[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7406-S7411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FISCAL CLIFF

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to once again speak about 
the fact that in July, July 25 of this year, the Senate passed a 
middle-class tax cut bill guaranteeing that the first $250,000 dollars 
of income any American has would be exempted from any tax increase. We 
all know that the vast majority--in fact 98 percent--of Americans, 
makes less than that amount of money. We are talking about 98 percent 
of Americans receiving tax cuts under that proposal.
  Back in July we passed this proposal, and it is now still waiting in 
the House of Representatives. So far the House leadership has refused 
to even let the bill come up for a vote, even though we all know that 
there is a majority of Members in the House who would vote for this and 
guarantee that as we go into Christmas, middle-class families across 
America would know they would have $2,200 in their pockets, more in 
their pocket right now, next year, than they will have if their tax 
cuts expire. We have passed this bill, and we are urging the House of 
Representatives to do the right thing and to pass this bill.
  Even Republicans in the House say they support this effort. We all 
know that Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma said last week, ``I 
think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.'' It is a pretty 
good deal.
  Let us start. We know we have a large deficit reduction effort that 
needs to take place. There is a lot of give and take that needs to take 
place. We know what the elements are. But let us do step one, which is 
something overwhelmingly we agree with. The Senate has passed it on a 
bipartisan basis. There are enough votes in the House of 
Representatives. Let us get that piece done and not hold middle-class 
families hostage to the idea that the wealthiest among us should get 
additional tax cuts. Let us agree that 98 percent of families in 
America should be secure in knowing they are not going to have $2,200 
more taken out of their pockets next year.
  Now, we have just a few days to get this done. In fact, right now we 
have 27 days until middle-class taxes go up. In 27 days, we will see 
taxes go up for middle-class families. So this needs to get done now.
  There are numerous House Members now agreeing with us--Republican 
House Members--and I commend them. In addition to Representative Cole, 
Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina said yesterday that he 
would vote for the Senate's middle-class tax cut bill. Representative 
Steve LaTourette, Representative Charles Bass, Representative Mary Bono 
Mack, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Robert Dold have 
all said the Senate plan is a responsible approach that protects 
middle-class families from a massive tax hike.
  We now have a situation where the Democratic leader in the House is 
putting forward what is called a discharge petition. As our 
distinguished Presiding Officer knows and as I know, having been House 
Members, if a majority of the House signs a petition, that can 
essentially force a vote even if the Speaker and the Republican 
leadership don't want to bring it up.
  I am hopeful that 218 Members on both sides of the aisle will sign 
this petition and that we will be able to guarantee before Christmas 
that middle-class families across this country are not going to have to 
worry about spending $2,200 more on taxes next year. We need to get 
this done, and I am hopeful that the House Members will sign that 
discharge petition if the Speaker does not take this up.
  What does this $2,200 mean? It is the difference between paying the 
bills or not. It is the difference between getting ready for 
Christmas--buying the tree and the decorations and the presents. So 
many families these days are back doing layaway, which, for me, when my 
kids were little and we were trying to budget and figure out how to do 
things, meant picking out something back in September or in the summer 
and putting it on layaway and hoping to pay for it so the kids would 
have the Christmas I wanted for them. Families are doing that today, 
budgeting every single dollar to make sure they can provide the 
Christmas they want for their children. As they are budgeting all that, 
they need to know

[[Page S7407]]

