[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7724-S7732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          TRANSACTION ACCOUNT GUARANTEE PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3637) to temporarily extend the transaction 
     account guarantee program, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 3314

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3314.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. ___.

       This Act shall become effective 5 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3315 to Amendment No. 3314

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3315 to amendment No. 3314.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``4 days''.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 3316

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit the bill with 
instructions, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the 
     bill, S. 3637, to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs, with instructions to report back forthwith 
     with an amendment numbered 3316.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. ___.

       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3317

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3317 to the instructions (amendment No. 3316) of the 
     motion to commit.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3318 to Amendment No. 3317

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3318 to amendment No. 3317.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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 S. 3637, a bill to 
     temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee program, 
     and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Robert Menendez, Tom Udall, Jack Reed, Kay R. Hagan, 
           Tim Johnson, Richard Blumenthal, Bill Nelson, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Sherrod Brown, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Max 
           Baucus, John F. Kerry, Thomas R. Carper.

  Mr. REID. Mr. 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.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as provided under the previous order, at 4 
p.m. today, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider 
Calendar Nos. 762 and 829. For the information of the Senate, we expect 
at least one rollcall vote on the nomination of John E. Dowdell to be 
U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma and Jesus G. 
Bernal to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California 
at about 4:30 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                          Senate Rules Changes

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, some things never change in the Senate. For 
more than 200 years, our practice of extended debate has been the 
single most defining characteristic of the Senate. For more than 200 
years, extended debate has annoyed the majority and empowered the 
minority.
  What has changed, however, is that the majority today threatens not 
only to change Senate rules and practice in order to cripple this 
tradition and consolidate power but to use unprecedented tactics to do 
it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together 
and preserve the fundamental integrity of this body, even if we may 
disagree about some of the political issues.
  I wish to explain to my colleagues why neither the ends nor the means 
that the majority has been discussing are legitimate. First, there is 
no debate crisis on the Senate floor, none whatsoever.
  In fact, it is easier to end debate today than during most of 
American history. For more than a century since we had no cloture rule 
at all, ending debate required unanimous consent. A single Senator 
could filibuster merely by objecting. From 1917 to 1975, ending debate 
required a supermajority of two-thirds, higher than the three-fifths 
required today. As I said a minute ago, extended debate has always 
annoyed the majority.
  Today is no different. Yet we hear the majority claiming there have 
been hundreds of filibusters, that the rules are being abused, that 
obstruction is at

[[Page S7725]]

an alltime high. The American people likely do not know the particulars 
of our debate rules and practices but Senators making such claims 
certainly should.
  The majority pumps up the filibuster numbers by claiming that every 
cloture motion is evidence of a filibuster. They know that is not true. 
As the Congressional Research Service says:

       The Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as 
     a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the 
     absence of any apparent filibuster. . . . In many instances, 
     cloture motions may be filed not to overcome filibusters in 
     progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated.

  That is what is going on today. The majority leader often files a 
cloture motion as soon as a motion or a bill becomes pending. He does 
that to prevent debate from starting, not to end debate that is 
underway. In the last three Congresses under this majority, a much 
higher percentage of cloture motions got withdrawn without any cloture 
vote at all than under the last three Congresses under a Republican 
majority.
  The majority leader appears to think that debate itself is simply 
dilatory. While extended debate has long been annoying to the majority, 
this majority leader apparently believes any debate is annoying.
  Neither filing a cloture motion nor taking a cloture vote is evidence 
of a filibuster. A filibuster occurs when an attempt to end debate, 
such as a cloture vote, fails. That is why some on the other side of 
the aisle want to address what they claim is a filibuster problem by 
changing the cloture rule.
  Let's use some common sense and stop misleading our fellow citizens 
about how this body operates. A filibuster is a debate that cannot be 
stopped. During this 112th Congress a much smaller percentage of 
cloture votes have failed than in the past. That is right. Cloture 
votes today are more successful in preventing filibusters than in the 
past.
  The same is true about motions to proceed, which is the particular 
focus of those who are now threatening to weaken debate by forcing a 
rules change. In the 112th Congress, 32 percent of cloture votes on 
motions to proceed have failed, compared to an average of 54 percent 
during the previous dozen congresses. Put simply, the current Senate 
majority has used cloture to prevent filibusters on motions to proceed 
more effectively than in the past.
  By the way, during the last several Congresses when the Democrats 
were in the minority, the current majority leader and majority whip 
voted to filibuster motions to proceed dozens of times. As I said, 
extended debate has always annoyed the majority and empowered the 
minority.
  Once again, it is easier to end debate today than during most of 
American history. The majority has done so more effectively in the 
current Congress than in the past, both in general and on motions to 
proceed. There simply is no crisis, no unprecedented abuse that 
requires some sort of fundamental change in the rules and traditions of 
this body.
  Rather than blowing up the Senate, I suggest that the majority 
actually try working with the minority. That is something we have not 
seen under the current majority leader's tenure. Since the Democrats 
took control of the Senate in 2007, the majority leader has not only 
routinely filed cloture motions to prevent debate, but he has severely 
limited the minority's ability to offer amendments. Since the majority 
leader is at the front of the line in this body, he uses that 
preference to offer amendments so the minority cannot. He did that here 
just a few minutes ago.

