[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 156 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7664-S7672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TRANSACTION ACCOUNT GUARANTEE PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 554, 
S. 3637.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 554 
     (S. 3637), a bill to temporarily extend the transaction 
     account guarantee program, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, 387 is on its way. I have a cloture motion 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 554, S. 3637, a bill to temporarily 
     extend the transaction account guarantee program, and for 
     other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Mark Begich, Jon Tester, Max Baucus, Herb 
           Kohl, Kay R. Hagan, Barbara A. Mikulski, Tim Johnson, 
           Mary L. Landrieu, Kent Conrad, Jeanne Shaheen, Jeff 
           Merkley, Daniel K. Akaka, Mark L. Pryor.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                            The Debt Ceiling

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we saw what happened here--the minority 
leader filibustering his own bill. He should have trusted his first 
instincts. Imagine if we would have passed the minority leader's 
resolution: The markets would have been jubilant, stocks

[[Page S7665]]

would have gone up, one of the great specters hanging over our 
economy--that we would not raise the debt ceiling--would have been 
greatly mitigated in terms of damage and danger. We could move on to 
the real issues of dealing with the fiscal cliff and dealing with our 
debt situation and not have a debt ceiling hanging out there as a 
diversionary but dangerous issue.
  But for some reason--inexplicable--the minority leader, the 
Republican leader, changed his mind. Now he said on the floor, well, 
important measures deserve 60 votes. But when he brought it up earlier, 
he acted as if he was in favor of it. He was offering it. Now, of 
course, he is saying, no, he is going to object to his own resolution. 
I wish he would reconsider.
  Again, using the debt ceiling as leverage, using the debt ceiling as 
a threat, using the debt ceiling as a way to achieve a different agenda 
is dangerous. It is playing with fire. Yet, with the opportunity to 
take that off the table, reassure the markets, the minority leader 
blinked. I do not know why. It is hard to figure out the strategy that 
he is employing. But we would hope on this side of the aisle--and I 
think I speak for all of us--that he would reconsider and, perhaps, 
early next week let us vote on his own resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Facing Challenges

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, today I would like to speak on several 
important issues pending before the Senate--issues that I believe are 
related.
  I want to speak first about the recent proposal to change the rules 
of the Senate with a simple majority vote.
  Second, and related, I want to talk about the need for consensus and 
bipartisanship to address our Nation's pressing challenges; 
specifically, the fiscal cliff that we face.
  We must, and in fact we can, find consensus and agreement. We have 
done it before. We have done it in building a good solid farm bill 
which actually found $23 billion in savings toward the deficit. We did 
it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our Nation's 
infrastructure. We did it most recently this week in working through a 
large and complex Defense authorization bill that will keep our Nation 
safer and more secure in these perilous times.
  It will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building 
to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our Nation 
today. That is why I am deeply concerned about a proposal floated 
recently by some Members of the majority regarding the rules of the 
Senate. They propose to change the nearly 100-year-old Senate rule that 
requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the 
Senate.
  Our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority 
vote to make the change. That is the issue here. The issue is the 
manner in which they plan to do it. Once the precedent of changing a 
rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 Senators could 
change the rules to suit their own convenience. In other words, they 
want to break the rules in order to change the rules.
  That would be a big mistake. That would be, as the majority leader 
himself said in his own book, the death of the Senate. Votes that 
require a supermajority serve a very valuable function in the Senate. 
They encourage consensus, they encourage bipartisanship, and they make 
certain that the minority has a voice in the lawmaking of this body.
  In recent history, both Democrats and Republicans have held the 
majority. In fact, it was not that long ago that the Democrats 
themselves were adamantly opposed to changing the rules of the 
filibuster. They argued that doing so could bring an end to a century-
old tradition of bipartisan consensus building in the Senate and 
diminish the influence of minority voices. The reality is, we are now 
at a point in our history when bipartisanship and consensus is exactly 
what we need.
  Laws passed by a narrow majority will only fuel greater partisanship 
and greater divisiveness. We need both parties working together so that 
when we are done we can say, this is a plan the American people can 
agree on. That is the kind of approach we need to address the economic 
challenges that are posed by the fiscal cliff. We need bipartisanship 
and we need consensus building.
  With bipartisan consensus, I believe we can avert the fiscal cliff 
looming before us and put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path. To 
do anything less could put our Nation and our future at risk. In little 
more than a month, nearly $400 billion in tax increases will combine 
with sequestration; more than 100 billion in mandatory across-the-board 
spending cuts over 1 year, to drag our Nation over the so-called fiscal 
cliff.
  What those tax increases mean to the average American family of four 
earning $50,000 a year is over $2,000 in higher income taxes. Add to 
that expiration of the alternative minimum tax patch new taxes mandated 
by the Federal health care bill, and the reinstatement of the death 
tax, which will impact the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and 
small business owners, and Americans will see the largest tax increase 
in the history of our country.
  If all of this happens, the Congressional Budget Office predicts the 
Nation's economy will shrink next year, and the unemployment rate could 
rise again. In other words, we go back into recession. I believe we can 
avoid the fiscal cliff and address our massive deficit. But that 
requires doing three essential steps: reforming our Tax Code, reforming 
entitlement programs, and better controlling our spending. We can get 
additional revenue by reforming our Tax Code. That means closing 
loopholes and limiting deductions.
  By closing loopholes and limiting deductions, we can make the Tax 
Code simpler and fairer to stimulate growth in our economy. Markets get 
the kind of certainty they need to invest, to grow, and to hire. It is 
a growing economy, a growing economic base that creates more jobs and 
revenue, not higher taxes.
  The simple fact is we must make America a great place to do business 
again. Our progrowth strategies in my home State of North Dakota have 
broadened our economic base and raised revenue without raising taxes. 
That has resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation, 
growing personal income, and, rather than a deficit, a budget surplus.
  In addition to progrowth tax reform, we also need to start a fair and 
thoughtful process to reform entitlement programs. If we do not, they 
will not be sound and solvent for future generations. For example, 
Medicare's Hospital Service Program is in serious financial trouble. In 
a report this spring, the Medicare trustees cautioned that the trust 
fund that covers the program's hospital services will be depleted and 
consequently insolvent by 2024.
  The fact is, we can accomplish entitlement reform in a way that does 
not change programs for people at or near retirement, yet ensures that 
those promises will be there for our children and grandchildren down 
the road when they need them. Republicans and Democrats should be able 
to come together, as should older and younger Americans, because 
thoughtful entitlement reform is in everybody's interests.

