[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8005-S8011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FISCAL CLIFF

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the real-world 
consequences of failing to achieve a fair and balanced solution to 
avert the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that would otherwise 
occur at the end of December--the end of this month.
  Failing to continue unemployment insurance, allowing taxes to rise on 
middle-income Americans, and cutting Federal spending too much and too 
soon during a struggling economic recovery could, as the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated, cause a new recession.
  This is a fate we can and should avoid for people in my State and 
across the country. Indeed, families in Rhode Island are still getting 
their economic footing and cannot afford another economic setback. An 
economic downturn will erase the strides we have made so far to 
strengthen our economy and exacerbate the widening income inequality, 
which Americans sense and recognize in an economy that all too often 
seems stacked against them. Instead, we must work toward a compromise 
that is fair, helps the middle class, creates jobs, and strengthens and 
accelerates our economic recovery.
  As I see it, widening income inequality and the sense that future 
generations will not see the same kind of economic security as my 
generation is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation. 
Over the past several decades, top earners have taken a bigger and 
bigger chunk of income while wages have stagnated for far too many 
Americans.
  From 2000 to 2007, incomes for 90 percent of workers rose by about 4 
percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans saw income 
gains of 94 percent. The vast majority of Americans have seen wage 
gains that are barely enough to keep their heads above water, while a 
very small number of top-income earners have seen an extraordinary 
growth in income.
  In 2010 alone, about 20 percent of all income went to the top 1 
percent. We are now back to income inequality levels similar to just 
before the Great Depression. Such wide disparities are unsustainable, 
create economic instability and threaten our social fabric.
  In the past, when income inequality has reached these kinds of 
levels, Democrats and Republicans have both recognized its 
destabilizing impact and worked together to reward success while 
providing meaningful opportunities and a sense of fairness for all 
Americans.
  I believe there are straightforward ways we can begin to reverse this 
escalating income inequality--ways which are true to the founding 
principles of our Nation. After all, we have done it before. From the 
end of World War II and well into the 1970s, incomes grew rapidly 
across the United States and economic prosperity was broadly shared. As 
our economy grew, every level of America shared in that growth.
  By making education affordable, fostering innovation and job 
creation, and providing economic security to retirees through Medicare 
and Social Security, our country went from a paralyzing Great 
Depression to an economic superpower. We were able to accomplish such a 
drastic transformation because we were willing to consider revenue as a 
way to invest in the future and promise economic security to our 
seniors.
  Focusing spending on policies that work and balancing revenue is at 
the core of this debate. I have made tough choices in the 1990s that 
balanced the budget, generated a surplus, and supported robust job 
creation. In January of 1993, the unemployment rate stood at 7.3 
percent, and by January of 2001 that rate had been reduced down to 3.9 
percent. That period of record growth also saw a substantial decline in 
the poverty rate. In 1993, 15.1 percent of Americans were in poverty, 
but thanks to job growth and an expanding economy based upon a balanced 
approach to deficit reduction--including revenue and reduction in 
expenditures--poverty fell to 11.3 percent in 2000.
  But the unpaid wars of the Bush administration, excess tax cuts for 
the wealthy, and a financial crisis brought on by lax regulation under 
the Bush Presidency erased those hard-fought gains of the 1990s. As a 
result, we have seen education become more expensive, Federal 
investments that support economic prosperity for all have been reduced, 
and economic gains have been concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, in 
spite of repeated claims, lower tax rates for the wealthiest haven't 
driven job creation and economic growth. We have had record low income 
tax rates; yet now we are struggling with one of the worst unemployment 
crises we have seen since the Great Depression.
  I believe the election has shown Americans want us to return to the 
principles that work for the benefit of everyone, not just a select 
few. With that in mind, the path forward should be clear.
  We should continue tax cuts for income up to one-quarter of a million 
dollars and reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion. We should 
continue extended unemployment insurance for 2 million people who will 
lose it otherwise. We should prevent further immediate cuts to Federal 
investments in things that keep us safe, grow our economy, and enhance 
the lives of Americans, whether it be infrastructure, workforce 
training or research and development.
  What we should absolutely not do is make changes, hasty changes, to 
Social Security and Medicare that would undermine the promise of 
economic security to seniors, not just this generation of seniors but 
succeeding generations of seniors. Fairness, opportunity, respect for 
the rules, and a sense of security in retirement, those are the 
priorities that can't be lost as we debate the budget.
  So I am disheartened to hear that Republicans are holding the middle 
class and the entire economy hostage in order to preserve nearly $1 
trillion in additional tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, 
while at the same time proposing detrimental changes to Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I believe this is an untenable 
position and one I hope my colleagues on the other side will soon 
abandon.
  Moreover, the Republican proposal does not provide immediate, short-
term aid to 2 million Americans out of work and looking for employment. 
These were men and women who were working, and as a consequence of the 
economic difficulties over the last few years have lost their jobs. 
Their proposal would not, as the President's plan does, put Americans 
back to work, not just by continuing benefits in terms of unemployment 
insurance but by putting Americans back to work improving our roads, 
bridges, and transportation infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, in the past, too many on the other side of the aisle 
have stymied efforts to accelerate the recovery like blocking jobs 
legislation that was paid for by asking millionaires to pay Clinton-era 
rates on income over $1 million. They have endorsed proposals that 
would transform Medicare into a voucher program and Medicaid into a 
block grant, which would merely shift health care costs to seniors and 
States rather than address underlying cost drivers and inefficiencies.