  The current majority leader has used this tactic more than 60 times, 
more than any previous majority leader of either party. In fact, he has 
done so more than all previous majority leaders combined. It is one 
thing to require a majority to pass an amendment, but the effect or, 
rather, the intent of this tactic is to require Senators in the 
minority to obtain the majority leader's permission to even offer 
amendments in the first place.
  Isn't that ironic? The majority leader uses the rules to his 
legislative advantage but wants to strip from the minority the ability 
to do the same. The Senate is not supposed to work that way and did not 
when Democrats were in the minority. Back in April 2005, when he was 
the minority whip, our distinguished current majority leader defended 
the minority's ability to offer even nongermane amendments because 
doing so prompted Senate consideration of subjects that the majority 
may have ignored.
  That was then; this is now. Today it does not require three-fifths to 
block an amendment. The majority leader can and has done the same thing 
all by himself. This kind of silencing of minority views does not even 
happen in the House of Representatives, which operates by majority rule 
across the board. In the House, the majority party, either Republican 
or Democratic, often limits amendments, sometimes barring them 
entirely.
  But at times the minority is entitled, before final passage, to a 
motion to recommit, which means a chance to propose a different version 
of the bill. This motion is not merely symbolic. Not infrequently that 
motion carries. In contrast, when the Senate majority leader fills the 
amendment tree, as he just did, he precludes anything such as the 
House's motion to recommit.
  When the minority's rights are trampled like this, what is it to do? 
Acquiesce or respond in self-defense? Frankly, it should be no surprise 
that a minority blocked from influencing legislation through amendments 
would demand extended debate by opposing cloture. But look what 
happens. The majority obstructs the minority's right to participate in 
the development of legislation and then attacks the minority for 
opposing the passage of that same legislation.
  Again, that is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. It is 
not just the minority who suffers from this strategy. More to the 
point, the American people suffer. They sent us to be real Senators, 
individuals who represent them and their concerns. They expect us 
actually to legislate, which means to amend as well as debate 
legislation, not simply to vote on whatever the majority puts in front 
of us.
  Our constituents want us to force attention to public issues, even 
when the majority would prefer to avoid them. This is the caliber of 
representation our constituents both demand and deserve. The rules and 
practices of the Senate have been designed to facilitate just this kind 
of representation. It is these same rules that the majority now seeks 
to change because they find them inconvenient.
  There is a conceit expressed in Washington that what happens in 
Congress is beyond the comprehension of interest of most Americans. But 
that is not so. When our voice is stifled, full representation for our 
constituents is denied. When we are gagged, the people are gagged. 
Nothing can be easier to grasp or to provoke greater public 
indignation.
  So my first point is that debate is not the problem. If there is a 
crisis, it is the majority's gambit of preventing amendments and then 
filing hundreds of cloture motions to prevent debate. My second point 
is that the unprecedented tactic threatened by the majority to limit 
debate even more will only further undermine the integrity of this 
body.
  Some of those pushing in that direction have never served in the 
minority. But all Senators should be alarmed by this prospect. The 
majority has talked about changing Senate rules to eliminate the 
opportunity to filibuster motions to proceed. This opportunity has been 
available to Senators since at least 1949, and as I have mentioned, the 
majority leader himself repeatedly seized that opportunity when he was 
in the minority.
  I do not believe the cloture rules need to be changed. I do believe, 
however, that if the Senate is to consider a change, it should follow 
the process laid out in our rules.
  That process exists for a reason. It is the process we have used to 
change rules in the past, and there is no reason other than a raw power 
grab to do it any other way.
  Senate rules specify that ending debate on a rules change needs 
approval by two-thirds of Senators present and voting, and there is a 
very good reason this is so. This cloture hurdle on rules changes 
exists to ensure that such amendments are not made without bipartisan 
cooperation. If anything should require broad consensus, it should be 
the rules by which this institution itself operates.

[[Page S7726]]

  That is how, for example, we changed the rules in 2007 concerning the 
content of conference reports and the use of earmarks or how we 
established a way to provide for public disclosure of holds. All of 
these changes, some of which require amending the rules, occurred 
during the tenure of the present majority leader. None was muscled 
through by majority fiat or forced on an unwilling minority. 
Bipartisanship was possible because these changes were good for the 
Senate.
  But now we have learned that the majority may begin the next Congress 
by disregarding our rules and attempting to change those they find 
inconvenient by a simple partisan majority. They threaten, as they did 
before the start of the current Congress, to use the so-called nuclear 
option to force new rules by single-party will. The substantive changes 
they have proposed would be degrading enough to the Senate. The method 
they propose to impose them would be catastrophic.
  I urge my colleagues, from freshmen to the most senior Members, to 
take some guidance from our predecessors, such as Senator Mike 
Mansfield, who served in the minority and later became majority leader. 
In 1975, when Senators similarly proposed using this same nuclear 
option similarly to change the cloture rule by simple majority, he said 
this tactic would ``destroy the very uniqueness of this body . . . and 
. . . diminish the Senate as an institution of this government.'' He 
said it would ``alter the concept of the Senate so drastically that I 
cannot under any circumstances find any justification for it.''
  Senator Reid expressed a similar view in 2003 when he was the 
minority whip, arguing that rules changes should be considered through 
regular order, through the process our rules provide. Senator Reid 
reaffirmed that view in 2005 when he was minority leader, saying that 
the so-called nuclear option would amount to breaking the rules to 
change the rules.
  Senator Reid further observed:

       One of the good things about this institution we have found 
     . . . is that the filibuster, which has been in existence 
     since the beginning, from the days of George Washington--we 
     have changed the rules as it relates to it a little bit but 
     never by breaking the rules.

  In other words, if the majority wants to grab even more power, if 
blocking amendments is not enough for them, if debate is too annoying 
for them, if they want to rig the rules to further sideline the 
minority, then they should use the process we have here in place in the 
Senate. They should make their case and present their arguments, and if 
they are compelling enough to attract a wide consensus, then the rules 
of this body can be changed. That is the way we have changed rules in 
the past. Senator Reid expressed this view when he was in the minority.
  Former Senator Chris Dodd, a good friend to many of us still in this 
Chamber and someone who, I would surmise, would be sympathetic to the 
current majority's views on policy, did so while in the majority. He 
stated in his farewell address his opposition to changing the Senate 
rules in the way the majority leader presently proposes.
  My friend Senator Dodd had this to say:

       I have heard some people suggest that the Senate, as we 
     know it, simply can't function on such a highly charged 
     political environment, that we should change the Senate rules 
     to make it more efficient, more responsive to the public 
     mood, more like the House of Representatives . . . I 
     appreciate the frustration many have with the slow pace of 
     the legislative process . . . Thus, I can understand the 
     temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so 
     unique--and simultaneously, so frustrating.''

  Senator Dodd continued:

       But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble 
     desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure 
     political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

  In conclusion, Senator Dodd said:

       We 100 Senators are but temporary stewards of a unique 
     American institution, founded upon universal principles. The 
     Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake 
     of variety, but because the framers believed that the Senate 
     could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift 
     America up to meet its unique challenges.

  Those who know both Senator Dodd and me know that we didn't agree on 
much during our years together in the Senate. However, on this point, I 
have to say that Senator Dodd couldn't have been more right. We did 
agree on a number of things, but it took bipartisan agreement to be 
able to accomplish that.
  Rules changes such as the ones proposed by the majority would alter 
the very nature of the Senate and undermine its unique purpose. For 
more than two centuries, the procedural rights of individual Senators, 
both in the majority and in the minority, have been a hallmark of this 
body. Those rights and the rules and practices developed to protect 
them have earned us the reputation as the world's greatest deliberative 
body. Among those rights are the minority's right to offer amendments 
and debate. The majority has already put the former under attack, and 
now the majority leader threatens to undermine the latter. Quite 
simply, the majority would weaken this institution in a partisan quest 
for power. Do these steps serve the Constitution? Do they maintain 
checks and balances? Do they foster bipartisanship? Do they benefit the 
American people? The answer to all of these questions is resoundingly 
negative.
  I urge my good friend the majority leader and my friends and 
colleagues on the other side to exercise serious self-restraint over 
whether and how Senate rules changes proceed. Those who are unhappy 
with the rules are free to propose amendments. As we have done in the 
past, those proposals should be referred to the Rules Committee and 
considered in the regular course of business. If the proposals have 
merit, support for them will cross party lines.
  Bipartisan solutions are urgently needed to resolve the Nation's 
problems. I speak as a Senator with a long record of working with 
Democrats to achieve bipartisan consensus and answers. But invoking the 
nuclear option will unnecessarily start a new Congress on a divisive 
and discordant tone. It will generate a poisonous climate guaranteed to 
impair our capacity to cooperate. No majority can expect the minority 
to stand on the side lines while its rights are destroyed and its place 
in this body is diminished. Any minority of either party would defend 
its place and defend the integrity of this body. We will do so now if 
the majority pursues this reckless and entirely unnecessary course.