  Finally, we need to control our spending. Our Federal deficit for the 
fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. Our national debt is now more than 
$16 trillion. That is unsustainable. More revenues from tax reform and 
economic growth, combined with entitlement reform and controlling 
spending, will reduce our deficit and our debt. There is no question we 
can do it. For example, we can help make a downpayment on our deficit 
reduction right now by passing the farm bill we put together in this 
Chamber.
  The farm bill version we passed with broad bipartisan support in the 
Senate would save $23 billion over 10 years. The House version, which 
has been passed out of committee and is now pending on the floor, would 
save $35 billion. Passing a good farm bill can be part of the solution 
for the fiscal cliff.

[[Page S7666]]

The reality is, solving our Nation's fiscal problems is achievable. We 
can find real budget savings in a far more thoughtful way than doing it 
through sequestration: Reforming our Tax Code, reforming entitlement 
programs, and better control of our spending will work.
  Add a measure of good-faith bipartisanship and we can get our Nation 
growing again. We can get people back to work. For the sake of our 
country, we need to do it and we need to do it now.


                       Honoring our Armed Forces

                  Sergeant First Class Darren M. Linde

                      Specialist Tyler J. Orgaard

  I rise today to honor the lives of two North Dakota soldiers who were 
killed in action on Monday, December 3, in southern Afghanistan while 
serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. SFC Darren M. Linde 
and SPC Tyler J. Orgaard were both members of the North Dakota National 
Guard assigned to the 818th Engineer Company.
  Their unit had been tasked with an important but dangerous mission. 
They were conducting a route clearance operation when their vehicle 
struck an IED on Monday, fatally injuring both men and wounding SPC Ian 
Placek, who is currently undergoing medical treatment in Germany. We 
pray for his full recovery.
  Today we honor the lives of Sergeant First Class Linde and Specialist 
Orgaard. Our thoughts and our prayers are with their families and their 
friends as well.
  Sergeant First Class Linde of Devils Lake, ND, led a distinguished 
military career since enlisting in North Dakota National Guard in 1990. 
During the course of his career, he served with the North Dakota 
National Guard as well as the United States Army and the Montana 
National Guard. He earned several recognitions for his valor, including 
the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and Army 
Good Conduct Medal. Since 2009, he worked as a full-time instructor 
with the North Dakota National Guard's 164th Regional Train Institute, 
Camp Grafton Training Center in Devils Lake.
  Sergeant First Class Linde was a devoted and selfless leader as well 
as a committed family man. He enjoyed spending time with his family and 
friends. He is survived by his wife Adrienne and four children.
  Specialist Tyler Orgaard of Bismarck, ND, joined the North Dakota 
National Guard shortly before his 2001 graduation from Bismarck Century 
High School, where he was a member of the Century Patriots wrestling 
team and began competing in the Impact Fighting Championships. He was 
passionate about training in mixed martial arts. His family and friends 
knew him to be an extremely disciplined, hard-working man who served 
his country with great pride.
  This was Specialist Orgaard's first overseas deployment. For his 
commendable service, he has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Purple 
Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.
  Specialist Orgaard is survived by many loving friends and family 
including his parents, Josephine and Jesse Orgaard. For the service and 
sacrifice of these brave men, we offer our thanks. We pledge to honor 
their lives through our commitment to supporting our troops and 
veterans and by remembering their lives of service.
  My wife Mikey and I also join our fellow North Dakotans and Americans 
in extending our deepest sympathy to the families of Sergeant First 
Class Linde and Specialist Orgaard. We recognize that these men have 
made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. We will remain 
forever grateful for their selfless service and commitment to defending 
the principles of liberty and justice that continue to guide our 
country.
  May God bless and continue to watch over their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                       Tribute to Senator DeMint

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wanted to be recognized for 10 minutes 
to talk about the decision by Senator DeMint to leave the Senate next 
year. But I wish to say to my friend from North Dakota, all of us have 
in our prayers the loss of our soldiers there and all of the soldiers 
who have been in a tough, long, hard war.
  I met with Jim DeMint this morning. To say I was stunned is an 
understatement. Jim indicated to me that he will be retiring from the 
Senate next year and taking over the presidency of the Heritage 
Foundation, one of the great conservative think tanks here in 
Washington.
  My reaction for the people of South Carolina is: You have lost a 
great, strong conservative voice, someone who has championed the 
conservative cause and represented our State with distinction, 
sincerity, and a great deal of passion. On a personal level, I have 
lost my colleague and friend. Jim and I have known each other for 
almost 20 years now. I think we have done a pretty darn good job for 
South Carolina, at times playing the good cop, the bad cop, but always 
trying to work together. What differences we have had have been 
sincere.
  That is the word I would use about Senator DeMint. He sincerely 
believes in his causes. He is a conservative voice that people in our 
party look to for leadership and guidance. What he has done over the 
last 4 to 6 years to build a conservative movement to get people 
involved in politics, such as Marco Rubio, whom Jim helped early on in 
his primary, I think is going to be a great legacy. From a State point 
of view, we have lost one of our great champions. Jim and Debbie have 
raised four wonderful children. They have great grandkids. I know Jim 
is looking forward to staying involved and pushing the conservative 
outside the body. He was an effective voice in the Senate, whether you 
agreed with Jim or not. He really did strongly and passionately 
advocate for his positions and did it very effectively.
  Jim made the Republican Party, quite frankly, look inward and do some 
self-evaluation. Conservatism is an asset, not a liability, as we try 
to govern this country in the 21st century. I look forward to staying 
in touch with Jim and to working with him at the Heritage Foundation to 
see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not 
become Greece.
  No one is more worried about this Nation's unsustainable debt 
situation than Senator DeMint. I have seen him evolve over time as 
someone who could not sit quietly anymore, who had to take up the 
cause.
  In the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices we had 
that we had lost our way in Washington. I know Jim to be a very kind, 
sincere man. He is an individual who is a joy to be around.
  But when it comes to what is going on in America, I think Jim 
understands that if we don't make some changes and make them quickly, 
we are going to lose our way of life. That is what has driven him above 
all else. He is trying to keep this country the land of the free and 
the home of the brave, where people's hard work is rewarded--not 
punished--where we have a chance to come from nowhere to be anything, 
including President of the United States. Jim is right to say our debt 
is unsustainable, that Washington does too much, and there is a better 
way.
  I will look forward to working with Jim in the private sector. From a 
personal point of view, we have had a great ride together. It has been 
fun, it has been challenging, and I think we put South Carolina on the 
map in different ways at different times. To people back in South 
Carolina, I hope if they get to see Jim anytime soon, say thank you. 
Because whether they agree with Senator DeMint, he was doing what he 
thought was best for South Carolina and the United States.
  At the end of the day, that is as good as it gets. Because if someone 
is doing what they truly believe in and not worried about being the 
most popular or people getting mad at them, then one can do a good job 
in Washington. To the people back in South Carolina, everything Jim has 
tried to do has been motivated by changing the country, making South 
Carolina the best we could be at home.
  So if you get a chance, run into Jim anytime soon or in the coming 
days, please say thank you because he did his job as he saw fit. He did 
what he thought was best, and he didn't worry about being the most 
popular or taking on people when he thought he was right.
  I can tell you this. When it comes to me, he has always been a 
friend, somebody I could count on personally. We

