[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7737-S7742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TRANSACTION ACCOUNT GUARANTEE PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT--Continued

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Bush Tax Cuts

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have been hearing a lot about the so-
called Bush tax cuts from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
Given the rhetoric being used by some on the other side to describe 
this tax relief, I would like to take this time to correct the record.
  But, first, during this talk about the fiscal cliff and about the tax 
cuts that sunset at the end of the year, all we have been hearing since 
the election is, What are we going to do about taxes? That is very 
significant as a result of the last election because I think it is a 
foregone conclusion there is going to be more revenue raised.
  But if we raise the amount of revenue the President wants raised, and 
raise it from the 2 percent he wants to raise it from--the wealthy--
that is only going to run the government for 8 days. So what will we do 
the other 357 days or, if we look at the deficit, it will only take 
care of 7 percent of the trillion-plus deficit we have every year. What 
about the other 93 percent?
  So the point is that we can talk about taxes and taxes and taxes, but 
it is not going to solve the fiscal problems facing our Nation. We 
don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. So we should 
have been spending the last 3 weeks talking about how we are going to 
take care of the other 93 percent of the problem. The President should 
have declared victory 3 weeks ago, and we wouldn't have had all this 
lost time between now and right after the election.
  But I said I wanted to set the record straight. This tax relief of 
2001 and 2003 reduced the tax burden for virtually every tax-paying 
American. It did this through across-the-board tax rate reductions, 
marriage penalty relief, and enhancing certain tax provisions for hard-
working families, such as doubling the child tax credit.
  Since the passage of this tax relief, there has been a concerted 
effort by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to distort the 
truth about the present tax policy of the Federal Government. That tax 
policy has been in place for the last 12 years now. They have attempted 
to distort the truth behind its bipartisan support, its benefits to 
low- and middle-income Americans, and its fiscal and economic impact.
  As one of the architects of the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation, I come 
to the floor to correct what I believe have become three common myths 
about this tax relief. The first myth is that this tax relief was a 
partisan Republican product. The second is that the tax relief was a 
giveaway to the wealthy. And the third is that the tax relief is a 
primary source of our current fiscal and economic problems.
  First things first. We often hear the other side divisively refer to 
this tax relief as the Bush tax cuts. Given the rhetoric on the other 
side, one would think all this tax relief was forced through along 
party-line votes. The record proves otherwise. The conference report to 
the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed the 
Senate by a vote of 58 to 33. In all, 12 Democrats voted for this 
legislation. Senator Jeffords, who later caucused with the Democrats, 
also voted for it.
  As far as major pieces of legislation goes, it is difficult to find 
such major legislation passed with such broad support since there has 
been Democratic control of both the Senate and the White House. The 
President's 2009 stimulus bill, as an example, only had the support of 
three Republicans, as well as the Dodd-Frank bill. Of course, there is 
the health care bill, the President's signature legislation, which 
passed with no Republican votes.
  Moreover, all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief was extended in 2010, just 
2 years ago, with strong bipartisan support, and signed into law by 
this President. At that time--2 years ago--the Senate vote tally was 81 
to 19. Now, understand, that has to be considered overwhelmingly 
bipartisan. So just 2 years ago we had overwhelming bipartisan support 
for the Bush tax cuts. Yet somehow this is a partisan measure we are 
dealing with. Given this record, instead of calling it the Bush tax 
cuts, as they are called, we really should be calling it the bipartisan 
tax relief.
  I now would like to turn to the other side's criticism of the 
bipartisan tax relief or, as they say, tax cuts for the wealthy or 
another way they say it is it is a giveaway to the rich. This rhetoric 
demonstrates the difference in philosophy between this Senator and my 
Democratic colleagues.
  First of all, a reduction in tax rates is not a giveaway to anyone. 
The income a taxpayer earns belongs to that taxpayer. It is not a 
pittance the taxpayer may keep based upon the good graces of our 
government. The burden should not be on the taxpayer to justify keeping 
their income. Instead, it should be on us in Washington to justify 
taking more away from them.
  Secondly, there is a tendency on the other side to view everything as 
a zero sum game. In their minds, if someone has more, it means someone 
else will have less. So I would like to quote Ronald Reagan as the best 
example of this attitude when he said too many people in Washington 
``can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the 
conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the 
thin one.''
  I believe this is what is driving the animus against the so-called 
wealthy on the other side. They are under the impression the wealthy 
got rich at the expense of someone less fortunate.
  The problem with this view is that in a free economy goods and 
services are transferred through voluntary exchanges. Both parties are 
better off as a result of this exchange; otherwise, it wouldn't occur. 
Moreover, wealth is not static. It can be both created as well as 
destroyed.
  At worst, the government is a destroyer of wealth. At best, the 
government is a redistributor of wealth. It is through the force of 
government the zero sum exchanges occur. It is the private sector that 
creates wealth through innovation and providing the goods and services 
we need and want.

