions of this problem are so vast
we cannot solve them simply by raising taxes and particularly raising
taxes on the very people we are looking to--small businesses. Raising
taxes on small businesses would do harm to the economy. We would give
back everything we get in the form of higher tax revenue by reduced
economic growth. We have to deal with the fundamental problem we have;
that is, entitlements.
I hope my colleagues on the other side will work with us. I hope the
President will work with us. The President knows what the problems are,
but he has folks all across the country who are putting pressure on him
to not deal with the issue of entitlement reform. But I hope he will
come to the table and address this issue. We have a spending problem
and we have a growth problem. If we can address the spending problem,
get entitlement program reform on a sustainable path. If we can get
progrowth tax reform put in place to grow the economy and expand the
economy, we can solve these problems. People across this country expect
us to. The world expects us to. The financial markets expect us to. It
can't be done simply by raising taxes on small businesses which so far
is all we have gotten from the administration and from many of the
Democrats in Congress.
We have to fix the spending problem and the growth problem. We have a
solution to do that. We hope our colleagues will work with us to do
that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

Working Together

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, one of the most visible expressions of
the strength and resilience of our democracy is the moment when the
incoming President stands on the steps of the Capitol, lays his hand on
the Bible, and takes the oath of office. In that moment, America
undergoes a peaceful transition of power that so many countries can
only hope for or, as in this year, the President will smoothly resume
his duty for another 4 years.
As we anticipate this remarkable moment in just a few short weeks, we
are reminded of the ability of the American people to come together,
even after long and challenging campaigns. I will watch the
inauguration and remember my own difficult campaign. As we reflect on
this past year, we are all reminded that this President, the House, and
the Senate have not been given any mandate by the American people. For
proof, look no further than the close margin of victories and the wide
disparity in the ideology between the two parties. The only mandate is
for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
What we saw during this election was an American electorate
frustrated by gridlock in Washington and a Congress that does not get
enough done for the American people. Our Nation has endured a brutal
campaign season of attack ads and partisan sniping. The ads are now off
the air, the campaign offices are cleaned out, and now we face some
very difficult decisions. Right now, Congress must find a way to steer
our Nation away from this fiscal cliff. We must move forward knowing
that the only way to build a better, stronger nation is by working
together and finding solutions on which both Republicans and Democrats
can agree. Any solution to the impending fiscal cliff must be a
bipartisan effort that fairly weighs the concerns of both parties. We
must find a way to come together right now. The severe spending cuts
and looming tax increases require it.
Nevada is already struggling to overcome the highest rates of
unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies in the Nation. The threat
of this fiscal cliff and any failure to find a solution would have a
real and negative impact on the recovery of my State. In the days
following the election, I received phone calls from job creators in
Nevada concerned about this fiscal cliff. These business owners told me
this fiscal cliff would be too much for Nevada. Their employees are
already bearing the brunt of Congress's inaction. Find a solution, they
told me, and cut a deal. The devastating effect this fiscal cliff would
have on Nevada's small businesses would simply be too much for their
businesses and the small business sector in Nevada to handle.
There are a number of issues Republicans and Democrats can work
together on to address immediately. First, we must stop living by a
temporary Tax Code. Right now, there is no certainty for a small
businessman or woman to grow or start a new endeavor. These men and
women need to know how to plan for the future so they can invest in new
equipment, new buildings, and more employees.
Second, we need fundamental tax reform. As with many small businesses
across this country, businesses want nothing more than to grow, hire
more people, and pass on a legacy to their children and grandchildren
that shows with hard work and dedication, anything is possible in
America. As I have often said, our current Tax Code is too costly, too
complex, and too burdensome. There is no question the Tax Code is
unfair and needs an overhaul. Our Nation is long past due for an honest
discussion about how to transform our Tax Code into one that encourages
job growth and one that doesn't hinder it.
Third, we need to put a stop to the ever-increasing number of
regulations. Instead of encouraging businesses to develop and grow,
Washington has increased their burden with miles and miles of
regulatory redtape, passed a health care law that is costing jobs, and
continues with a top-down, Washington-knows-best mentality that has led
to an anemic economy.
While I do not believe sequestration is the answer, Congress must
engage in honest debate on spending reform to right our Nation's fiscal
situation. Nevadans and all Americans deserve a federal government that
is more efficient and more effective. Washington cannot continue to
spend money we don't have and place our Nation in deeper debt and
threatening future opportunity for our children and grandchildren.
Divisive partisan politics does a great disservice to every American.
Far too many Nevadans are forced to stay up late at night wondering how
they are going to make their mortgage payment, send their children to
college or feed their family. While people across our country are
struggling to get by, Congress has a responsibility to prioritize the
people over the party and find a way to avoid this looming crisis and
get our economy back on track.
These next few weeks are absolutely critical for the health of our
country. Similar to that moment when the President takes office, how we
work together to reach across the aisle and find bipartisan solutions
is a testament that our democracy--the greatest democracy in the
world--is alive and well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for an additional 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HELLER. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
As I was mentioning, like that moment when the President takes
office, how we work together to reach across the aisle and find
bipartisan solutions is a testament that our democracy--the greatest
democracy in the world--is alive and well. Let's not squander this
opportunity to place our Nation on a path to greater economic
prosperity.
The American people have children to raise, mortgages to pay,
businesses to grow, and new discoveries to make. It is time for
Congress to come together to make the tough decisions necessary so that
Americans can get back to work and create a brighter future for
generations to come.
Madam President, thank you very much. I yield back the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

[[Page S6995]]

Mr. REID. Madam President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to proceed to S. 3254.
Mr. REID. Is there further debate on this matter?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the
motion to proceed?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

____________________