[[Page S7667]]

enjoyed our time together. I was stunned this morning. Jim has an 
unlimited bright future in the private sector. I will say more next 
year when his time comes to an end.
  But on behalf of all of us in South Carolina, I wish to say to Jim 
and Debbie, thank you very much for taking time away from your family, 
fighting the good fight, and pressing issues you passionately believe 
in. I wish to thank Jim and Debbie both for being my friends. You all 
both mean a great deal to me, and I am confident the best is yet to 
come for both of you.
  On behalf of the people of South Carolina, great job, well done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will associate my remarks with Senator Graham and say 
how much I have appreciated working with Jim DeMint. He is courageous, 
determined, and principled. He has a vision for America, and he has 
advocated for it every single day. He stood, sometimes alone, to 
advocate for those views. He is smart, he is intelligent, and he is 
good. It has been my pleasure to work with him and actually to support 
him.
  I have consistently felt his values and views were beneficial to 
America, and we can all disagree sometimes about how to accomplish 
them, but we can't just go along all the time. Sometimes we have to 
rock the boat, and he was willing to do that. I so much have enjoyed 
working with him.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  I wished to share a few thoughts, as ranking Member on the Budget 
Committee, concerning the proposal that the President has made through 
Secretary Geithner toward fixing the fiscal cliff that has been talked 
about so much. I just want to say, sadly, that the facts disprove what 
they have alleged their plan would do.
  We have looked at the numbers. There is no real mystery about this. 
There are gimmicks and manipulations in the way they have expressed 
what they intend to accomplish that I think are beyond the pale and the 
American people need to know it is not accurate.
  This would not be possible if we had the plan on the floor so it 
could be voted on in the light of day. But we all know what the plan 
is, the scheme is, the strategy is. It is to meet in secret and then 
plop down on the floor of the Senate, at the last hour, some sort of 
coerced agreement that all Senators--like lemmings--are supposed to 
vote for.
  We are supposed to expect that the American people will believe the 
agreement is what the President says it is, but that is not, in 
reality, what is occurring. Secretary Geithner met with Senate and 
House Members last week to present a proposal, and the President made a 
number of claims. He says the proposal Secretary Geithner made will fix 
our debt. He said his proposal will make our debt ``stable and 
sustainable.''
  Both of those claims are untrue. He also claimed his proposal 
contains $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases--not so.
  Secretary Geithner has been around a while. He knows these numbers 
aren't accurate. It is disappointing to me to see him come in with so 
much bluster. In an interview yesterday he said: We are going to go off 
the cliff unless Republicans agree to what we demand, and we can't have 
a debt ceiling anymore. To have to debate that causes controversy. We 
don't want a debt ceiling anymore. Those were basically, as I heard him 
hubristically suggest, nonnegotiable positions. The plan called for 
$1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the President asked for in the 
campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants 
$1.6 trillion in new taxes.
  So far, even with $1.6 trillion in new taxes, there is more than $1 
trillion in spending increases. Far from fixing our debt, our debt will 
grow over the next 10 years by nearly $9 trillion. That is almost $1 
trillion a year, on average. It goes up in the last number of years.
  So we remain on an unsustainable course with our debt continuing to 
surge out of control. We are projected, based on our debt now, to have 
our interest payment on the money we borrowed exceed the defense budget 
in just 7 years. These are facts.
  Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels 
agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to 
the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the 
debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling 
$2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The 
President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending 
limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase 
more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending.
  Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already 
projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even 
faster than the law currently calls for.
  I don't believe the numbers I have presented can be disputed. They 
can spend, and they can say things and mix up baselines and confuse the 
American people, but the plan he has outlined does just what I 
described. It is not much different from the budget the President 
submitted this last February. As a matter of fact, it is very similar 
to it. What did that budget do? It increased taxes by $1.8 trillion, 
and it increased spending by about $1.4 trillion.
  So this is the kind of path we are being asked to take. I don't think 
the American people would agree to that.
  There are other increases in spending other than the elimination of 
the $1.2 trillion sequester cuts that were agreed to last year. For 
instance, more than $170 billion has been in new spending, arises from 
more stimulus spending and as an unpaid for increase in Medicare 
reimbursements, the doc fix, that is going to be due and will cost $394 
billion. That is almost $400 billion that is not currently funded--and 
will have to be funded--that they have ignored, they have left it out 
of the budget, which makes it look $400 billion better than it is.
  We have to count that money. Together, that is almost $1.8 trillion 
in new spending. But the only cuts that the White House offers are $600 
billion in mandatory spending reductions, basically cutting the 
providers of Medicare, it appears to us. In other words, the doctors 
and the hospitals that already took a cut to fund ObamaCare will now be 
asked to take another $600 billion in cuts. They tell the seniors: 
Don't worry. We are not cutting your Medicare. We are just going to cut 
providers.
  But at some point, we have to understand these reductions to 
providers can damage their ability to provide care. A hospital has to 
stay open. Doctors have to make a living. A lot of them are considering 
retiring early because it is so difficult to operate under the Federal 
programs.
  The bottom line is that the proposal that is out there calls for a 
huge tax increase, $1.8 trillion they are now saying. And this money is 
being gobbled up with new spending.
  I try to be precise and operate from a known spending baseline; 
specifically, the Budget Control Act baseline we agreed to 16 months 
ago. The President's plan clearly contemplates this.
  The $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts would be eliminated. That is more 
than half the cuts we agreed to last year. They would be eliminated.
  There would be one reduction. The Medicare reimbursement cuts of $600 
billion would reduce spending. That would still mean that net spending 
has gone up $600 billion. The doc fix, as I just mentioned, is another 
$400 billion, so it adds $1 trillion. There is about $200 billion in 
stimulus spending that is over $1 trillion, and we have an $800 billion 
tax increase. If the President got that, which is what he originally 
asked for, then we would end up with more debt than if we didn't have 
the $800 billion tax increase.
  If he gets $1.6 trillion in new taxes--which will not happen, in my 
opinion--but if he were to get that, it would reduce the debt two-
thirds of that amount, plus maybe three-fourths would be used to fund 
new spending and only one-fourth to deal with our current challenges.
  I would ask the American people, when they read what Congress was 
considering--and we have heard the President advocate more taxes--did 
they not assume that money would be used to reduce the deficit we have 
so we may put our country on a sound financial path? Or did they at 
least not assume it could be used to save Social Security, which is 
already drawing money from the General Treasury, so we have