  The leadership of the other side has become fixated on redistributing 
the existing economic pie. I believe the better policy is to increase 
the size of the pie. When this occurs, no one is made better off at the 
expense of anyone else.
  The constant rhetoric of pitting American against American based upon 
economic status is not constructive. It also has not been constructive 
to accuse those of us who support the present tax policy for all 
Americans as agents of the rich. And I will soon get into discussing 
why that isn't true, as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills.
  I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy for the purpose of wealth 
redistribution. I support progrowth policies to increase the size of 
the economic pie. Free market, progrowth policies are the only proven 
way to improve the well-being of everybody.
  My objection to the other side's characterization of the bipartisan 
tax relief is not only a philosophical one, but it is a factual one. 
The truth is that the bipartisan tax relief that was voted on in 2001 
made the Tax Code more progressive, not less. With all the rhetoric 
around here over the last 5 or 6 years, nobody believes that, so I have 
a chart to show that.
  Since its implementation, the share of the tax burden paid by the top 
20 percent has increased. Conversely, the bottom 80 percent has seen 
its share of tax burden decrease. Additionally, the percentage 
reduction in average tax rates between 2000 and 2007 was the largest 
for the lowest income groups.
  As you can see from this chart, there is a general trend downward 
from the

[[Page S7738]]

bottom 20 percent to the top 20 percent. The bottom 20 percent saw 
their average tax rate drop by the 25 percent that is shown there. The 
top 20 percent, on the other hand, only saw an 11-percent reduction, 
with the proportionate in between.
  The truth about the bipartisan tax relief apparently has been 
recognized by my colleagues on the other side. They do not like to 
admit this, but this must be so since they now claim to support 
extending 75 percent of the bipartisan tax relief bill. In other words, 
75 percent of what they are condemning of the 2001 tax bill the other 
side wants to make permanent law, which obviously I support too. You 
would think that if it really was a tax cut for the wealthy, however, 
the other side would be advocating letting all this tax relief expire. 
Certainly you would not think they would be advocating for more than 
half of it to be extended. To get around their seemingly contradictory 
position, they have stopped referring to the majority of the bipartisan 
relief as the Bush tax cuts. That term is now reserved only for the 25 
percent they wish to see expire. They now refer to the 75 percent not 
as Bush tax cuts but as middle-class tax relief. So I have news for my 
colleagues. The middle-class tax relief you now claim to support is the 
same relief you previously demonized as tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Finally, it has become en vogue for the other side to blame the 
bipartisan tax relief for everything from the Federal deficit to the 
state of the current economy. Neither is based in fact nor sound 
economic reason.
  It is undisputed that in 2001 the Congressional Budget Office was 
projecting a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. However, as a 
June 2012 CBO report shows, the bipartisan tax relief role in turning 
this projected surplus into deficits is dwarfed by other factors. This 
is the 2001-2003 tax cuts. See that smaller piece of the pie?
  Then let's look at what else is the justification, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office--not this Senator--about where the deficit 
came from.
  First off, the June CBO report tells us that their budget surplus 
projections were simply incorrect. That happens a lot with CBO. I like 
to refer to CBO around here as God because what they say goes, and you 
have to abide by it if you don't have 60 votes. But they aren't always 
right. Unlike God, CBO is not omnipotent. They do not have perfect 
foresight, and every once in a while even they make mistakes.
  CBO's surplus projections were based on rosy economic assumptions as 
well as faulty technical assumptions that did not pan out. CBO failed 
to predict the bursting of the tech bubble that was so beneficial in 
propping up the economy of the Clinton years. CBO also could not 
predict the September 11, 2001, tragedy that hit New York and the 
Pentagon, killing 3,000 Americans, which wreaked havoc on our economy.
  So add up all these things. All told, these and other economic and 
technical changes account for $3.2 trillion or, as I show in this 
chart, these faulty assumptions accounted for 27 percent of the change 
of the 2001 projections from surplus to deficit.
  By far, the biggest reason for the change from surplus to deficit was 
an increase in spending. Some of this spending was justified. This 
includes bipartisan support for increased spending to protect our 
Nation against future terrorist attacks. But, of course, as has become 
the custom around here, we spent and spent and spent some more. This 
spending not only continued but escalated with the election of 
President Obama. His first act was to increase the deficit by $800 
billion-plus through a failed stimulus package. In all, this increase 
in spending accounts for nearly 50 percent in the change from surplus 
to deficit. That is this part of the pie chart.
  So how about the tax cuts we hear so much bellyaching about from the 
other side? If you look closely at my chart, you will see I have 
divided the tax relief into two slices. These two slices add up to 
about 25 percent. Eleven percent of this, which I labeled ``all other 
taxes,'' primarily consists of the tax relief provided in President 
Bush's 2008 stimulus package, President Obama's 2009 stimulus, and the 
payroll tax holiday. Of course, these provisions had large Democratic 
support, as we all know. That leaves us with the 2001 and 2003 tax 
relief accounting for merely 12.9 percent of the change in the 
projected surplus.
  But understand what other people are saying--including, I think, even 
the President--about the reason we have this big budget deficit is 
because of the Bush tax cuts. Well, that is baloney. That is a far cry 
from being the driver of our deficits or even a substantial 
contributor. The truth is, even using CBO's static scoring assumptions, 
the tax relief did not push us into deficits. In fact, if the only 
change since CBO's 2001 projection had been the 2001 and 2003 tax 
relief, we would still be experiencing sizeable surpluses each year.
  Along with blaming the bipartisan tax relief for deficits, my 
colleagues on the other side have alluded to this tax relief as being a 
cause of our recent recession. The President even made this claim in an 
ad during the Presidential election.