they do not have to budget a tax increase starting in January, which is 
what will happen if the House doesn't act within the next 27 days.
  One constituent of mine indicated to me that $2,200 was 4 months of 
her grocery bill. That is a lot of money. We are talking about 4 months 
of her family eating. We have also figured out that $2,200 would buy 
650 gallons of gas. For the average commuter, that is enough gas to get 
back and forth to work every day for 3 years. That is a lot of money--
$2,200, 650 gallons of gas. And $2,200 will buy families in Michigan 
550 gallons of milk for their families. So we are talking about a 
significant amount of money for the average middle-class family, those 
aspiring to get into the middle class, and those struggling across the 
country. This is a lot of money for the families we are talking about.
  The Republicans in the House can stop this tax increase if they want 
to. They have 27 days to do it, 27 days to stop a tax increase on 
middle-class families, 27 days to stop an increase and make sure $2,200 
more is not taken out of the pockets of families next year.
  Let me stress again as well that we are talking about middle-class 
tax cuts that would allow every American to get a tax cut on their 
first $250,000 of income. For the majority of people--98 percent of 
Americans--that is their income, or less. They do not make more than 
$250,000 a year. But for everybody who does, it would continue to make 
sure their taxes don't go up.
  For those above that, we would say: You know, for the last decade you 
have had extra tax cuts, and we are going to ask you now, in the face 
of the largest deficits our country has ever seen, to do your part, to 
share in solving the problem.
  I know an awful lot of people who are ready to say: Absolutely. I 
want to do my part.
  That is what we are talking about--those wealthiest few being at the 
table to do their part so we can solve the biggest deficit crisis we 
have had as a country.
  So we are talking about every American earning $250,000 or less or 
earning an income of $250,000 or less being exempt from tax increases, 
and that covers, as I said, 98 percent of Americans.
  There is agreement on both sides of the aisle. I congratulate and 
appreciate very much Senator Snowe's comments in which she indicated we 
should just get this done. She said Americans should not even be 
questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-
income people. We should take it off the table while grappling with tax 
cuts for the wealthy.
  I couldn't agree more. We are going to miss Senator Snowe in the 
Senate. She, as usual, is right on the money in terms of the common 
sense of this situation.
  In July the Senate passed a middle-class tax cut. I believe we now 
have a majority in the House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, 
believes middle-class taxpayers should get tax cuts next year. The 
House needs to bring it up and vote on it now so we get that off the 
table. That is step one.
  Then, of course, we have larger issues on which we have to agree. We 
have to sit down and come together on those issues. Last year we agreed 
on $1 trillion in spending reductions. This step gets middle-class 
taxpayers off the hook, being held as pawns, held hostage to whether 
the wealthiest among us will get additional tax cuts next year. Let's 
just say middle-class families get $2,200 next year, they get to 
continue their tax cuts, and then we will go on to the next step.
  It seems to me--and we certainly saw this as we were doing the farm 
bill--you don't have to agree on everything to do something. You start 
with what you agree on. Everybody says they agree middle-class families 
in this country should get tax cuts next year and beyond. Then let's 
just do it. What are we waiting for? Let's do that, and then we will 
look for the next set of issues we can agree on to solve the large 
problems we have in terms of our fiscal situation and economic growth, 
by the way, because we will never get out of debt with 12 million 
people out of work. So we better continue to be focused on jobs, which 
I know is a huge focus for our caucus--making sure people can lift 
themselves out of poverty into the middle class and have the 
opportunity for good-paying jobs for themselves and their families.
  So we have a lot of issues to talk about, but since everybody says 
they agree middle-class taxpayers should not get a $2,200 tax increase 
next year, why don't we just do that? We shouldn't have to run the 
clock out and get closer and closer to the holidays, closer and closer 
to Christmas, with families not knowing what they are going to have to 
budget for next year. Let's just do it and let families know we can 
actually work together and get things done because that is really what 
people are asking us to do.