[[Page S7668]]

enough money to pay recipients? Or did they not think that maybe the 
money was going to be used to strengthen Medicare and keep that program 
on track so it will not go into bankruptcy?
  Is any of that accomplished by the President's proposal? No. He 
proposes no fix to Social Security, no fix to Medicare, and no real 
reduction in debt. In fact, if we end up with $1.6 trillion in tax 
increases over 10 years, we can expect the deficit to go up about $8.6 
trillion instead of $9 trillion. That would be the only impact on the 
debt because most of the new money would be used for new spending.

  So I am worried about this. I don't think the leader of our Nation, 
the one person elected by people all over the country, should be laying 
out a program to the American people that does not honestly deal with 
the debt threat we face, and does not honestly explain to the American 
people how we are on an unsustainable course, as every expert has said, 
and does not honestly talk with the American people about why Medicare 
is in trouble, why Social Security is in trouble, and what we need to 
do to fix them. Our President will not even talk about that, and when 
somebody talks about it in a serious way, they get attacked by the 
White House. This new budget doesn't do anything about those issues.
  So I think this is not good leadership. I know Senator McConnell and 
Speaker Boehner have pleaded with the President to talk about these 
long-term, systemic problems.
  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are 
together almost 60 percent of what we spend in this country, and they 
are growing at three times the rate of inflation. This is 
unsustainable. This is what Erskine Bowles, the man the President chose 
to head his debt commission, has warned us about. In fact, the House 
proposal indicated they would accept an $800 billion tax increase as a 
good-faith attempt to reach out to the President, based on what Mr. 
Bowles had proposed. They basically call it the Erskine Bowles plan. 
That is what he suggested, how the tax rates wouldn't go up, but the 
deductions would be eliminated. You would have a simpler, more flat tax 
system. You would bring in $800 billion more in revenue, and they would 
use this revenue to help reduce our deficit. That is the kind of plan 
that is serious. But the President has hammered the House plan. 
Secretary Geithner says it is unacceptable. But it is the Erskine 
Bowles plan. That is what it was, and it was a serious, good-faith 
attempt to reach out and deal with this crisis.
  I don't believe we need tax increases--any--but if we do, we have to 
ask ourselves, Where are we going to apply them? What are we going to 
do with them that puts the country on a sound path for the future so 
our children are not having ever larger amounts of debt accruing every 
month, every year that goes by?
  Again, if the President's plan was accepted and the $1.6 trillion in 
new taxes were imposed, which I don't believe will happen, we would 
have virtually no reduction in the total debt accruing over 10 years. 
That does not change the debt course of America. It does not deal with 
the danger that exists. The spending path we are on is in the red zone. 
The tachometer spending needle is over in the red zone.
  Mr. Bowles told us at our Budget Committee hearing 2 years ago that 
we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our country's 
history. He said we have to get off this unsustainable path. So the 
House has basically taken his suggestions and worked with them.
  I understand that earlier today there was a discussion about raising 
the debt ceiling. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to 
regulate the debt of America, and we have to pass legislation to raise 
the amount--the ceiling or the limit--on how much we can borrow. We are 
at $16 trillion-plus now, and we are about to reach the debt limit 
again early next year. The President doesn't want to have to deal with 
that again because last time we came up against the debt ceiling--
August a year ago--the President had to reduce spending. It is the only 
time we have actually done anything. We reduced spending by $2.1 
trillion out of what was projected to be $47 trillion in total 
spending.
  So August a year ago, the country was on track to spend $47 trillion 
over the next 10 years. Once the agreement was reached and $2.1 
trillion was saved, we were on a course to spend $45 trillion instead 
of $47 trillion. Now, America is not going to sink into the ocean if we 
reduce spending that much. It is still an increase--a very substantial 
increase. Debt would have accrued over the next decade. Instead of $11 
trillion, it would have been $9 trillion. So we go from $16 trillion, 
to $25 trillion, to $26 trillion in new debt to the country. That is 
all that limit did. I believed it did not go nearly far enough, and 
that was a concern of mine, but the agreement was at least a step. The 
President's plan eliminates the sequester and does not pay for it with 
cuts elsewhere. So it actually increases spending because it backs off 
the agreement we reached just last year.
  Madam President, I believe the American people have a right to be 
unhappy with us. And it absolutely is not true that if we take the 
current law baseline, the President's proposal cuts spending $2.50 for 
every $1 of tax increase. In fact, there is no spending reduction, 
really. There are only spending increases. No net reductions properly 
accounted for occur in the plan Secretary Geithner laid out, and that 
is true with the President's budget too. The budget the President 
submitted last year is very similar to this current proposal. It 
increases spending, it doesn't reduce spending.
  So we need to know that we are being asked to permanently raise tax 
rates in America and permanently use that money on new spending 
programs, leaving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense 
Department on the same dangerous course they are on today. I think we 
can do better.
  I hope the American people will look at these numbers, maybe call the 
White House, call their Members of Congress, and say: Look, if you have 
to raise taxes--and I think most Americans don't think we need to--be 
sure you use this money wisely. Don't start new programs when we are 
going broke now. Don't start new programs when we don't have money to 
fund Social Security, don't have money to fund Medicare, don't have 
money to fund Medicaid. Don't start new spending programs when we don't 
have the money to take care of the ones we have.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            The Debt Ceiling