  The exact logic of this claim escapes me. Apparently, it also escaped 
Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler. He described the reasoning 
supporting such a claim as a ``Rube Goldberg phenomenon.'' The Post was 
unable to find any respected academic study supporting this convoluted 
logic. There is good reason the Post could not find such a study. The 
focus of most economic research in this area is on the degree to which 
tax increases lower economic growth and tax decreases increase economic 
growth. There is considerable debate within this research, but it is 
difficult to find any suggesting that tax increases are good and 
decreases are bad for the economy.
  Now that I have explained and hopefully corrected these myths, I hope 
we can have a more constructive discussion on averting the fiscal 
cliff. Republicans have already stated they are willing to accept some 
new revenues. Speaker Boehner has put $800 billion in new revenues on 
the table. However, we still haven't heard any substantive ideas from 
the President or other leading Democrats about cuts to spending or 
entitlements. We haven't even heard the President say good things about 
the Simpson-Bowles recommendations--a commission he appointed, a 
commission that had Republicans and Democrats on it, a commission that 
reported conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats saying: We 
ought to do what we can to see the Simpson-Bowles approach through. It 
would be nice to see the President endorse a recommendation of a 
committee he appointed that had a suggestion for taking care of this 
fiscal cliff problem. If he had done that 2 years ago, we wouldn't be 
debating fiscal cliff today.
  So there are serious concerns on my side of the aisle that any 
agreement we reach will result in immediate tax hikes but promised 
spending cuts will never occur. We need more than just empty promises 
from the other side.
  The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need 
to get serious about looking at the spending side. It is time for the 
President to make good on his campaign promise of supporting a balanced 
approach to deficit reduction.
  I repeat what I said at the beginning. All we have heard for 3 or 4 
weeks now since the election is all about taxes. Too often, that is 
what Republicans are talking about, although they have to be considered 
now as a result of the election. But if we give the President 
everything he wants in the sense of taxing the wealthy with the figures 
he wants, it still runs the government only for 8 days. What about the 
other 357 days? It only takes care of 7 percent of the deficit problems 
we face year after year, and it is going to be year after year into the 
future if we don't get something done about it. So what about the other 
93 percent? The taxes aren't going to take care of that. You can't tax 
us out of this deficit problem because we have a spending problem.
  So if we had put as much time into the spending side of the ledger as 
we put into the taxing side of the ledger over the last 3 or 4 weeks, 
we would be well on the road and be certain to get out of here by 
Christmas Eve, which I have my doubts that we can.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                     Tributes To Departing Senators

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to make four separate statements 
in commendation to my fellow colleagues in the Senate and one back in 
Georgia.