  I believe that is the message of this past election, that people want 
us to sit down and be reasonable and work together. They also sent a 
message through the reelection of our President, who campaigned saying 
the wealthiest among us should be part of solving the problem and can 
afford to pay a little more to make sure we are not asking middle-class 
families to bear the entire burden of resolving the deficit in our 
country. The President won. The public said: Yes, that makes common 
sense. Everybody ought to be participating, not just middle-class 
families or senior citizens, who have been hit the hardest in the 
recession. With everything that has happened in the last decade, they 
have been hit the hardest or carried the brunt of it.
  We are simply saying: You know what. Everybody ought to be in this. 
As Americans, we all benefit from this great country, the blessings of 
this country, and everybody ought to be part of the solution.
  So I believe that was a very strong message. I believe it was a very 
strong message to say people want us to work together.
  I also know, in looking at the proposal the Speaker has given, it is 
a nonstarter, saying we are taking off the table any effort that would 
stop more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and instead what we 
want to focus on is closing loopholes and deductions, because that 
falls right back to the middle class again--home mortgage deduction, 
college deduction, the mortgage tax relief bill I have which makes sure 
that in a short sale or another situation where a family is coming to 
some agreement with the bank on loan forgiveness, they do not pay taxes 
on that as income. So we have a whole range of what they call tax 
deductions they can close that fall smack-dab on the middle class, and 
that is a nonstarter.
  In conclusion, let me say once again that we have 27 days to stop a 
tax hike on middle-class families across America--$2,200 that will hit 
people next year. It makes no sense. If they pass the Senate bill, they 
will be guaranteeing that 98 percent of American people don't have a 
tax hike. We need to get it done, and I would urge in the strongest 
possible way that the Speaker bring this up right away and pass it.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Michigan for her leadership on this issue--21 days until Christmas, 27 
days until ``cliffmas.'' That is the fiscal cliff--December 31--and 
people are counting down. Two-thirds of Americans are watching this 
debate on Capitol Hill because it affects every single family, every 
individual. One has to think, could Congress possibly step back and let 
taxes go up on working families? What are they thinking?
  We know what working families are dealing with. Many working families 
across America struggle paycheck to paycheck. The Pugh Institute did a 
study last year and asked working families how many could come up with 
$2,000 in 30 days for an emergency expenditure. It is easy to imagine 
one--a car repair, a quick trip to the hospital emergency room costing 
$2,000. Only half of working families could come up with $2,000 in 30 
days. That shows how close to the edge many people live. And now we 
have before us the possibility that these very same families struggling 
with these issues are in fact going to see their taxes go up on 
December 31.
  There is one person who will decide that: Speaker John Boehner, the 
Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now, why am I 
putting all this on poor John Boehner, a Congressman from Ohio, from a 
working

[[Page S7408]]

family himself? Well, because it is within his power to call before the 
House of Representatives a measure that passed the Senate last July. We 
passed on a bipartisan vote a measure to protect all families making 
less than $250,000 a year from any income tax increase on December 31. 
We sent it over to the House of Representatives in July. Speaker 
Boehner has refused to call up this measure that would protect working 
families. As a result, if he does nothing, their tax bill will go up 
$2,200 next year. How do you explain that? It is not only unfair to 
those families who are working and struggling, it is really not good 
for this country. All of us know the issue of income inequality. How 
many working families are falling further and further behind every 
single year despite their best efforts, despite their hard work? We 
also know that many families are looking ahead and wondering how in the 
world they are going to pay for a college education for their kids or 
maybe even stay in their homes.
  Those are life-and-death, day-to-day, paycheck-to-paycheck decisions 
families face. And let me be even more specific. The failure of Speaker 
John Boehner to call this bill for a vote in the House of 
Representatives before December 31 endangers our economy. That is 
right. The failure to pass this bill in the House of Representatives 
before December 31 will endanger our economy. Why? Because we are in 
the midst of recovery from a recession. People are getting their jobs 
back. Businesses are getting a little stronger. But if Speaker Boehner 
refuses to call this bipartisan measure that passed the Senate and we 
see a downturn in consumer confidence because people think their taxes 
are going up, if we see a downturn in consumer purchasing because 
people aren't sure about that next paycheck, then we are going to see a 
stall in this economy. It will be Speaker Boehner's stall, and it is 
not something he should take lightly.
  This is a delicate recovery moving in the right direction, but if it 
is going to gain strength there has to be some certainty, and it should 
start with the passage of this measure.
  The House Republican leadership is bargaining with the President now. 
The President said the wealthiest among us who have realized the 
American dream should be willing to pay a little bit more so others get 
a chance at the American dream. That is not unfair. I think many of us 
who came from working families and have done well with our lives 
believe, yes; we owe it to our kids and we owe it to the next 
generation to give them a fighting chance. If that is going to happen, 
then Speaker Boehner and the House Republican leadership have to take 
this very seriously very quickly.
  I understand the pressure the Speaker is under, and I guess my 
colleague, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, said it very concisely and 
effectively last Sunday on one of the talk shows. She said it is a hard 
political choice for John Boehner. He has to decide what is more 
important, the survival of his speakership or the survival of this 
Nation. That is a pretty stark choice but not a hard choice for a real 
leader.
  I will say this to Speaker Boehner: If you step up and do the right 
thing for the working families across America, if you step up and do 
the right thing for this country, Democrats will stand with you on a 
bipartisan basis to make it happen. That is the only way we are ever 
going to achieve the right result in this debate over the fiscal cliff.
  So we call on Speaker Boehner: Before you go home to relax in Ohio 
for Christmas, let families across America relax knowing that they are 
not going to see their income tax rates go up on January 1. This is 
worth $2,200 to the average family in my home State of Illinois. And I 
say to the Speaker, it is worth that to families across the United 
States. For the good of this Nation, for the good of the economy, for 
the good of these working families, for goodness' sake, pass this 
measure, this bipartisan measure that passed the Senate last July. Get 
this part done. We can debate the rest, but give peace of mind to these 
working families and middle-income families so that tomorrow they are 
not going to see their income taxes go up.