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, before I speak on the subject matter of a 
bill I have submitted for introduction, Protecting and Preserving 
Social Security Act, I wish to comment on two issues that came up for 
debate or discussion earlier today. One was on the debt ceiling.
  It is somewhat frustrating because at one point I thought for sure we 
were going to vote on a debt ceiling issue that would bring certainty 
and some predictability to the markets and to the economy and not hold 
that issue hostage, as was done a couple of years ago by some. But some 
threatened today to hold the good faith and credit of this country 
hostage in these debates on the budget.
  The minority leader came forward and proposed an idea which seemed 
like a pretty good one to me--it obviously was a pretty good idea to 
him because he brought it forward. I have only been here 4 years, but 
from my understanding of history, when a debt ceiling issue comes 
before us as a single item, it only requires 51-plus votes. For the 
first time I can recall since I have been here and prior to that time, 
that has changed midway through. They have now said: No, we didn't 
really mean that. We don't want to really deal with the debt. We told 
you we did, but we don't, so we are going to make you have a 60-vote 
threshold.
  People back in Alaska are fed up with these kinds of games, this 
showmanship to try to one-up the other side. This debt issue was a 
chance to do something to create certainty and predictability in the 
markets for the next several months and ongoing, ensuring that the 
markets would not have to

[[Page S7669]]

worry about our credit rating, the good faith and credit of this 
country on the debts we owe, that they would be covered no matter what, 
which is a good thing. That helps us not only in our domestic markets 
but across the globe.
  What we saw was just some more shenanigans or showmanship or an 
attempt to get some good headlines. I don't think there are any good 
headlines for the minority here because it basically showed they were 
not sincere about the issue of the debt. So now we are back at it 
again, and I am a little frustrated again.
  I would request that the minority leader reconsider his position, 
that he would bring that piece of legislation forward. I am ready and I 
know many of my colleagues on this side are ready to vote for that. I 
think it would be incredible to show bipartisanship on making sure we 
have debt certainty in this country so people are not worrying about 
their government's payment on its debt.
  Again, I didn't come here to speak on that, but I felt compelled to 
because I am somewhat frustrated about it.


                             The Farm Bill

  Also, I will mention one other thing. I know Senator Hoeven--and I 
consider him a friend--is working hard on the farm bill. I support the 
farm bill. It is ready, but it is on the House side. We are patiently 
waiting for them to bring it forward. I hope they do. It has deficit 
reduction reforms, making sure real farmers are getting the benefits 
they need, the insurance they need, and ensuring that we are still 
doing incredible things with our farming communities all across the 
country, including Alaska. So I hope the House does something over 
there that will help reduce the deficit and help take care of our 
farmers.


                            Social Security

  Mr. President, today I came to the floor to discuss a subject the 
Presiding Officer cares greatly about; that is, protecting and 
preserving Social Security. I have a piece of legislation that I call 
the Protecting and Preserving Security Act, which I introduced Tuesday. 
The bill backs up our country's longstanding guarantee that Social 
Security will be there not just for today's generation but for our 
grandchildren and their grandchildren.
  The bill has two major components. One changes the way the cost-of-
living increases are calculated to make Social Security benefits more 
accurate and fair. The other component adds decades of solvency to the 
program by asking wealthier Americans to pay just a little more.
  Today's COLA--the cost-of-living adjustment--does not take into 
account the increasing and rising medical costs faced by seniors or the 
disabled. This means their Social Security checks lose value over the 
years because costs go up more quickly than the benefits. But there is 
a solution, and again I credit the Presiding Officer because he talks 
about this a great deal in caucus and here on the floor.
  The solution has been around for years. In the 1980s, the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics developed what is known as a CPI-E, the Consumer Price 
Index for Elderly Consumers. The index more accurately reflects the 
specific needs and purchases of seniors, unlike the current formula. My 
bill requires the Social Security Administration to use the CPI-E to 
calculate the Social Security benefits.
  The second goal of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act 
is to make the system fair and more financially solvent. It does so by 
making sure everyone, even the wealthiest Americans, pays into the 
program all year long.
  A lot of people don't know what the current law does. Under the 
current law, contributions to Social Security will be capped once a 
person's income hits $113,700 throughout the year. That is it. No 
matter how much more they earn, they stop contributing to Social 
Security for the rest of the year. So let me make sure that is clear.
  An example I like to use is us here in Congress. We make $174,000. 
About the middle or end of September, when we hit $113,000 of income, 
after that point we no longer contribute to Social Security. So that 
means anyone making over $113,000, after that fact they no longer 
contribute to Social Security. To me, this is an unfair system. So my 
bill gradually lifts that cap. It also says the more one puts into the 
program, the more they will eventually get out of it.
  We are working with the Social Security Actuary to get a final 
number, but it is fair to say that by lifting the income cap on 
contributions, this bill will extend the solvency of the Social 
Security trust fund for generations. We estimate at least a minimum of 
two generations.
  A few weeks ago, back home in Anchorage I joined a group of seniors. 
I presented this piece of legislation to them at the Anchorage Senior 
Center. As she loves to describe herself, a young woman from Alaska 
stood up--an 81-year-old Korean war Navy veteran--Beverly was there 
because the majority of her modest income comes from Social Security, 
and she wanted to know how this proposal would strengthen that lifeline 
for her and thousands of Alaskans.
  In fact, one in nine Alaskans receives Social Security. With my 
State's population of those 65 and older expanding rapidly, Social 
Security will continue to play a key role in supplementing a decent 
living. If Social Security were not there for the elderly Alaskans, 
one-fifth of them would live below poverty. It is vital for our State, 
it is vital for all our States, and for this whole country.
  I have no illusions this bill is going to pass in the final weeks of 
the 112th Congress, but I wanted to get it into the mix. I wanted to 
make sure people get the bigger point.
  I would say to my Presiding Officer, who says this well, and my 
friend from Oregon, who is on the Senate floor also, as we talk about 
the deficit that has taken center stage right now, we want to highlight 
one very clear thing: Social Security has not contributed, is not part 
of, and never will contribute to the deficit. So those who like to 
meddle and try to combine it with this deficit talk are just playing 
games with our seniors and disabled in this country.
  It is a separate issue. It is not impacting the Federal deficit. And 
I know some like to meld it in because then they like to talk about 
cuts and--their favorite line--privatize, which really means seniors 
and the disabled get a lot less in the future. They will not get the 
guarantee that they paid into.
  Also, I want to give credit to Congressman Ted Deutch, who has a 
similar measure on the House side. Both plans may be difficult to pass, 
but we are going to continue to push forward, and we will not be alone. 
A coalition of over 300 national and State organizations have already 
endorsed our bill. Together they represent 50 million Americans. They 
are onboard because this bill modernizes Social Security without 
cutting benefits.
  Let me repeat that because I know some will say there must be some 
benefit reduction there. It will enhance Social Security. It will 
ensure it continues without cutting benefits because the program plays 
a vital role in the economy and security of America's working families.
  Most of us, including myself, started contributing to Social Security 
as teenagers. To those who send me e-mails--I just read one recently--
we do pay Social Security as Members of Congress. I know people don't 
think we do, but we do. I saw one on our newspaper blog--I should 
inform my press people, I responded to that without their knowledge. I 
wanted to make sure that individual knew we pay. I have been paying 
since I was a teenager, and I still pay today.
  It is important that when people get to retirement or some tragedy 
strikes, Social Security is there to help make ends meet. I am proud of 
the leaders of the past who have fought and had the foresight and 
wisdom to create Social Security.
  Nowadays, some in Washington like to call Social Security an 
entitlement. If by that it means it is a government handout, they are 
flat wrong. Americans paid for and earned their Social Security. The 
benefits are modest. No one is getting rich off Social Security, but it 
does provide an important foundation. The values that underlie Social 
Security are American values. It rewards hard work. The longer one 
works, the more they earn under Social Security, the higher their 
benefits.
  The program reflects the best of America: hard work, personal 
responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our 
children, our spouses, our neighbors, and ourselves. It also assures 
that those who work long and