  I urge the majority to respect the traditions of the Senate and to 
follow our rules. I urge the majority to avoid rather than generate 
those crises.
  I have to say that we do not want to be like the House. This is a 
place where legislation has to be cooled, according to Washington. This 
is a place where we have to do more reflection. This is a place where 
there are rights in the minority that are time-honored rights, for good 
reasons. Yes, we don't always get our will or our way here. That is 
tough for some of us sometimes. But, on the other hand, rather than 
throw these rules out or to modify them in ways that really diminish 
them and to use a nuclear option, it is less than honorable, in my 
opinion.
  But the fact is that I have been through a lot of this, and I have to 
say there is a reason these rules are in existence, and you don't just 
throw them out the door for political advantage. The fact is that this 
body was never intended to be one where you could just sluice things 
through any way you want to and where the majority could get its will 
no matter what happens. This is a body where literally we have to 
deliberate. This is a body where we need to bring about a bipartisan 
consensus. Now, that is hard sometimes, it is painful sometimes, it is 
irritating as can be sometimes, but it is the right thing to do.
  I really don't believe the majority leader is going to push this. I 
think he is a better man than that. And I don't believe most Senators 
in the majority would put up with that because they are better men and 
women than that.
  I have to say, on our side, we would like to see full debate. We get 
a little tired of the majority leader calling up the bill, filing 
cloture immediately, and then filling the amendment tree so no 
amendments can be brought up unless he approves them. That is not the 
Senate's way. I am not saying you can never fill the amendment tree, 
but that should only be used at the end of the debate when it has gone 
on too long and it has to be brought to a close. It should not be used 
at the beginning of

[[Page S7727]]

the debate. This is a body where we allow nongermane amendments. It is 
a body where we have rights. It is what makes it the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. It is a body where rules make a 
difference.
  Even though they are to our disadvantage now, I will argue exactly 
the same if anybody on our side, when we get in the majority, decides 
to change these rules this way. So I hope we all think it through 
because there will be all-out war from this day on, from the day on 
that we use the nuclear option to change perhaps the most important 
rule in the Senate.
  The filibuster rule is a time-honored right by the minority. It is 
one of the only protections the minority has--or should I say one of 
the few protections the minority has--and it should not be thrown away 
frivolously.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side, you may not believe it, but 
someday you are going to be in the minority, and you don't want to see 
these rules thrown out any more than we do. If we ignore this, ``Katy, 
bar the door.'' We will have obstructed and hurt the greatest 
deliberative body in the world and the system that has allowed us to be 
the greatest deliberative body in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a number of matters.
  Before Senator Hatch leaves the floor, I really do think it is 
important that we listen to what he said, but I also think his 
criticism of the majority leader was really over the top. We just 
finished a defense bill, I say to my friend, that had over 100 
amendments. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had 
a transportation bill that had endless amendments.
  Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield for a colloquy?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. There was no intention in my mind to disparage the 
majority leader. I disparage what the majority leader is doing.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am glad the Senator cleared that up.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, I want to clear it up because he is a friend.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
  Mr. HATCH. But these rules are friends, too, and I feel really deeply 
about this. I hope the Senator and other Democrats feel deeply about it 
too, because you might wind up in the minority someday when some people 
on our side might want to do what is being done here today. There is a 
reason for these rules.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. HATCH. I appreciate that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was here in the minority, and I was able to exercise 
the filibuster, and I was able to stop a lot of legislation that came 
over from Newt Gingrich's House. I believe in the filibuster 
completely, and I think it is important to protect minority rights. But 
I do think there is such a thing as the use of the filibuster versus 
the abuse of the filibuster. So my position has always been clear that 
I think the abuse of the filibuster is wrong.
  When I first came here, I thought, well, we should just do away with 
the 60-vote rule. I came to understand that I didn't really, at the end 
of the day, wind up believing that was wise. So I am working with 
colleagues to figure out a way we can have a talking filibuster but 
protect the rights of the minority. But I have to say, I don't think 
there ought to be a filibuster allowed on a motion to proceed to a 
bill. We have seen that abused and abused and overused. These are the 
kinds of things we should get together on as colleagues, as friends, 
across the issues that divide us and not engage in filibusters on a 
motion to proceed to a bill. There is plenty of time to filibuster the 
bill itself. There is plenty of time to argue. But it seems to me 
whoever is the majority leader, be it a Democrat or a Republican, he or 
she should have the right to take us to a bill. I think that is a power 
that should lie with the majority, whoever that majority is. So I would 
certainly approve of fixing that problem.