                        Disabilities Convention

  Madam President, it was a disappointing day yesterday when the Senate 
failed by five votes to pass the convention on disabilities. It is a 
measure I worked on with former California Congressman Tony Coelho, who 
has been an outstanding advocate for the disabled in America throughout 
his career in the Congress and Senate. But it was also an effort for 
one particular friend in Illinois, Marca Bristo.
  Marca is an exceptional person, confined to a wheelchair, but one 
would never know it. This woman is everywhere, all the time, working 
night and day to help the disabled in my State and around the Nation. 
She came to me as well and said: Can you help pass this convention on 
disabilities?
  I said: It is going to be hard because a lot of Members just don't 
want to take up a measure and consider something like this.
  She said: We will put together a strong group supporting it.
  When it was all over, virtually every veterans organization in 
America supported this convention on disabilities. In addition, every 
disabilities group also endorsed it--the chamber of commerce and so 
many others--because 125 nations have already ratified this convention 
on disabilities.
  What is it? It is a treaty that was drawn up by President George 
Herbert Walker Bush and signed by him but needs to be ratified by the 
Senate, and we failed to do it. Years and years have passed since 
President Bush, and we haven't taken it up. One hundred twenty-five 
nations took it up and passed it but not the United States.
  There was one real champion for this, and he came to the Senate floor 
yesterday. It was good to see him again--what an outstanding man and 
individual--Senator Robert Dole. We have had our differences 
politically, but I am an admirer of Robert Dole and what he has given 
to America.
  A disabled veteran from World War II, he came back having been 
shattered by that war and built a life of public service that he gave 
to the people of Kansas and here in the Senate Chamber. He and his 
wife, former Senator Liddy Dole, came to the floor of the Senate before 
the vote. They were just over here in the well. I looked at him and I 
thought: We have to do this for Bob Dole. This man speaks for disabled 
veterans and the disabled community. He was with Senator Tom Harkin, 
one of the lead persons when it came to passing the Americans with 
Disabilities Act 22 years ago.
  It was a solemn moment in the Senate, with Senator Dole sitting right 
there in the well begging his colleagues to pass this disabilities 
convention, maybe his last lobbying effort that he would undertake. It 
meant so much to the Dole family and to Robert Dole, and he came to the 
floor and we called the measure. Those who witnessed it will remember 
that most Members came and sat in their chairs to cast a vote, which is 
rare here, and it tells the story that this was more than just an 
ordinary routine vote.
  We listened as the rollcall was made, and we watched the Senators 
stand and vote. Then toward the end, I turned to Tom Harkin sitting 
over here and said: We don't have it. We missed it.
  We did. We failed to ratify this by five votes. We had 61 votes, and 
we needed 66, because Senator Kirk is absent because of illness. Sixty-
six votes were needed to pass this.
  There were only eight Republicans who would stand with all of the 
Democrats to pass this convention on disabilities. Senator John McCain 
led that effort--John McCain, a person who knows the cost of war and 
the price that is paid and who showed extraordinary political courage. 
Senator John Kerry also joined him, another Vietnam war veteran who 
stood up for these disabled veterans, for their conflict and World War 
II and Korea and so many others.
  What a disappointment. What a disappointment that the Senate, which 
on a bipartisan basis passed the Americans with Disabilities Act with 
more than 90 votes 22 years ago, couldn't even ratify this treaty which 
would not change a single law in America, which would not infringe on 
our freedoms in any way--that we couldn't pass that on the Senate 
floor. What a sad testament to what has happened to the Senate in the 
last two decades that a man like Bob Dole would witness this. I am sure 
it broke his heart. It broke mine too.
  I went out afterwards and saw the disabled gathered in the lobby out 
here. Many of them were crying. They