[[Page S7739]]

                                Jon Kyl

  Mr. President, December of every even-numbered year is a sad time. 
Because of election outcomes or because of age and longevity, time 
takes over and some of our Members go and new Members come. I think it 
is important that we take the time to recognize those who served so 
long and served so well and served each of us--individuals such as Jon 
Kyl of Arizona, the whip for the Republican minority in the Senate. He 
is a great American, a great Arizonan, a man who carries a tremendous 
burden--two, as a matter of fact. One is trying to herd cats, known as 
the Republican conference, and the other is being the junior Senator to 
John McCain. Both of those are challenges that anybody would have a 
problem meeting, but Jon Kyl does it the right way. He has the 
temperament of a leader. I have been in 38 different legislative years, 
from the Georgia Legislature to the U.S. Congress. I have known a lot 
of whips. I have known a lot of them who cracked the whip, I have known 
a lot of them who were ineffective, and I have known a very few who 
were effective. And Jon Kyl is the most effective whip I have ever 
worked with and ever seen. He knows the issues and has the ability to 
communicate them. He knows how to put the party ahead of individual 
priorities but keep the country first no matter what it is.

  I will give you one good example. We were debating the START treaty 2 
years ago, which is a very important treaty for the United States. The 
Presiding Officer was on the Foreign Relations Committee when we had 
that debate. He might remember there were a lot of people who were 
concerned about the modernization of our nuclear arsenal while we were 
renewing the START treaty and what we would do in the prospective years 
ahead while we made a new treaty with Russia in terms of our 
modernization. It was Jon Kyl's leadership, working with Senator Kerry 
as the chairman of the committee, Secretary of State Clinton as our 
Secretary of State, and interests on both sides who carved out the 
agreement that ensured for the American people that we would have the 
modernized nuclear force we need to meet whatever challenge might come 
our way. That treaty passed in large measure because he gained the 
assurances from the administration and from those who were opposed that 
without modernization and the commitment for the money for it, it would 
not take place. That is not just a whip, that is a leader. That is a 
man who found a problem, found a solution, married the two, and we 
ratified a treaty. America is a safer country because of it, and our 
nuclear arsenal is being modernized.
  That is the kind of man you look for in a legislator. Jon Kyl is a 
great legislator, a great whip, and a great friend of mine. I pay 
tribute to him for his service to the U.S. Senate, for his service to 
the people of America, and for his service to the people of his State 
of Arizona.


                             Richard Lugar

  I would like to turn to Richard Lugar from Indiana. Richard Lugar is 
one of those rare people who are referred to as an institution, and he 
is truly an institution: Six terms in 36 years in the Senate, a 
candidate for President of the United States in the Republican primary 
a number of years ago, a bipartisan man who worked with then-chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn to put together the Nunn-Lugar 
agreement, which is allowing us to tear apart nuclear warheads, 
reprocess those nuclear warheads, tear down nuclear missiles and 
ballistic missile launchers, and have a safer world. The reason there 
is not a terrorist attack using nuclear fission materials today so far 
is probably more because of Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn than any two 
individuals in the United States.
  Dick Lugar is a man I admire greatly. When I came here, I hoped one 
day I could work on the Foreign Relations Committee so I would have the 
opportunity to work with Dick Lugar. That opportunity took place, and 
the Presiding Officer and I have served together with Dick Lugar for 4 
years. I watched Dick Lugar during tough times, during happy times, 
during good times, and during challenging times. He is always even. He 
has always got an even keel. His rudder is in the water. He knows where 
he wants to take the committee, but he doesn't drive it, he leads it.
  One of the great negotiators of our time, one of the great men of our 
time in terms of foreign relations, Dick Lugar is the man who has meant 
more to our country than anybody I can possibly think of today, and he 
has a legacy of supporting the State of Indiana in any way he possibly 
could, from the school board, to mayor of Indianapolis, to U.S. 
Senator, to a great lecturer and leader on the national and 
international stage. We will miss Dick Lugar very much, and I am sure 
Dick Lugar will miss us, but I hope all of us will remember and learn 
from that he taught us about a steady hand, good diplomacy, and the 
importance of diplomacy over guns any day of the week.