  In addition, how many filibusters do we have to have before we go to 
conference? I will support one and we will fight it out. But three 
motions that can be filibustered before going to conference? That is 
not doing the people's business. Imagine if a bill gets all the way to 
that conference phase. Remember, it has gone through the committees of 
the House and Senate, it has gone through the votes of the House and 
Senate, it has gone through the conference committee to a vote of the 
conference committee. Why on Earth should we be allowed to filibuster 
three motions? So I think there are ways we can work together.
  I know my friends from Tennessee and New York at one point were 
working on ways to prevent any President, be it a Democrat or 
Republican, from facing filibusters on more or less routine 
nominations. I could support that change too. But I do want to say, as 
I look at the abuse of the filibuster versus use of the filibuster--
and, again, I believe the rights of the minority must be protected--we 
have to look at the bold, stark facts. Since Harry Reid became the 
leader here, he has had to face 388 filibusters. The last time the 
Democrats were in the minority we forced half as many. I think that is 
too much, but it is only half as many. So we have our majority leader 
facing twice as many as Democrats led, and it has gotten out of hand.
  Members can stand up here and say it is a horrible thing to try to 
change the rules, but my test is abuse versus use. I think we can come 
together and avert any type of showdown at the OK Corral. That is 
ridiculous. We don't need that. We can talk as friends and figure out 
some of these commonsense reforms that we can do without having to get 
angry at one another. I don't think it serves anyone's purpose if we 
are all angry at one another over this.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  My last comments have to do with the fiscal cliff. I stand here 21 
days before a tax increase on all Americans is going to occur. This tax 
increase will go up $2,200 for an average middle-class family.
  That is the bad news. Taxes are going to rise. Here is the great 
news. The great news is the Senate already passed legislation to fix 
the problem. And guess what. We didn't do it yesterday or the day 
before yesterday. We saw it coming and we passed it on July 25, 2012. 
We passed the middle-class tax cuts. My understanding is we took care 
of the AMT.
  The fact is all that now has to happen is for the House to take up 
our bill. If they take up our bill and they pass our bill, we will see 
everyone in America keep their tax cuts up to $250,000 in income, and 
after that $250,000 we will go back to the Clinton rates.
  But here is the really good news, if we do that: We will raise $1 
trillion and reduce our debt by $1 trillion. There is no reason why 
Speaker Boehner shouldn't bring this bill to a floor vote. He will win 
the vote because I know Democrats and some Republicans will definitely 
support him. He needs to be Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the 
Republicans, just as Tip O'Neill, when I was there, wasn't Speaker of 
the Democrats, he was Speaker of the House.
  As a matter of fact, the way Tip did it is, he would get half the 
Democrats and half the Republicans--and he didn't care what you were, 
an Independent, whatever your affiliation, conservative, liberal--and 
he would go up to you and say: Can you be with me on this? It is good 
for the country. Ronald Reagan and I agree.
  That was Tip O'Neill. And I know what that is like. Ronald Reagan and 
Tip O'Neill. So it ought to be President Obama and John Boehner saying: 
We should pass this middle-class tax cut.
  Here is the thing I don't get. When the Bush tax cuts went into place 
they were passed overwhelmingly by Republicans. Why wouldn't the same 
Republicans want to make sure they continue for 98 percent of the 
people? I don't get it. I did not vote for the Bush tax cuts then. I am 
going to vote for them now, for the 98 percent, because we are coming 
out of a tough time. I didn't vote for them then. You know why? I said 
we would go into huge deficits. And I don't want to say I was right, 
but we did go into a huge period of deficits. It was that, plus two 
wars on a credit card, and it was a prescription drug benefit that was 
not paid for by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices. I 
voted against that too.

[[Page S7728]]

  So here we are at a magic moment in time--a magical moment because it 
is the holiday season--and we know the Senate passed the middle-class 
tax cuts in July, and we know there are 21 days left before taxes go up 
on 98 percent of the people. Rhetorically, I ask the Speaker: Why don't 
you just pass this?
  Today I read the Speaker of the House said: Well, I don't want to do 
this until I see what programs Barack Obama is going to cut. That is 
his latest thing. To which I respond: Here is the deal. In the debt 
ceiling fight we cut $1 trillion of spending. It is shown in those caps 
that we vote on. Very tough, $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 
years. That equals what we will get from the tax hikes on those over 
$250,000. Plus, as part of health care reform, we found savings in 
Medicare of $700 billion.
  By the way, the Republicans ran ads against our people saying the 
Democrats cut Medicare, and we explained they were savings, because 
what we did is we told providers: Cut down on fraud and abuse--you are 
overcharging. Be that as it may, the Republicans were just wiping their 
brow and crying for the Medicare recipients and saying we cut Medicare. 
Now they want more Medicare cuts. They have come up with a plan which 
would raise the age of Medicare, which I think is completely 
disastrous, and I will tell you why.
  If we were to raise the age of Medicare recipients, we would leave 
300,000 seniors uninsured. Just what we want. Happy New Year, Merry 
Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah all in one. We would increase the cost to 
businesses by $4.5 billion because people would stay longer on the 
business payroll--their medical payroll--at an age when they are 
getting older. We would increase out-of-pocket health care costs for 
those age 65 and 66 by over $3 billion. We would increase costs to the 
States by $700 million. We would cost millions of seniors age 65 and 66 
$2,200 more for health care. And we would increase premiums for all 
other seniors enrolled in Medicare by 3 percent because the population 
enrolled in Medicare would be older and less healthy.
  In other words, we would be pulling the healthiest seniors out of 
Medicare so that those who are left are sicker, and premiums would go 
up on everybody else.
  The source for these statistics is the Kaiser Family Foundation and 
the Congressional Budget Office. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record these facts regarding the raising of the Medicare 
eligibility age.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Raising the Medicare eligibility age would:
       Leave nearly 300,000 seniors uninsured.
       Increase costs to businesses by $4.5 billion.
       Increase out-of-pocket health care costs for those aged 65 
     and 66 by $3.7 billion.
       Increase costs to states by $700 million.
       Cost millions of seniors age 65 and 66 an average of $2,200 
     more for health care.
       Increase premiums for all other seniors enrolled in 
     Medicare by about 3 percent, because the population enrolled 
     in Medicare would be older and less healthy.