[[Page S7670]]

hard at low and moderate wages receive a larger return on their 
contribution. It is financially prudent and conservative.
  Regardless, many people worry that Social Security is going to be 
broke. But here are the facts based on the annual report of the Social 
Security Board of Trustees. To remind everybody, we get that annual 
report, a section of it. We see it every year. It projects the 
program's financial status over the next 75 years.
  The latest trustees report issued in April said Social Security ran a 
surplus--a surplus--of $69 billion last year. The report also says the 
program can continue to pay all benefits, on time and in full, through 
the year 2033. After that its shortfall is modest, but it is a 
manageable shortfall. And, as I said a minute ago, it should not 
trigger talk of benefit cuts, raising the retirement age, or 
privatization.
  Instead, the modest revenue increases in my bill will go into effect 
gradually and make Social Security solvent for decades longer, all 
without adding to the deficit. We can do this. We can protect and 
preserve the promise of Social Security for generations to come.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                             The Big Issues

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, just following up on the comments of my 
colleague from Alaska, he has laid out some very important thoughts 
regarding the farm bill, regarding the debt ceiling, and regarding 
Social Security. I applaud him for coming to the floor and sharing his 
thoughts with our colleagues and with the American public.
  These are big issues that we are wrestling with in the Senate. The 
farm bill is something that was passed on a bipartisan nature through 
the Senate. It is over in the House. It will have to come back through 
here. We had a proposal from the Republican leader put forward this 
morning that we were ready to vote on and that he objected to himself 
at the last second.
  The debt ceiling is an important issue because it involves paying the 
bills on the decisions that have already been made and implemented by 
the U.S. Government. It is not about spending more; it is about paying 
the bills on the spending that has already taken place. And it should 
be debated and discussed and addressed because failure to have the 
responsibility that every family should have--to pay their bills once 
incurred--poses significant issues for our Nation. We saw that with the 
credit rating downturn. We certainly have seen that with the impact on 
the confidence that there was in the American system.
  So it should be debated. These big issues need to be debated and 
decided. But this Senate often fails to ever get onto a bill to start 
with because there is something called a motion to proceed in which we 
have to raise the question: Should we address this topic? And time and 
time again, we have seen the minority, acting in a partisan fashion, 
say: No, we don't want to debate. They have used what is referred to as 
the silent filibuster to object and say: No, we don't want to debate 
that issue before the American public. We don't want to debate it with 
our colleagues. We don't want to wrestle with this complex topic.
  Should we get onto a bill, we then see amendments treated in the same 
fashion, subjected to a 60-vote majority. In fact, that was the premise 
that the minority leader, the Republican leader, put forward in a 
change of heart just a few minutes ago, saying he had a proposal, that 
he reached agreement. But at the last second he decided it should be 
subject to a supermajority vote.
  That is exactly what we have seen day in and day out, in increasing 
fashion, which has prevented this body from not only addressing the big 
issues across our country but even the regular issues of standard 
appropriations bills. We have 13 such bills that should come to this 
floor each year to be debated, to be decided, and to be amended, and we 
don't get to them. Why don't we get to them? Because the entire year is 
consumed by the silent filibuster strategy of the minority.
  Let me give a picture of what I am talking about. This is a chart 
that shows the number of filibusters launched as an average per year 
over the preceding decades.
  Now, I first came to this room when I was 19 as an intern for Senator 
Hatfield, and I sat up in the staff gallery and covered the Tax Reform 
Act of 1976. I watched this body raise amendment after amendment, 
debate it, decide it on a simple majority basis, and proceed to enact 
tax reform.
  Well, in the 1900s through 1970s there was an average of one silent 
filibuster per year. Just one. Under the rules, this type of objection 
consumes a week because once the objection is made to unanimous consent 
to hold a majority vote, then a motion must be filed--a motion by the 
majority that wants to proceed. So they get 16 signatures, and that 
takes a little bit of time. Then once that motion has been filed--and 
that is called a cloture motion to close debate--then it takes 2 days 
to get to a vote.
  The vote has to happen a day after an intervening day. So 2 days are 
gone. Then, if 60 Members say, yes, they want to close debate, then we 
have to have 30 hours of debate time before we can actually get to a 
final vote. So a whole week is taken up by that process.
  In the 1970s, the average grew to 16 per year. That is 16 weeks 
wasted per year. In the 1980s, it grew to 21 per year average. Now we 
are getting to well over one-third of the number of weeks in the course 
of the Senate year. Then we go to the 1990s. We are up to 36 such 
silent filibusters taking up 36 weeks. We get to the decade 2000 
through 2009, and an average of 48--or almost 1 per week--starting to 
squeeze out any ability to address the big issues facing America.
  Then, since I came in 2009, we have had an average of over 60 per 
year, more than 1 per week. The result of this last 2 years was the 
most dysfunctional legislature in decades; big issues facing America, 
this floor, and this forum of deliberation paralyzed by the continuous 
use of the silent filibuster on every issue. Essentially what this 
silent filibuster has done is convert this to a supermajority body. Not 
only that, converted it to a body that spends its entire year just 
trying to get to the vote as to whether we can have a final vote. That 
is the level of dysfunction we have reached.
  No wonder that public opinion of the Senate has plummeted. No wonder 
the frustration across this Nation has built that in silence, out of 
public sight, the minority has strategically thwarted the ability of 
this body to debate issues.
  Over the course of time we see a period where this body has been run 
by Republicans and run by Democrats, so every minority has used this in 
an increasing fashion over time. This is not simply a Republican-
Democratic issue or Democratic-Republican issue. This is an issue of a 
systematic change of culture where it was understood that the Senate 
was a simple majority as envisioned under the Constitution. Both Adams 
and Madison spoke eloquently to what a supermajority could do to 
destroy this body. Now their words resonate from the past because we 
are seeing it happen right before us today.
  In this situation, doesn't it make sense for us to adjust the rules 
and reclaim the ability to be a body that deliberates and decides? That 
is what many of us are proposing be debated in January. When we start 
the new 2-year period we should have a major debate on the floor of the 
Senate about how to make this body fulfill its responsibilities to the 
American people. Our responsibility is not to come here and throw sand 
in the gears of deliberation. Our responsibility is to come here, study 
the issues, debate them on this floor, reach thoughtful positions, 
advocate for those positions, and propose that those solutions that 
have the strongest support go forward. That does not happen if the 
entire year is wasted with the silent filibuster strategy we have 
today.
  So what can we do to address this situation? Quite a bit. Let's start 
with the very place that a bill begins, which is the motion to proceed. 
This is a motion to say let's come and debate the farm bill. Let's come 
and debate the Defense authorization bill. Let's come and debate a 
spending bill for Health and Human Services. When that motion was made 
in the past, it was rarely filibustered. This is a chart that