                              Kent Conrad

  I wish to turn to another individual, a member of the Democratic 
conference and a dear friend of mine, Kent Conrad from North Dakota.
  When I came to the Senate, the first thing I noticed about Kent 
Conrad was how he dressed. The second thing I noticed was his dog 
Dakota. You will see Dakota in the evening walking through the Halls of 
Congress, a smart little dog and his pet that he loves very much. His 
wife Lucy is a great lady and great leader in her own right in terms of 
Major League Baseball.
  Kent Conrad is a unique Member of the Senate. He has truly taken a 
bipartisan approach to the toughest problems we face in terms of 
spending, deficits, and debt. It was Kent Conrad who was willing to 
help support the Simpson-Bowles proposal when it passed the Senate, and 
then it was Kent Conrad who agreed to serve on Simpson-Bowles and came 
up with the recommendations they brought to us. It was Kent Conrad who 
went on the Gang of 6 and tried to work out a tough compromise on the 
tough issues before us, and it is Kent Conrad who has served as 
chairman of the Budget Committee of the Senate for the last 6 years. 
Along with Senator Sessions, he has done a great job, and along with 
his predecessor, Judd Gregg, they did an even greater job to see to it 
that we brought forward budgets and principles of spending money to 
help us not go into deficit or debt. Kent is one of those rare leaders 
who find the sweet spot. He looks for the place where people can find 
common ground. He understands that the importance of our job is the 
future for our children and our grandchildren.
  Whether North Dakota or Georgia, California or New York, Pennsylvania 
or Ohio, Kent Conrad is a Senator for all America. He has done a 
tremendous job for the United States. I wish him and Lucy and Dakota 
the very best.


                         Tribute to Bill Curry

  Mr. ISAKSON. I wish to turn to football coaches, which might seem to 
be a quick turn when you are talking about Senators, but in Georgia we 
are having a retirement that was just announced, the retiring of Bill 
Curry, the head coach of the Georgia State Panthers. Bill Curry is a 
legend in our State, not only of his time but in all time in terms of 
football. He played football in College Park and went on to Georgia 
Tech when they were in the Southeastern Conference. He was a small, 
200-pound center on the Georgia Tech football team. He went from 
Georgia Tech to the Green Bay Packers and played in the first Super 
Bowl game as a starting center and was traded to the Baltimore Colts 
and played in the famous game when Joe Namath promised a victory and 
delivered it against the Colts. He went on to play for other NFL teams 
until he was hurt in a game with the Los Angeles Rams with an injury 
caused by Merlin Olsen, who then later went on to be a great pro 
bowler. But he didn't quit when his career ended in terms of playing 
football; he went into coaching. He went back to his home alma mater, 
Georgia Tech, and coached as an assistant. He then took Pepper Rogers' 
place and became the head coach at Georgia Tech, took them to the bowl 
games, took them to conference championships, and was a true leader.
  From there he was sought out by the University of Alabama--a pretty 
big job in the South when it comes to football. He came after Bear 
Bryant had passed away and two successive coaches had failed to meet 
the Alabama standard. Bill Curry came and went to Alabama, and he 
scored. He won an SEC championship, 26 out of 36 games, and had a great 
career at Alabama.

[[Page S7740]]