  Mrs. BOXER. I want to say this rhetorically to Speaker Boehner, and I 
will quote Senator Stabenow, who is quite eloquent on this point. You 
have a three-legged stool here: You have reductions in spending, which 
we did in the debt ceiling argument of $1 trillion. It is done. You 
have cuts in the so-called entitlements of $700 billion, which was done 
under Obamacare--that is Medicare. The only thing we haven't taken care 
of is the third leg, which is revenues, and we are suggesting for that 
$1.7 trillion that we get $1 trillion in revenues.
  There have been no revenues put on the table. The Republicans in the 
House are defending the billionaires, the millionaires--the Koch 
brothers and all the rest--from having to pay their fair share.
  In closing, I would say the American people are very smart. I believe 
they understand this. They understand what it means to raise the age of 
Medicare, which we are not going to do. They understand what it means 
if we do not make sure they get that renewed tax cut. They understand 
what it means when they see millionaires and billionaires who not only 
have made even more millions and billions, but the disparity between 
the middle class and the millionaires and billionaires has grown 
wildly.
  This last election was a lot about that. In this election that was 
not a side issue--that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying 
their fair share. It was not a side issue that we should have a budget 
issue that is fair. It is not a side issue.
  It is very easy to resolve this. It is not a good idea for us to fall 
off that cliff. It is not a necessary thing. So I say to the 
Republicans, you want a tax cut for everyone, including billionaires. 
How about taking it for 98 percent of the people? I think that is a 
deal you should grab and leave Medicare alone. Let's do this now, and 
when we come back we can get a budget deal that is fair all around.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, while the Senator from California is 
still on the Senate floor, I want to thank her for her comments on the 
Senate rules.
  I would agree this is something we should be able to talk amongst 
ourselves and work out. Some of us who have been here for a little 
while and watch the Senate know it is a unique institution. 
Fundamentally, most of us on both sides of the aisle know we are not 
functioning as effectively as we should. And there are only two things 
that need to happen: We need to get bills to the floor, and then we 
need to have amendments. Historically, it has been the responsibility 
of the majority to decide what comes to the floor, and historically the 
minority--whoever that happens to be--has an opportunity to have 
amendments.
  Over the last 25 years, a couple of things have happened. One is the 
motion to proceed has been used to block bills coming to the floor. 
That happened rarely 25 years ago. But, on the other hand, something 
else happened over the last 25 years: a procedure called filling the 
tree--which is really a gag rule on amendments--was once rarely used 
but is now abused. During his tenure, Senator Bob Dole used the so-
called filling the tree procedure, and used it seven times. Later, 
Senator Byrd used it three times when he was the majority leader. 
Senator Mitchell used it three times; Senator Lott, 11; Senator 
Daschle, only once, this gag rule; Senator Frist, 15. All those leaders 
used it 40 times. Our majority leader, Senator Reid, has used it 68 
times.
  So we can all come up with statistics on both sides, but shouldn't we 
just resolve that what we would like to do is show the country we are 
grown-up, responsible adults; that we can sit down and say, yes, we can 
agree on ways to make sure that most bills come to the floor and 
Senators get to offer most of the amendments they want to offer on the 
bill? I think we can do that. I think there is a spirit on both sides 
of the aisle to do that, and I am working toward that goal and I know a 
number of Democrats and Republicans are doing that. I appreciate the 
spirit of the Senator's remarks on the rules.
  The Senator from California also mentioned the fiscal cliff, and I 
would like to talk about that in two ways. I have a little different 
perspective.
  The campaign is over. Congratulations to President Obama. He won it. 
He won the campaign. Isn't this an opportunity for the President to now 
shift gears, to become President of the United States--to do for the 
debt that we have, for the social safety net programs that are in 
jeopardy, to show the same kind of leadership on those issues that 
President Eisenhower did on the Korean war; that President Lincoln did 
on the Civil War; that President Reagan did working with Tip O'Neill as 
was mentioned on Social Security--that was a difficult thing to do back 
in the early 1980s--and President Clinton did on welfare reform.
  Robert Merry, who wrote the biography of James K. Polk, said the 
other day: In the history of the United States every great crisis has 
been solved by Presidential leadership or not at all.
  A number of us have made our suggestions about what to do about the 
fact that our debt is too big, we are spending money we don't have, and 
one way or the other we have to fix it. It is that simple. We shouldn't 
be borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. So we have to fix it. 
And a number of us have said on the Republican side: We will hold our 
noses and do some things we normally wouldn't do.
  If the President will come forward with a reasonable proposal on 
restraining entitlement spending, we will help

[[Page S7729]]

raise revenues and we will put the two together, and that makes a 
budget agreement that the new Foreign Minister of Australia described 
in this way: The United States of America is one budget agreement away 
from reasserting its global preeminence, one budget agreement away from 
stopping all talk in the Pacific area of America's decline, one budget 
agreement away from showing that we can govern ourselves.
  So why don't we do that? Well, I was Governor of a State. That is a 
much smaller potatoes job--I know that--than being President. But if we 
needed better roads--which we did--and I waited around for the 
legislature to come up with a road program, we would still be driving 
on dirt roads. If I wanted to recruit the Japanese industry to 
Tennessee--which we did--and I waited around for the legislature to 
decide which country to go, we wouldn't have any of the auto jobs we 
now have. If we needed to reward outstanding teaching, and I waited 
around for the legislature to decide how to be the first State to pay 
more for teaching well, we wouldn't be doing it at all--which we are 
now leading the country in doing.
  I am trying to say that the way our constitutional system works, at 
the smaller level in a State with the Governor, or at the national 
level with the President, the President sets the agenda.
  Lyndon Johnson's press secretary, George Reedy, said: The President's 
job is, No. 1, to see an urgent need; No. 2, to develop a strategy to 
deal with the need; No. 3, persuade at least half the people he is 
right. Well, President Obama has done 1 and 3, but he hasn't done 2. We 
are all sitting around waiting for the President's proposal on what to 
do about fixing the debt. He has told us what he wants to do about 
taxes, but he has not yet said what to do about spending on runaway 
entitlement programs which we all know we have to fix. If he will do 
that, we will get a result.