[[Page S7671]]

goes back to 1971. From 1971, here, through 1982, that entire decade, 
we had 18 cases where the motion to proceed was filibustered--18 over a 
decade, plus.
  In fact, during the previous 40 years there had only been a dozen 
times the motion to proceed was filibustered. Why is that? Because 
there is no inherent logic in saying in order to facilitate debate I am 
going to block debate, because that is what it is when you have this 
silent filibuster putting up this 60-vote hurdle to get onto a bill to 
begin with. So it makes sense for a simple majority to be able to 
decide let's go to a bill, let's debate it.
  What we see over time here is a huge change. By 2007-2008, we had 57 
silent filibusters, out of public sight, to prevent bills from being 
debated on this floor; the next year, 31 objections, 2009-2010, that 2-
year period. The next 2-year period we are in now, we are already up to 
42 times.
  Clearly we need to return to the culture where the filibuster about 
an issue so close to your heart or so important to your values or so 
vital to your State that you would object and say I am going to stand 
in the way; as a matter of principle I am going to stand in the way of 
a bill that does damage to my core principles or to the vital interests 
of my State--that might happen a couple of times in a career.
  That is not what we have now. What we have now is routine obstruction 
on every single act, which mires us in lost time and prevents us from 
addressing issues facing America.
  Let's return to that situation when the motion to proceed was not 
filibustered. Let's make it like the motion to proceed to a nomination, 
in which we basically say no, you cannot filibuster that. You have a 
responsibility to advise and consent, to get nominations to the floor. 
If the majority says we will come here and debate it, we will come here 
and debate it. That is a simple change that takes care of a lot of the 
growth in the obstruction that wastes the Senate's time and prevents it 
from acting.
  A second proposal is to get rid of the silent filibuster on starting 
a conference committee. Let me lay out the scenario for you. The House 
has passed a bill. The Senate has passed the same bill in a slightly 
different version. The two bodies say let's meet and talk about this. 
Let's work out a common position we can send back. That is a conference 
committee. Why would anyone object to starting the conference committee 
to negotiate between two bills, slightly different, that have been 
passed by the two bodies?
  One could say, is that their only opportunity to make a statement 
about things that might happen in the conference committee? The answer 
is no. Because if the conference committee comes to a proposal, then 
they send it back to the two bodies and at that point it is debatable 
and it could be filibustered. That opportunity is there. So we have 
three motions necessary to establish a conference committee, and 
because all three can be filibustered, this silent filibuster--not 
standing and taking any public position, this silent objection--we have 
virtually given up the use of the conference committee. I don't think 
you can find a State legislature in this Nation that has so tied its 
hands that it cannot even hold a conversation between a State House of 
Representatives and a State Senate. They cannot even hold a 
conversation. That is how dysfunctional we have become here.
  That was never part of the argument for let's have extended debate 
and let's be a cooling saucer, a thoughtful body. No, that is just a 
rule: Let's waste the entire time of the Senate and preclude the 
possibilities of even having a conversation, a negotiation with the 
House. We should eliminate the silent filibuster on motions to get to a 
conference committee.
  Let's talk about another area. One of my colleagues from Minnesota, 
Al Franken, has proposed that instead of having 60 votes to end debate, 
we should have 41 to extend debate. Why does that matter? First, in 
terms of the framing of the issue, it really is the minority saying we 
want more debate. By this I don't mean minority party, I mean 41 from 
either party coming together and saying we want more debate. In that 
case the vote should be 41 votes required to extend debate.
  That has a practical impact. It means that somebody who is absent 
from this Chamber does not count automatically on the side of extending 
debate. It is 41 of those who are here, 41 of the 100 who are saying 
yes, we must go forward with more debate. That is a very reasonable 
proposal. It changes the framing to understand that it is the 
minority--not the Republican minority but the minority of 51 from both 
sides of the aisle comes together and says: Yes, we want more debate. 
They make an affirmative vote of 41. That makes sense.
  Then let's talk about the talking filibuster. I have been referring 
throughout this discussion that we are facing silent filibusters. 
Indeed, when I considered running for the Senate I came here and talked 
to the majority leader about it, and after discussing the possibility 
of running I said: Mr. Majority Leader, while I am here there is just 
one thing I must say because citizens in Oregon are so frustrated about 
this, and he kindly said yes, go ahead, tell me what it is.