[[Page S7409]]

couldn't believe it. At a time in America when we are giving the 
disabled chances they have never had, opportunities they have deserved 
for decades and generations, that we would turn down this convention on 
disabilities here--it was a sad moment in the history of the Senate 
that only eight Republicans would join every Democratic Senator in 
voting for the ratification of this treaty on disabilities.
  Some of these colleagues may have another chance. Maybe next year we 
will have another go at it. I certainly hope Senator Dole will be here 
to join us and see that happy day. But yesterday was a sad day for the 
Senate and a sad day for our Nation.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to the disabled who work so hard, to the 
disabled veterans who testified and worked so hard for the passage of 
this treaty, and we owe it to them and the disabled around the world to 
give them a chance--a chance for an opportunity which has become the 
law in America and needs to be the law across this Nation. Whatever the 
petty political squabbles were that led to this vote yesterday, we need 
to put them behind us. It is important for us in the 21st century to 
speak as one on a bipartisan basis for the disabled.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in less than 1 month American taxpayers 
face the greatest tax increase in our Nation's history.
  Two years ago the President and the Senate Democrats opted to 
postpone these tax increases for 2 years. They did so knowing that 
raising taxes in a weak economy is an unnecessary and counterproductive 
jolt to the system. Forty Democrats supported doing that.
  Since then, however, the President has been single-minded in arguing 
for tax increases on certain wealthy taxpayers. He and his Democratic 
friends promoted these tax hikes in the name of a so-called balanced 
approach to deficit reduction. Now, with the country fast approaching 
the fiscal cliff, it is time to pay the piper. But as the President 
issues ultimatums about what kind of tax increases are necessary to 
avert the fiscal cliff, it is worth noting that he has abandoned any 
pretense of seeking a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
  Last week's proposal from the White House amounts to little more than 
a massive set of tax increases--by the way, far in excess of the tax 
hikes he ran on or anything that Senate Democrats would support, 
coupled with new spending. Even Democrats don't support what he called 
for. And his response to Speaker Boehner's balanced plan is raise taxes 
today, and next year we will come back and discuss raising taxes again.
  The President's commitment to a balanced approach to new tax revenue 
and spending reforms has morphed postelection into new tax revenue and 
increased spending. To cap it off, they have thrown in a fresh demand 
that would eliminate any limit on the Federal debt.
  The proposal outlined by Treasury Secretary Geithner last week shows 
that, if given a chance, Democrats will never use new taxes to reduce 
the deficit. They will instead use it to pay for larger government, 
more public workers, and more government waste.
  We need to have a serious conversation about our Federal debt, which 
is now over $16.3 trillion and going up every day. How do we get that 
number under control? The President and his Democratic friends have 
suggested for years that they can do it on the revenue side 
specifically by taxing the wealthy. Yet the new taxes on the rich 
promised by the President during the campaign would reduce the next 10 
years' of deficits by only 8 percent, assuming they didn't do any more 
spending.
  So where is the rest of the money going to come from? We need to have 
a serious conversation about spending, but so far the President, 
congressional Democrats, and the liberal interest groups who support 
them have refused to engage.
  All I can say is that Republicans are here, and we are ready to talk. 
We are ready to reach a balanced resolution that would spare the 
American people from the consequences of going over the fiscal cliff.
  I have only been here 36 years, but I have seen every President 
willing to meet on a regular basis at budget crunch time with people on 
both sides of the table over and over and over until they gradually 