  We are not the President. We wanted to be. We tried to be. Some of us 
have even run for the office, but we are not. He is. It is a great 
privilege. He won the election. We congratulate him for that. So let's 
have the President's proposal. We need Presidential leadership on the 
question.
  And it is not just an abstract matter of a budget agreement so that 
the Australian Foreign Minister is happy with the United States, his 
ally.
  I know a lot of people in Tennessee--hundreds of thousands of them 
actually--who can't wait until they are 65 years old in order to get 
Medicare so they can be assured they can afford their health care 
bills. There are hundreds of thousands of people in our State for whom 
Social Security is their only or most of their income.
  What do we say to them? Do we say to them that we are going to ignore 
the fact--let's just take Medicare--that they are not going to be able 
to depend on Medicare unless we take some steps to save it? I mean, we 
can all count. We know, from the Urban Institute, the average two-
earner couple who retires this year will have paid about $122,000 into 
Medicare during their lifetime and are going to take $387,000 out, that 
simply can't continue. One way or another we have to make certain that 
the millions of Americans who are looking forward to Medicare can count 
on it when they become eligible for Medicare. We have the same 
responsibility with Social Security.
  So I would hope the President would recognize there are a lot of us 
on both sides of the aisle who want to reach a budget agreement. We are 
waiting for his leadership. He is not sitting around a table as one 
Senator anymore. He is the President. He is the agenda setter. We need 
his proposal. Then we can react to it and then we can agree on it. He 
is not the Speaker. He is not the majority leader of the Senate or the 
minority leader. He is the President of the United States.
  Just as President Eisenhower, President Reagan, President Lincoln, 
all of the Presidents who have led in resolving great crises, I hope 
President Obama will as well.
  I want him to succeed in resolving this crisis, and the crisis 
includes not just raising taxes on rich people--I mean, of course, most 
people are in favor of raising taxes on the guy with the bigger house 
down the street. It includes finding a way to fix the debt.
  I would make one other point on the fiscal cliff. I mentioned that I 
thought the campaign was over, but the President was in Michigan 
yesterday on what looked like a campaign event. It seems to me, that 
time would have been better spent here in Washington, D.C. working on 
the fiscal cliff, but he was in Michigan. By my way of thinking, he was 
doing two things: First, he was encouraging the people of Michigan to 
continue to deny working people the right to get or keep a job without 
having to pay union dues; and, second, to continue to perpetuate a 
system that will keep our auto industry from being able to compete in 
the world marketplace.
  Michigan is on the verge of becoming the 24th right-to-work State in 
the United States. The state Senate and the House each passed separate 
bills in Michigan last week. They passed a final bill today, and I 
understand the Governor is about to consider whether to sign it. This 
is what it will do:
  It will ensure that employees in Michigan do not have to pay union 
dues in order to get or keep a job.
  The President said yesterday that Michigan legislators shouldn't be 
taking away the people's right to bargain for better wages or working 
conditions. But no one, in passing a right-to-work law, is taking away 
workers' rights. They're actually giving them a new right--the right 
not to have to pay union dues in order to get or keep a job. Workers 
have the right to collectively bargain. Federal laws have recognized 
that since the 1930s. But since 1947, the Federal Government has also 
said that States have the right to determine whether to a state may 
prohibit compulsory unionism. So if Michigan goes the way of the right-
to-work law, 24 States have made that decision.
  The President also said that these right-to-work laws ``have nothing 
to do with economics and everything to do with politics.'' I would 
respectfully disagree with that based upon my life's experience. Thirty 
years ago, Tennessee was the third poorest State. I was looking around 
for a way to increase family incomes and to attract new jobs. So I went 
off to Japan to recruit Nissan. We had virtually no auto jobs in 
Tennessee at the time. They took a look at a map of the United States 
at night with the lights on, showing that most of the people lived in 
the east. While most of the people lived in the east, the center of the 
market is where you wanted to be if you are making big heavy things, 
and the center of the market had moved toward the southeast. So 
Tennessee and Kentucky were more in the center of the market than 
Michigan or other states where autos had normally been manufactured. So 
Nissan looked aggressively at Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia. But 
then they looked at something else.
  None of the States north of us had a right-to-work law. They had a 
very different labor environment. So Nissan came to Tennessee. They 
weren't the only ones. General Motors and the United Auto Workers 
partnership came to Tennessee with a Saturn plant. They still have an 
important General Motors plant there where the workers are members of 
the United Auto Workers, but it is in a right-to-work State. Over the 
last 30 years, there have probably been a dozen large assembly plants 
built in the Southeastern United States. There are about 1,000 
suppliers in our State today.
  What has been the effect of the arrival of the auto industry in 
Tennessee, attracted by, among other things, our right-to-work law? 
One-third of our manufacturing jobs today are auto-related jobs. And 
what has been the effect on the United States? It has maintained a 
competitive environment where those who want to sell cars in the United 
States can make them in the United States. Without that competitive 
environment, my guess is that most of those cars would be made in 
Mexico or some other place around the world.
  If you don't believe me, read David Halberstam's work in 1986, a book 
called ``The Reckoning'' about the American auto industry. In Mr. 
Halberstam's words, the big three carmakers and the United Auto 
Workers, had enjoyed setting wages, setting prices, and ultimately 
became uncompetitive. They laughed at these little Datsuns that Nissan 
was selling on the

[[Page S7730]]

west coast and these little Beetles that Volkswagen was selling in the 
United States in the 1960s and 1970s. They ignored the warning of Mitt 
Romney's father, George Romney, the president of the American Motors 
Corporation, who said there is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched 
success. He said that in the 1960s. And what happened? The American 
automobile industry nearly collapsed.
  I believe what saved the industry, as much as anything else, was the 
right-to-work laws and the existence of a competitive environment in 
the Southeastern United States, where workers could make cars 
efficiently, be paid well for their work, and make them here in the 
United States, instead of in Japan. What President Carter said to me 
when I was Governor of Tennessee was: Governors, go to Japan, persuade 
them to make in the United States what they want to sell in the United 
States. They did that and they did well. In fact, the Nissan plant has, 
for year in and year out, been the most efficient and successful auto 
plant in North America.
  The right-to-work law has been about jobs and it has made a 
difference in Tennessee. I am not entirely sure why Michigan has had a 
difficult time with its economy lately, but perhaps not being a right-
to-work state is one reason. Michigan's right to adopt this law has 
been an important part of our law in Tennessee. I have literally grown 
up with it. I remember, as a 7-year-old, Senator Taft arguing the Taft-
Hartley Act, or at least I heard my parents talk about it. Section 
14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act gave States the right to say that workers 
in their State did not have to pay union dues to get or keep a job.
  And I well remember Everett Dirksen's arguments on the Senate floor 
in the mid-1960s. President Johnson, at the behest of union leaders, 
wanted to repeal Section 14(b). Dirksen rose up against it. He said:

       It is the right of the State to do it if it so desires; if 
     the Governor signs the bill, or if they override the 
     Governor's veto. That should be their prerogative in a 
     country where the States and those who represented the States 
     in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were safeguarded by 
     that residual clause in the Constitution. The right of States 
     to prohibit compulsory union membership has been challenged 
     repeatedly by union officials. But that right has been upheld 
     consistently by the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme 
     Court.

  Finally, as a Tennessean, I could be upset that Indiana, and now it 
appears Michigan, has adopted right-to-work laws. That puts Tennessee 
at less of a competitive advantage. I believe in States rights. I 
believe States have the right to be wrong as well as the right to be 
right. With all these Midwestern States having the right to be wrong 
and not having right-to-work laws, we benefited enormously in our State 
by the arrival of the auto industries and other manufacturers.
  But for our country to exist over the next 20 or 30 years in a very 
competitive world, where jobs can be anywhere, where things can be 
manufactured anywhere, we want at least those things that are going to 
be sold here to be made here. Having a right-to-work law which permits 
the UAW and General Motors to have a partnership at one plant in 
Tennessee and Nissan and Volkswagen to have a nonunion plant at another 
place in Tennessee, by vote of the employees, I submit, will make us a 
stronger, competitive country.
  It has everything to do with economics, and I wish the President 
yesterday had spent his time on the fiscal cliff instead of going to 
Michigan and arguing in favor of denying workers their right get or 
keep a job without having to pay union dues, and denying efforts to 
keep our American automobile industry as competitive as it needs to be 
in the world marketplace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                                Medicare

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no great secret that the Congress 
has a very low favorable rating. Many people shake their heads and they 
wonder why this institution is so dysfunctional. There are a lot of 
reasons for that, but I suggest one of the reasons has to do with a lot 
of hypocrisy that we see in both bodies of Congress. I will give one 
example.
  As all of us know, during the recent Presidential campaign, 
Republicans attacked Democrats over and over for voting to cut Medicare 
as part of the Affordable Care Act. They ran a significant part of 
their campaign on saying: Democrats have cut Medicare. We Republicans 
are here to protect Medicare.
  In fact, this is exactly what Mitt Romney said on August 15, 2012.