  He went from there to the University of Kentucky, which had not had a 
winning record in 9 years when Bill Curry showed up. He molded somebody 
else's recruits into a winning team with a winning record and a trip to 
the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, GA. He went from there to take on an 
interesting challenge. Georgia State University called and said: Bill 
Curry, we are going to start an NCAA division football program. We 
would like you to start from scratch. We don't have a field, we don't 
even have a football, but we have a desire.
  Bill Curry took on that challenge and in 4 years built a great 
program which he will turn over to a new coach very shortly in Atlanta, 
a program where his first year, with a first-time football team that 
had never been together before, he won 6 out of 11 games and went on to 
have a great career and turn it over to another coach as he retires.
  But his legacy is not the SEC championship. It is not playing in the 
first Super Bowl or playing in the famous bowl that Joe Namath called 
and guaranteed. It is not his attendance at Georgia Tech. It is not 
what he did at Georgia State. It is the fact that everywhere he went, 
Bill Curry's legacy was men who played football to learn the game of 
life because he was always a disciplinarian. He told people how to do 
things the right way. He set standards for his men that lasted not just 
through the football season but through a lifetime. There are men 
playing football, running banks, running insurance companies, and 
teaching today all over America who learned from Bill Curry.
  On the occasion of his retirement at the age of 69 and the great 
success he has had throughout his career, I wanted to pause for a 
moment in the Senate and recognize not just his contribution to 
football but his contribution to the lives of young men and the people 
he has shaped to make this country and the State of Georgia a better 
State and a better country.
  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. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the bill 
before the Senate, a 2-year extension of the TAG Program. As everyone 
knows, this will be the second 2-year extension of a program that was 
put in place as an emergency measure taken during the height of the 
financial crisis. It was also meant to end once the crisis passed.
  I have exceptionally high regard for community bankers in Tennessee, 
as I know you do for those in Pennsylvania. They have had to deal with 
the financial crisis of 2008, a recession that had been left in its 
wake, and if that is not bad enough, since the passage of Dodd-Frank, 
they have had to deal with an onslaught of new regulations.
  Many of these regulations, no doubt, were ill-conceived. If we 
remember, a lot of those were put in place as aspirational goals. All 
of them have dramatically increased the compliance burden of being in a 
small banking institution. Yet none of them has been on the table to be 
fixed or improved by us in the Senate since 2010. Obviously, there are 
a lot of reasons for this, but from a standpoint of community bankers, 
there is no doubt this has been a shame.
  I am very hopeful that in the next Congress we will have a meaningful 
dialog about striking a better balance in terms of bank regulation, 
particularly as it relates to our community banks. Some of what we 
passed in Dodd-Frank makes a great deal of sense, but much of it does 
not, and it is for us to devote energy to fixing and improving the law 
where there are flaws. If we want to help community banks, this is 
where we should focus our energy, and I know there are a lot of 
bipartisan ideas around about how we can do that. I think all of us 
have heard from community bankers in our States about the onslaught of 
regulations they have, some of which was meant to deal with some of the 
bigger institutions. Again, that, to me, is where we can focus in a 
bipartisan way to give some relief to our community banks.

  Giving out limitless deposit insurance, though, I suppose some people 
have decided is a consolation prize, and I hate that. That is too bad. 
We should fix Dodd-Frank if we want to help our community banks. But 
the vote in front of us today is a TAG extension, so I wish to speak a 
little bit about that specifically.
  There are a series of policy reasons why it is time to end the TAG 
Program. I will go through a couple of them. First of all, the FDIC's 
Deposit Insurance Fund, or the DIF, is undercapitalized. This is a fund 
of reserves meant to protect taxpayers against an unexpected law 
stemming from bank failures. By law, the DIF is required to be at a 
1.35-percent of total outstanding deposits. It is, however, only at .35 
percent today. I do not see the wisdom in extending an insurance to 
$1.5 trillion in transaction deposits at a time when the Deposit 
Insurance Fund is already undercapitalized.
  Second, there is ample liquidity in our banking system as to support 
loan demand. In fact, the ratio of loans to deposits is at a historical 
low. Liquidity to make loans is not the problem; slow economic growth 
is the problem. Extending insurance to keep these deposits around then 
fixes a problem that simply does not exist.
  Third, the overwhelming majority of TAG deposits are actually with 
the largest banks. Some small banks have said they want an extension, 
but this is largely not a small bank product. Seventy-one percent of 
TAG deposits are in the largest banks. Sixty percent of TAG deposits 
are held by just the top five banks. I do not see the wisdom in 
leveraging the FDIC and the taxpayer to insure the deposits sitting in 
our country's largest financial institutions.
  Fourth, extension of the TAG Program raises serious moral hazard 
issues. It encourages large deposits in banks that may be troubled with 
no market discipline. Moral hazard is why, throughout the history of 
deposit insurance, it has always been limited. I think Washington has 
contributed quite enough to moral hazard problems over the last 5 
years--several years--and I think it is time for us to stop.
  Finally, if we want to help community banks thrive and succeed, our 
focus should be on dialing back Washington's desire to micromanage our 
banking institutions. The regulatory pendulum of Washington trying to 
micromanage these institutions has absolutely gone too far and our 
focus should be on getting the pendulum back to a more reasonable 
place. Extending limitless FDIC insurance for these transaction 
deposits does not further that policy objective. In fact, it takes us 
in the other direction.
  Let me put it another way: How can we ever get DC out of the business 
of telling banks where and when to lend if we are having DC guarantee 
all their deposits? The answer is we cannot.
  I am offering a couple amendments that help insulate the taxpayer. 
Although, in reality, it is time to fully end this program. Even more 
important, it is time for us as members of the Banking Committee to 
take up the real challenges still facing our financial system.
  I wish to say one other thing. I know all of us are watching as the 
President and Speaker Boehner and others are looking at dealing with 
the fiscal issue; we call it the fiscal cliff. I think all of us know 
what we need to do to deal with the fiscal cliff. We need a true fiscal 
reform package that I hope would be in the range of $4 trillion to $4.5 
trillion, so we can put this issue behind us and begin this next year 
with it in the rearview mirror and our economy taking off. Then we 
would show the world we have actually dealt with these issues, and 
people in our own country would have the confidence to invest in our 
country because they know we in Washington have been responsible in 
that way.
  One of the big discussions taking place right now is revenues. I 
think, at the end of the day, we are going to come to a conclusion very 
soon that it is probably time for us to go ahead and rescue the 98 
percent of the country that have been caught up in all this. My sense 
is we are going to have some resolution to that in the very near 
future.
  What I have found--and one of the reasons we don't have a solution--
is that people on both sides of the aisle