whittle it down to where they can agree. I haven't seen that with 
President Obama. I have even heard Democrats complain that he never 
talks to them.
  We cannot do this kind of work without very strong Presidential 
effort. That is what Presidents are for. And it can't just be laying 
down a gauntlet or saying: You can't cross over that, drawing a line in 
the sand. You have two programs now, and those two sides need to get 
together. That includes the President and whatever Democrats he cares 
to put in the equation, and also Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, and 
others.
  As we attempt to reach a meaningful resolution of this debate in the 
coming weeks, there are three guideposts that I will keep in sight.
  First is the cliff itself. Going over it would be the height of 
irresponsibility. According to the Congressional Budget Office, going 
over the cliff will reduce GDP to a negative one-half of 1 percent next 
year, throwing us back into a recession and causing unemployment to 
surge to 9.1 percent or more. But it seems increasingly clear that the 
President and Democrats in Congress are content to go over the cliff 
regardless of the outcome. I can't believe that is so, but I have heard 
them say it. They think they will have an advantage if we go over the 
cliff.
  Well, I hate to tell you, there will be no advantage to that. Leading 
Democrats have expressed on several occasions their openness toward 
going over the cliff. The question is, Why? Why would the President do 
this? Why would Democrats jeopardize the livelihoods of hundreds of 
thousands of American workers and the economic security of their 
families? Why are they putting raising tax rates on a few ahead of the 
well-being of all?
  Republicans are working to avoid this outcome. We want to avoid 
raising tax rates because we know once they are raised they will stay 
there or there will be another demand next year to raise them higher. 
We have a good argument for that. We believe it hurts the economy by 
harming incentives to work, save, and invest.
  Republicans have expressed some willingness to work with the 
President to raise revenue without raising tax rates, but the President 
refuses to budge. After all, he argued during his reelection that the 
deficit reduction math does not work otherwise.
  This leads me to my second guidepost in this debate. It is the 
President's math that does not work, and his math is off in a 
multiplicity of ways. Let's start at the beginning. Last year's deficit 
was $1.3 trillion. Next year's deficit is likely to exceed $1 trillion 
for a fifth year in a row.
  So what would the President's tax hikes proposal raise in terms of 
revenue? What would it have done to last year's $1.3 trillion deficit, 
and what would it do to reduce our debt over the long term? If all of 
the 2001 and 2003 tax relief were to expire, it would reduce the 
deficit by $426 billion over 1 year.
  To put it another way, the full extension of the current bipartisan 
tax relief would cost $426 billion over 1 year.
  Now, that is a lot of revenue. But the President and congressional 
Democrats--or at least most of them--have no desire to see all of this 
tax relief expire. In fact, their plan, should we go over the cliff, is 
to reinstate almost all of it. They say they only want to raise taxes 
on the rich.
  So how much would it cost if we extended current tax relief for 
everyone but those making over $250,000, which some have said is the 
line for being rich? Assuming the estate tax stays where it is--a fair 
assumption, given the level of support for that policy even among 
Senate Democrats--the cost of extending all of the tax relief except 
for those individuals would be $358 billion. And given that certain 
Senators from high-income blue States are uncomfortable designating 
families making $250,000 a year as rich, it has been suggested that the 
current tax relief might be extended for everyone but so-called 
millionaires. Warren Buffett has said those earning $500,000 a year or 
more, but others have said millionaires. And how much would that cost? 
The 1-year cost of that tax relief would be $383 billion.
  There are a few different ways we can look at these numbers. One way 
is to