       My campaign has made it very clear: the President's cuts of 
     $716 billion to Medicare, those cuts are going to be restored 
     if I become President and Paul Ryan becomes Vice President.

  The reality is that what we did under the Affordable Care Act 
resulted in zero cuts to benefits. We tried to make the system more 
efficient. But be that as it may, the Republicans posed as great 
champions of Medicare against those terrible Democrats who wanted to 
cut it. Meanwhile, Democrats went to town, taking on the Ryan budget 
which did make devastating cuts to Medicare and, in fact, wanted to 
voucherize that program. So we have Republicans beating Democrats for 
ostensibly--not accurately--trying to cut Medicare, Democrats attacking 
Republicans for, in fact--accurately--wanting to cut Medicare, and 
where are we today?
  If we read the newspapers we hear and we know as a fact that Mr. 
Boehner, the Republican Speaker, has proposed devastating cuts in 
Medicare--a month after the election where the Republicans said they 
were going to defend Medicare. They want to raise the Medicare 
eligibility age from 65 to 67. Frankly, I am concerned there may be 
some Democrats--not a whole lot, I hope none, but some Democrats--who 
may end up going along with that disastrous proposal. That is 
hypocrisy. Everybody during the campaign is saying the other guy wants 
to cut Medicare. The day after the campaign, our Republican friends are 
talking about devastating cuts and maybe some Democrats are prepared to 
support that.
  Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would be an 
unmitigated disaster. It would cut Medicare benefits by $162 billion 
over the next decade and would deny Medicare to over 5 million 
Americans who are 65 or 66 years old.
  The American people, when asked how do you feel: We are looking at 
deficit reduction. Do you think it is a good idea to raise the Medicare 
age? The American people overwhelmingly say, no, that is a dumb idea, 
don't do it.
  According to a November 28, 2012, ABC News Washington Post poll, 67 
percent of the American people are opposed to raising the Medicare 
eligibility age, including 71 percent of Democrats and, I suggest to my 
Republican friends, 68 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of 
Independents.
  While there may be division in the Senate or House, there is no 
division among the American people. They think it is a dumb idea and 
the American people are right. They are right for very obvious reasons.

  Think about some woman who is 66 years of age, not feeling well. She 
goes into the doctor's office and she is diagnosed with a serious 
health care problem. There is no Medicare there for her. What does she 
do? She goes over to a private insurance company. What do you think the 
private insurance company is going to charge this person who is already 
ill? An outrageous rate she cannot afford. What happens to this senior, 
that person who is 65 or 66? Do they die? Do they go bankrupt? Do they 
go to their kids who do not have the money to help them stay alive? It 
is a disastrous idea.
  Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would leave at 
least 435,000 seniors uninsured every year. Imagine being 66 and not 
having health insurance. Easy for folks around here in the Congress to 
laugh. Easy for wealthy people to laugh about it. It isn't so funny 
when you are living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year and have no health 
insurance. It would increase costs to businesses by $4.5 billion. It 
would, of course, increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors; the 
estimate is about $3.7 billion.
  For the individual senior, the estimate is that for two-thirds of 
seniors age 65 to 66, they would pay an average of $2,200 more for 
health care. They are trying to live on $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a 
year. Suddenly they are hit, on average--could be more, could be less--
$2,200 a year. On it goes.
  It would increase premiums by about 3 percent for those enrolled in 
the

[[Page S7731]]

health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act because many 
65- and 66-year-olds would be enrolled in the exchanges instead of 
Medicare. It would save the Federal Government $5.7 billion in 2014, 
but it would cost seniors, businesses and State and local governments 
$11.4 billion--double that, double what the Federal Government would 
save.
  I hope all those folks who, before the election--Republicans and 
Democrats--were running around the country and in their own States 
saying: We are for the middle class; we are going to protect Medicare--
I hope they go back and read their preelection speeches and stick to 
what they said before the election.
  That is one of the issues out there in terms of the so-called fiscal 
cliff or deficit reduction. Let me talk about another insidious one, in 
terms of raising the age of 65 to 67 on Medicare. That is a disaster, 
but it is pretty clear, everybody understands what it is about. There 
is now an underhanded way, an insidious way that some people are 
talking about doing deficit reduction, the so-called chained CPI, which 
nobody outside Washington, DC, has a clue as to what it is about.
  What it would do is change the formulation in terms of how we 
determined COLAs for seniors, disabled vets, and others. The bottom 
line is, in my view and the view of many economists, we underestimate 
the inflationary cost of what seniors are spending because a lot of 
their spending goes into prescription drugs, health care, and that has 
gone up faster than general inflation. What the chained CPI says is: 
Oh, no. What we have now is too generous and we have to cut back. We 
have to make the COLA skimpier.
  This is exactly what a chained CPI would do for people on Social 
Security. What it says is that somebody who was age 65 would see their 
benefits cut by $560 a year when they turn 75 and $1,000 a year when 
they turn 85. Again, I know we have CEOs from Wall Street who have huge 
salaries, who receive huge bonuses, who have the best care available in 
the world, they have great retirement programs--these guys who were 
bailed out by the working families of America when their greed nearly 
destroyed the financial system of the world--they are now coming to 
Capitol Hill and they are saying we have to cut Social Security and we 
have to cut Medicare and we have to cut Medicaid.
  For those guys, when we talk about $560 a year for somebody who is 
75, that is not a lot of money and $1 thousand when you are 85--what is 
a thousand bucks? Let me tell you, $1,000 is a lot of money when you 
are trying to survive on $18,000 or $20,000 a year. We must not allow 
that to take place.
  There is something many people do not know; that is, the chained CPI 
would go beyond cutting benefits for seniors on Social Security. It 
would take a real devastating whack at disabled veterans. What about 
that? I want my Republican friends or any Democrats who support that to 
come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people that when 
we send young men and women over to Afghanistan and Iraq and they got 
their arms blown off, they got their legs blown off, and we are now 
going to balance the budget on their backs by cutting benefits for 
disabled veterans--come to the floor of the Senate and tell the 
American people they support a chained CPI which would do exactly that.
  We have some folks here saying, yes, people are making billions of 
dollars, we don't want to cut their taxes. But, yes, we will cut 
benefits for disabled vets who lost their arms and legs in Afghanistan. 
That is an obscenity and I hope very much we do not go in that 
direction.
  When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to deal with it. It is 
a serious problem. There is a lot of discussion about the need to deal 
with $4 trillion over a 10-year period, and I support that. Let's talk 
about a way we can go forward without balancing the budget on the backs 
of the elderly, disabled vets, working families.
  First of all, we have to understand and acknowledge that in the 
deficit reduction debates of 2010 and 2011, the Republicans won, 
basically, those negotiations. We have to be honest about that. 
Republicans acknowledge that. Some Democrats do. Republicans are 
tougher than Democrats, Democrats cave, Republicans stand tall.
  We have to understand, despite the fact we have a growing inequality 
in this country, rich getting richer, middle class shrinking, after all 
the discussions about deficit reduction, the wealthiest people in this 
country have yet to pay one nickel more in taxes. But because the 
Democrats are not quite as tough as the Republicans, what has happened 
is that we have cut, in those two negotiations, $1.1 trillion in 
spending already. So if we are talking about a $4 trillion bill, 
understand that we have already cut $1.1 trillion, which leaves $2.9 
trillion to be dealt with. I think the President is right, and I simply 
hope this time he sticks to his guns and does what he says.