[[Page S7741]]

are focused on the revenue side, but so far there has been almost no 
discussion on the entitlement reform side. Candidly, I think it is 
uncomfortable for many in Congress and even at the White House, 
obviously, to deal with this issue. As a matter of fact, on this issue, 
what I would say--and I know there is a difference of opinion--here we 
have a country that every developed nation knows its greatest threat is 
fiscal solvency. Economists on both sides of the aisle have said the 
greatest threat to our country is us not dealing with the fiscal 
solvency and the $16 trillion debt we have, which is growing. Yet, in 
fairness, we have a President who so far has not been willing to lay 
out a plan to deal with this issue. While it pains me to bring this 
up--because I think we as elected officials and the White House should 
sit down and deal with this issue because we know it is the biggest 
issue our Nation faces--it appears to me it is very possible we may 
move through the end of this year only dealing with rescuing the 98 
percent of the people who have been caught up in this debate.
  So there is a moment--I hate to use this word, but there is another 
moment coming--which probably will force us to deal with another issue 
in other ways; that is, the debt ceiling. While I don't think it is 
mature that we have to have a line in the sand to force us to sit down 
and deal with this issue, it is where we find ourselves in this 
Congress and in dealing with this White House; that is, needing a point 
of leverage to focus these discussions.
  I hope we will sit down and come up with a $4 trillion, $4.5 trillion 
package to put this behind us--one that has both revenues and 
entitlement reforms--a solution that again would put this in the 
rearview mirror. But where I see us going is it is possible that by the 
time year end comes, all we will have done is rescued the 98 percent of 
taxpayers who have been caught in this and then moving to the debt 
ceiling as the next line in the sand that will be a forcing moment to 
cause us to deal with this issue. I think that is where we are headed 
unless something happens. I hope something big happens that I can 
support.

  I will tell my colleagues this: I have been through this process. We 
all have. The 112th Congress knows more about this fiscal issue than 
any Congress in the history of man. We have been through two dry runs. 
We know what the cost of each change is. We know how much it saves 
Congress and saves our country if we deal with these issues. One thing 
I wish to say is I cannot support another process that leads us to 
another fiscal cliff.
  Again, I hope the President and Speaker Boehner will come up with a 
solution that puts this behind us. We all know what we need to do. What 
we have lacked around here is the political courage to sit down--both 
sides of the aisle have issues; I understand that, but we have lacked 
the political courage to sit down and deal with this issue. It appears 
to me, again, that where we may be headed is toward the end of this 
month rescuing the 98 percent, putting that issue over to the side, and 
then using the debt ceiling or the CR as that forcing moment to cause 
us to finally come to terms with this fiscal issue.
  I regret we are in a place in our country where we have to have these 
forcing moments, but that is where I believe we are headed. I can say 
to everybody in here, what I cannot abide by, one Senator--since we 
know what all the solutions are, we know the changes that need to be 
made, we can sit down and go through columns on either side, including 
revenues and changes, to get us in a place where we need to be, but we 
haven't done it, and I am afraid we are heading to a place where we are 
going to have to have another forcing moment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          VAWA Reauthorization