  I said, it is this: If a minority is arguing for more debate, then 
make them debate. Make them stand on the floor and make their case, 
because all we see is a quorum call back home. All we see is the Senate 
wasting its time.
  The majority leader put his head in his hands like this and he said: 
Let me explain the way the rules are written. He explained to me what I 
have been explaining to all of you, that it is not required under the 
rules to take the floor when you object to a simple majority. When you 
vote for more debate, you are not required to debate. This is a 
surprise. This is the opposite of what ordinary citizens, myself 
included, believed across America. Why was that? Where did our belief 
come from?
  I can tell you it came from this: When this body believed in its 
constitutional role to make decisions and to make decisions by a 
majority vote as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, it considered an 
objection to a simple majority vote to be a huge deal, a deal in which 
if you were going to make that objection you would have the courage of 
your convictions to come to this floor even if the rules didn't require 
it, you would come to this floor and you would make your case before 
your colleagues and try to persuade them of your point of view, and you 
would make your case before the American public.
  It is folks back home who would have a chance to weigh in on whether 
you were a hero for carrying the torch on an important issue or you 
were a bum because your arguments didn't hold water and you were 
objecting, keeping the U.S. Senate from addressing an important 
national problem.
  That era where the social contract was that you would have the 
courage to stand before your colleagues--that era is gone. Since the 
rules do not require you to stand, it has become the practice to use 
the silent filibuster to kill bills in the dark of night with no case 
being made before your colleagues, no case being made before the 
American people.
  It is also true that Hollywood has helped cement the notion that a 
filibuster involves standing before this body with the courage of your 
convictions. Here we have a scene from the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes To 
Washington.'' He was trying to stop a land grab where a boys camp 
should be. He knew what was being done was wrong and he said he is 
going to take the floor and he is going to stand before his colleagues 
and the American people and he is going to do so as long as he could 
stay standing because it was an important principle that was being 
violated with an inappropriate land grab back home.
  The American public is hungry for this kind of courage, that if you 
believe a simple majority is not in the interests of America because of 
the gravity of an issue, you will stand on this floor and make your 
case. That is what the talking filibuster proposes. It says that at the 
time you have a vote on any debate, if a majority of this body says 
yes, we should end debate and go forward, but a supermajority of 60 is 
not yet there--so the vote is between 51 and 59--that says there is 
still a substantial minority of 41 or more who want to have more 
debate, then they have to debate. It is as simple as that. They cannot 
basically go off on vacation while there is a quorum call. Instead, at 
least one person has to stand on this floor and make the argument.

[[Page S7672]]

  Wouldn't it be an incredible difference if instead of these silent, 
hidden filibusters paralyzing this body, Senators who chose for 
additional debate had to make a stand before the American public? They 
had to make their case and the public could weigh in on whether they 
were heroes or they were bums? In that case, maybe we would get those 
60 votes.
  Let me give an example. We had a case in which we had an act called 
the DISCLOSE Act on the floor of the Senate. The DISCLOSE Act simply 
said that for all campaign donations, the source must be disclosed. It 
was based on a premise that had been argued by many on both sides of 
the aisle over many years, and it was this: that disclosure is the 
sunlight that disinfects the political process. If voters know that ad 
being put up on the air is being done by a certain industry--even 
though they claim to be the Blue Skies Industry, maybe they are the 
Polluted Water Industry--the citizens should know. If that ad that 
claims to be from Americans for Healthy Lives is actually being put on 
by an industry that is poisoning people, citizens should have the right 
to know. This is the DISCLOSE Act. Not only under current practice is 
secrecy allowed, but foreign donations are allowed. Foreign companies 
are allowed to put unlimited secretive funds into the U.S. system. Who 
would defend that on the floor of the Senate? The answer is no one. We 
didn't have those who wanted more debate willing to debate it. No, they 
wanted to obstruct it in silence because they knew the American people 
would not approve of the fact that they were arguing for secrecy on 
unlimited sums of secret funds in American campaigns.

  That was before this last election cycle when in election after 
election we saw super PACs funneling vast fortunes into the primaries 
for the Presidency, into Senate races, and into House races. They were 
funneling the money in, and no one knew where it came from. Now, some 
of the contributors to those super PACs did disclose that they 
contributed to the super PACs. They bragged about it. But when the 
money went from the super PAC to the State, their name was not attached 
to it. Nobody knew what funds went to which State. It was basically an 
attack by vast pools of dark money.
  If we had the talking filibuster and folks had to rise on this floor 
and defend this secrecy and these foreign donations, then we would have 
gotten the 60th vote to close debate and we would have a better system 
to date.
  How about pay equity for women? How about pay equity? I think we 
would have had the public weigh in if they could have seen it was being 
torpedoed by the silent, hidden filibuster. Now there are folks--and I 
have heard them over the past few weeks--who say: Oh, this strategy of 
asking people to talk is a way to suppress the views of the minority. 
Isn't that absurd? Doesn't it just make you smile that a requirement to 
make a case before colleagues can be framed as a situation where our 
views are being suppressed? No, quite the contrary. We are issuing them 
an invitation--this affects people on both sides of the aisle--to come 
forward and make their case publicly. Don't kill these bills with this 
hidden maneuver in the dark of night. If they have the courage of their 
convictions, they should come and make their case. If they don't, then 
let the process proceed. That is the talking filibuster.
  I would like to applaud others who have put ideas forward that are 
similar. Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey had a bill that said--where I 
am talking about after the cloture vote, he said: Well, let's require 
people to talk during the 30 hours before the cloture vote in order to 
see if nobody wants to take the floor. Let's shorten that 30 hours. 
That is worthy of debate.
  We have a responsibility for this body to debate in a transparent, 
accountable fashion and to make decisions so our public can see it. 
That is what the talking filibuster does.
  I encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and share their 
thoughts. If they are against making their case before the American 
people, then have the courage to come to the floor and say: I don't 
like this idea because I don't want to have to make my case in front of 
my colleagues.
  I invite my colleagues to come to the floor and say to the American 
public: I am going to vote against the talking filibuster because I 
don't want the public to see that I am killing bills in the dark of 
night.
  Have the courage to come and debate the issue now and in the future 
because the American people are looking at us with extraordinary levels 
of frustration. They know there are big issues facing our Nation.
  Right now we are talking about the fiscal cliff. Well, the fiscal 
cliff has many components. It may be broken into many different bills 
that come before this body. We need to get rid of the motion to proceed 
so we can get those bills to the floor to debate them. We need to make 
sure that if a group says: Let's block this bill from a final vote, 
they express their views accountably before the public. It is the least 
that should happen.
  The Senate is headed out for the weekend. We will be back next week, 
and I ask for the American public to weigh in and to think about the 
fact that this hidden process is hurting our ability to address the big 
issues facing America. I ask my colleagues to wrestle with that.
  It is my hope that folks will hold those conversations with the 
public back home. I have done so in every county of my State through my 
townhall meetings. I hold one in every county every year. I have raised 
this issue of whether or not, when folks vote for debate, they should 
be required to debate, they should be required to make their case and 
not to kill bills in the dark of night. Whether it is a progressive 
county or a conservative county, people believe in transparency and 
accountability, and they want to see their Senators making their case 
on this floor. Let's make it so.

                          ____________________