  What I am suggesting is that there are ways to do deficit reduction 
that are fair. The first point, in terms of $4 trillion over a 10-year 
period, we have already cut over $1 trillion in terms of spending--$1.1 
trillion. No. 2, I think the President is right in suggesting we have 
to ask for significant revenue from the wealthiest people in this 
country--the top 2 percent--without asking for any tax increases for 
the bottom 98 percent. That would add $1.6 trillion in revenue, 
bringing us somewhere around $2.7 trillion, so we have a $1.3 trillion 
problem. Over a 10-year period, that is not a difficult problem to 
solve.
  Let me throw out a few ideas, and I am sure other people have equally 
good ideas.
  Before we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we might want 
to address the reality that this country is losing about $100 billion 
every single year from corporations and wealthy people who are stashing 
their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens, and 
$100 billion is a heck of a lot of money.
  At a time when gas and oil prices have soared recently, when we know 
major oil companies have in recent years paid nothing, in some cases--
despite being enormously profitable--in Federal taxes, we can and must 
end tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies.
  This country is now spending almost as much as the rest of the world 
combined in terms of defense. Our friends and allies in Europe provide 
health care for all their people. In many of these countries, college 
education is free. We are spending twice as much as part of our GDP as 
they spend on defense. I think it is time to take a hard look at 
defense spending, and I think we can make cuts there which will still 
leave us with the kind of military we need to defend ourselves.
  Instead of raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, 
instead of cutting benefits, we can make Medicare and Medicaid more 
efficient. I believe we can save at least $200 billion over a 10-year 
period by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and lowering prescription 
drug costs for seniors. For example, the Medicare Part D prescription 
drug program prohibited Medicare from negotiating with the 
pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. The VA negotiates, and 
other government agencies negotiate. Medicare should be able to do 
that.
  Fortunately, the war in Iraq is over. We are about to wind down in 
Afghanistan, and there are savings there.
  So before I give the mic over to my colleague from Vermont, I wish to 
conclude by saying, yes, we go forward on deficit reduction, but there 
are ways to do it. At a time of growing wealth and income inequality in 
America, we can move forward and make significant reductions in our 
national debt, in our deficit, without doing it on the backs of the 
elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the 
Washington Post on the subject of increasing the age for Medicare 
eligibility be printed in the Record.

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2012]

    Raising Medicare Age Could Leave Hundreds of Thousands Uninsured

                           (By Greg Sargent)

       It looks increasingly possible that lawmakers will reach a 
     fiscal cliff deal that includes a hike in the Medicare 
     eligibility age--a concession to those on the right who seem 
     determined to see very deep entitlement cuts, even if they 
     take benefits away from vulnerable seniors. One argument for 
     raising the eligibility age is that seniors who lose benefits 
     can get insurance through Medicaid or the Obamacare 
     exchanges.
       But a new report to be released later today undercuts that 
     argument--and finds that up to half a million seniors could 
     lose insurance if the eligibility age is raised.

[[Page S7732]]

       The report, by the Center for American Progress, points out 
     a key fact that's been mostly missing from the debate: The 
     hope of getting seniors who lose Medicare insured through 
     Obamacare could be seriously compromised by the Supreme Court 
     decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid 
     expansion. This would inflate the number of seniors who could 
     be left without insurance, because many would fall into the 
     category of lower-income senior that would be expected to 
     gain access to Medicaid through its expansion. (Jonathan Cohn 
     has written about this extensively.)
       Here's how CAP reached its conclusion. The nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that a rise in 
     the eligibility age could mean as many as 270,000 seniors are 
     left uninsured in 2021. But that's assuming Obamacare is 
     fully implemented in all states. The CAP report points out 
     that 10 states have publicly declared they will opt out of 
     the Medicaid expansion, and more are undecided.
       The CAP study then totaled up how many seniors below the 
     poverty line live in states that may opt out of the Medicaid 
     expansion, using 2011 data. The total: Over 164,000. This 
     table shows how many of these seniors live in each of these 
     states:
       Add these to the aforementioned 270,000 seniors, and you 
     get a total of approximately 435,000 seniors who could be 
     left without insurance annually by 2021. And this is a 
     conservative estimate--it's based on 2011 data, and the 
     population of seniors will grow significantly over the next 
     decade.
       Now, it's very possible that many of these states will 
     ultimately drop their bluster and implement the Medicare 
     expansion. But Republican state lawmakers are also stalling 
     in setting up the exchanges and resisting the law in other 
     ways. With Obamacare implementation up in the air, it may be 
     too risky to raise the eligibility age and hope Obamacare can 
     pick up the slack.
       ``With opponents of the health care law still working to 
     block it at every turn, many more seniors would become 
     uninsured because they would have nowhere else to turn,'' 
     CAP's president, Neera Tanden, tells me. ``As a result this 
     misguided proposal would undermine the promise of affordable 
     health care for all.''
       On top of this, the report finds, raising the eligibility 
     age could also undermine a key goal of Obamacare by inflating 
     medical costs and health care spending, for a range of 
     reasons: Cost shifting, tampering with the health and age 
     levels in insurance pools, and an increased reliance on 
     private insurance, which isn't as good as Medicare at 
     controlling costs.
       In my view, the speculation that Dems will ultimately agree 
     to raising the eligibility age has been a bit overheated--
     it's not clear this is definitely on the table. But it's 
     certainly possible. After all, some on the right seem 
     determined not to accept any entitlement reform as ``real'' 
     unless vulnerable beneficiaries are harmed, and Obama and 
     many Dems prefer a deal to going over the cliff. So anyone 
     who doesn't want to see this happen should be making noise 
     about it right about now. And there are a range of 
     alternative ways to cut Medicare spending without harming 
     beneficiaries.
       I'll bring you a link to the report when it's available.

  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I applaud my colleague from Vermont for 
what he has said. I think he expresses the feelings of so many 
Vermonters across the political spectrum, so I thank him for doing 
that.

                          ____________________