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in communities across our country, millions 
of Americans, unfortunately, find themselves placed in danger by the 
very people who are supposed to love, care, and protect them. Domestic 
violence brings hopelessness, depression, and fear into the lives of 
those who fall victim to it.
  I rise this evening on behalf of our victims--they are our neighbors, 
family members, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers--as well as those 
people who are so careful in their desire to serve those who are 
subjected to domestic violence, to say that now--now--is the time for 
us to send to the President for his signature a bipartisan, commonsense 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill. We got caught in a lot 
of partisan bickering, and we failed to do that earlier this year. I 
would like to rectify that course.
  Each year more than 2 million women in the United States fall victim 
to domestic violence. In Kansas, my home State, an estimated 1 in 10 
adult women is domestically abused each year. Studies have shown that 
more than 3 million children witness domestic violence every year.
  All of these victims depend upon services and care provided by VAWA 
grants and funding recipients who benefit from those grants. On a 
single day last year shelters and organizations in Kansas that are 
funded in part by this legislation served more than 1,000 victims, and 
similar organizations around the country serve more than 67,000 victims 
each day.
  A few weeks back I visited one such organization, Kansas SAFEHOME. It 
is a tremendous organization that serves the greater Kansas City area. 
I have always believed we change the world one person at a time. What I 
saw in my visit to SAFEHOME was exactly that: making the difference in 
a person's life each and every day, one person at a time.
  SAFEHOME provides more than a shelter for those needing a place to 
live to escape from abuse. They provide advocacy and counseling, an in-
house attorney, and assistance in finding a job. The agency also 
provides education in the community to prevent abuse and further abuse. 
We often think it does not exist, and yet this organization is making 
clear that the prevalence of domestic violence is known and combated.
  Each year SAFEHOME helps thousands of women and children reestablish 
their lives without violence. The employees and volunteers there are 
making that difference that is so important in the lives of so many.
  After my visit to SAFEHOME, a Kansan posted a question on my Facebook 
wall. Mr. Bachman asked if I came away from my SAFEHOME visit with 
``any honest sense of how current political game playing [in 
Washington] and proposed legislation compromises not only the work 
[SAFEHOME] does, but also aggravates the conditions that breed and 
sustain violence and hostility against women.'' The question was do we 
know what our failures in Washington, DC, actually cause in the lives 
of folks across my State and around the country.
  The point this constituent makes is right on. Despite the important 
and honorable work these organizations are performing, they are faced 
with uncertainty regarding the level of funding and the support they 
will receive. We have gambled with the well-being of countless victims 
of domestic violence, and we have left these organizations in limbo and 
unable to provide the maximum amount of care possible.
  None of us here--Republicans or Democrats--can in good conscience let 
this continue. The election is over, the results are in, and I am 
hoping the days of extreme partisanship that plagued the 112th Congress 
are now behind us. We must begin to unite as a Congress, and history is 
clear proof that we can unite over the Violence Against Women Act.
  The passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and its two 
reauthorizations--one in 2000 and one in 2005--has been the result of 
and demonstrates that we can have successful bipartisan, bicameral 
efforts. In order for us to move forward on combating domestic violence 
and caring for its

[[Page S7742]]

victims, we must set aside the divisive rhetoric that surrounded this 
debate. Of course, both sides--all of us--want to end discrimination 
and agree that shelters and similar grant recipients should provide 
services to everybody who needs them.
  For anyone to suggest otherwise is not only disingenuous, but, more 
importantly, it is a waste of time. The millions of victims who depend 
on the services funded by VAWA deserve better from us; the American 
people we are here to serve deserve better from their representatives.
  It is past time for the House and Senate and for the Democrats and 
Republicans to come together and approach this reauthorization as a 
reauthorization. It is not a major piece of legislation to overhaul the 
law as it exists but to reauthorize the programs that are currently in 
existence. We need to do so with a sense of urgency, of dedication to 
the cause, and a willingness to compromise.
  If we do this, I am confident we can sort out the differences with 
respect to this bill and get it signed during this lameduck period. I 
stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
on both sides of this building to accomplish exactly that. The American 
people, the victims of domestic violence, and the shelters and support 
organizations that care for those victims of violence deserve that.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________