[[Page S7410]]

compare the cost of the Democrats' tax plan with that of the 
Republicans'. The 1-year difference between the Republican proposal of 
extending all tax relief and the Democrats' proposal to raise taxes on 
the rich is, at most, $68 billion and perhaps as low as $23 billion. 
With the deficit over $1 trillion, is the President willing to send us 
over the cliff for as little as $23 billion in additional revenue? I 
cannot believe he is, but he is.
  Another way to look at the numbers is to compare the cost of the 
Democrats' actual plan with the President's stated desire to raise 
revenue by $1.6 trillion. He cannot get that from just the rich. Even 
if he took every dollar every millionaire earns this next year, he 
probably would have a little less than $900 billion. That may be high.
  I look forward to some enterprising reporter getting to the bottom of 
this one. The President says he wants to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion 
and his Treasury Secretary suggests Democrats are on board with this 
strategy. I do not believe that for 1 minute. I don't believe his 
program would pass the Senate, and I don't think many Democrats would 
vote for it. I know at least 20 who will not. Yet the revenue generated 
by the proposal supported by real live Democrats seems to raise only 
between $353 billion and $383 billion.
  Here is the question: Where is the President going to come up with 
another $1.2 trillion or so in tax increases that his fellow Democrats 
will support? We have seen three budgets the President has sent up, and 
they have not received one vote from either Republicans or Democrats--
not one. Where is the President going to come up with another $1.2 
trillion or so in tax increases and be able to get Democrats to support 
him? I do not mean supported by Democratic pundits; I mean supported by 
the 20 Democratic Senators who will be facing their constituents in 
2014. The $1.6 trillion tax increase is lifted from the President's own 
budget that has been rejected on a bipartisan vote--100 percent in both 
the House and the Senate--and that budget received no votes at all, 
Democrat or Republican, in either the House or the Senate. As I said, 
it is the President's numbers, the numbers Secretary Geithner sent here 
last week to promote that do not add up.
  The President's insistence on a $1.6 trillion tax hike that is 
neither supported by the American people nor even elected Democrats is 
not about deficit reduction. The President and congressional Democrats 
think they can bludgeon Republicans as an out-of-touch party of the 
rich because we support tax relief for everybody.
  Let me say a few words in our defense. First off, and I want to say 
this loudly and clearly: I could not care less about the financial 
well-being of the Nation's rich. Whether Warren Buffett is able to 
maintain his corporate jet is no concern of mine, although he is a 
friend. The continued ability of actors and entertainment industry 
executives to summer at Lake Como and winter at Saint Kitts is not on 
my list of priorities. In fact, I believe when we do finally engage in 
fundamental tax reform it is worth our while to look at how these 
superrich are sheltering their wealth from the full burden of income 
taxation while the middle class continues to suffer on both the income 
tax and increasingly the alternative minimum tax, which is going to hit 
about 28 million regular people who are not millionaires on January 1, 
if we go over the cliff.
  Still, I, along with most of my Republican colleagues, continue to 
promote the seamless extension of current tax policy. That is because 
of the impact of increasing marginal rates on small business owners and 
the consequent impact on job creation and economic growth. We know it 
is going to hit approximately 1 million small business owners very 
hard; most of whom put their money back into the business so they can 
grow it and hire more people.
  Republicans support low marginal rates because we know that by 
raising rates we hamper the efforts of investors, small business owners 
and, most importantly, the American workers they employ. Republicans 
are averse to rate hikes that would have a detrimental impact on 
people's livelihoods. We are averse to rate hikes that would undermine 
the prospects of fundamental tax reform that promotes fairness and 
economic growth, and we are certainly averse to a discussion about 
increased revenue in the absence of serious talk about spending 
reform--something that is not, except in minuscule ways, in the 
President's suggestions.
  We keep hearing Republicans are dug in on the issue of taxes and that 
their resistance to increased revenues has been holding back the big 
balance deal set by the President. This has to be one of the most 
misreported stories in my memory. Many Republicans have stated openness 
to increased revenues. There is a difference between revenues and tax 
rate increases that we Republicans continue to point out. But we are 
only willing to be open to increased revenues as part of a balanced 
deal and only if revenue increases are coupled with entitlement 
spending reform.
  This brings me to my third guidepost for this debate. The President 
has shown a real stubbornness toward any reform of the spending 
programs that are the main drivers of our deficit and debt. We hear 
constantly about the intransigence of Republicans with their antitax 
rate increase views. Yet we do not see the same front page stories 
documenting the over-my-dead-body resistance of Richard Trumka, the 
head of the AFL/CIO, and the head of the AARP toward entitlement 
spending reform which everybody knows we have to do if we are going to 
keep Medicare going. I don't think there is anyone in this body who 
doesn't know that within 10 years it will be broke, unless we make the 
appropriate structural reforms now.
  The President continues to call for a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction, but in practice he is offering all tax increases and no 
spending discipline. He has offered nothing meaningful on entitlement 
reform. The proposal put forward last week by Secretary Geithner was 
embarrassing.
  I happen to like Secretary Geithner. I stood up for him under some 
trying circumstances on the Finance Committee before he was approved by 
the Senate. I did it because I believe he is a hard worker. I believe 
he is an intelligent man, and I personally like him. But, my gosh, if I 
were the Treasury Secretary and the President gave me that plan to go 
and show it to the leader of the House, the Speaker of the House, I 
would have said: No, Mr. President, you can't do this. This is an 
insult. If the President said you have to do this for me, I would say I 
think it is better for me to resign at this point.
  It is embarrassing. I think Secretary Geithner knows it. If he does 
not, then he is not the man whom I have always thought he was. That 
proposal did nothing to address spending, aside from wanting to 
increase it. But that is where the Democrats are.
  I understand the Democrats' predicament. Right after the election it 
appeared the door was open. The President seemed willing to address tax 
revenue in a responsible manner, a manner respectful of the legitimate 
concerns of the House majority and the 62.6 million individuals who did 
not vote for him. But within 1 week he was read the riot act by the 
unions and the AARP, who will resist any meaningful changes to the 
retirement spending programs that are now bankrupting our country.
  Later this week I will outline a series of entitlement changes that 
could and should be supported on a bipartisan basis. The President told 
the American people he wants a balanced approach. My hope is the 
President comes forward on his own with his own details on how he would 
fix the entitlement spending programs; I mean real details on real 
proposals with real teeth, not the window dressing in the President's 
budget that even the Democrats reject and have rejected in the past.
  The President has demanded a balanced approach. It is what he 
promised the American people and it is what we Republicans are prepared 
to give him. If the President wants to avoid going over the fiscal 
cliff, he can steer us away from it. The special interests and his 
liberal base will no doubt cry foul, but they will follow him if he 
will lead, and I don't see the leadership, between you and me.
  Not to put too fine a point on it, but if we go over the cliff, it 
will be because the President wanted it to happen and he thinks he will 
get political points for doing it. With the Main

[[Page S7411]]

Street media, it is likely they will ignore the actual facts. Even 
though the President will never again run for any public office, he 
will have put cheap political points ahead of a reasonable deal he 
claims to support.

  This is deeply cynical, and the President should understand that when 
the history of this episode is written, he will be portrayed not as a 
strong leader but one who wilted in the face of our generation's 
greatest challenge, caving in to the special interests over the well-
being of the country. When he faced the choice of tough statesmanship 
or easy accolades from his house cable news network and a dead-ender 
base, he chose the latter.
  I think it is time for the President to start leading and to put away 
his campaign talking points and talk to us rather than talking from a 
toy factory and trying to make his points. He needs to put away his 
campaign talking points, and he needs to engage in finding a balanced 
solution to our debt crisis. He needs to lead the country, and he needs 
to protect American small business, their workers, and their children 
from an increasingly dim fiscal future.
  I am concerned about it. As I study it, the difference between the 
President's plan and what Senator McConnell and I have suggested, 
putting it over for 1 year and giving us 1 year to dedicate that to tax 
reform, the difference is about $23 billion. At the most, it is $68 
billion. We are going to go to the cliff, $23 billion? We would have to 
be nuts, even if our illustrious media will cover it up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.

                          ____________________