[[Page S8006]]

  So it is not surprising Speaker Boehner has put forth a significantly 
flawed proposal, in my view, that would jeopardize our economic 
recovery, undermine the middle class by not providing immediate support 
for our recovery, and do very little to achieve real deficit reduction.
  While the President, in contrast, has put forward a clear and 
specific plan, the Speaker's proposal is light on details related to 
deficit reduction. It is, I sense, another sign that the Republican 
Party is out of touch with the majority of Americans who favor the 
President's approach. We have had an election in which voters made it 
clear that if we are going to propose major policy changes, then those 
proposals must be real and credible. Americans want us to be candid and 
honest with them as we make these difficult decisions.
  We can disagree about policy--we do that all the time--but it is hard 
to disagree about simple arithmetic. The Speaker, for example, has 
proposed $800 billion in taxes through ``limiting deductions and 
lowering rates,'' also known as ``lowering rates and broadening the 
base.'' But as many nonpartisan analysts have shown, the numbers don't 
add up. ``Lowering the rates and broadening the base'' just means tax 
cuts for the wealthy and higher taxes for the middle class because 
deductions for home ownership, charity, State and local taxes would 
have to be severely limited for most Americans in order to pay for the 
top rates and avoid further growing the deficit.
  It is not only the math that doesn't add up, but it is also their 
assumption about job creation and the economy. Historical data shows 
reductions in top tax rates have had little impact when it comes to 
creating jobs and boosting growth. But tax cuts do, according to the 
data, increase income inequality.
  In contrast, the President and Democrats have been clear with the 
American people that we can't afford nearly $1 trillion in additional 
tax breaks for the top 2 percent--which do little for job creation and 
exacerbate income inequality. We should let the top two marginal tax 
rates expire. Democrats have already passed legislation in the Senate 
to do that. And again, to be clear, letting the top marginal tax rates 
on income over a quarter of a million dollars expire would still mean 
all Americans get a tax cut for income below that level.
  Moreover, Speaker Boehner, in his proposal, again raises the specter 
of increasing the Medicare eligibility age and reducing Social Security 
benefits. While raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 
beginning in 2014 would result in $125 billion in Federal savings, it 
would basically shift all those costs onto State governments and the 
private sector.
  To help illustrate this cost shift, the Kaiser Family Foundation 
examined what would happen during the first year the policy would take 
effect, 2014. In that year, individuals would not qualify for Medicare 
until age 65 and 2 months. This change would trigger $5.7 billion in 
Federal savings. However, spending on the part of State governments, 
employers, beneficiaries and individuals and families slated to 
purchase health insurance through new health insurance exchanges would 
double--to the tune of $11.4 billion. Indeed, increasing the Medicare 
eligibility age is a shell game that will just shift costs and do 
nothing to bend the proverbial cost curve.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to reduce the 
deficit by $125 billion, there are better ways to do it. We can start 
by closing egregious loopholes that benefit companies that shift jobs 
overseas or benefit oil and gas companies.
  And there are ways to reform Medicare and Medicaid without shifting 
costs to beneficiaries and making the goal of a secure retirement 
harder to achieve. Indeed, the Affordable Care Act makes a downpayment 
on deficit reduction with a sensible and thoughtful approach to 
addressing the underlying drivers of health care costs. And we can do 
more in this regard. We can eliminate overpayments to Medicare 
Advantage plans. We can allow the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to negotiate directly with companies on the cost of 
prescription drugs in Medicare--or, at the very least, increase rebates 
in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
  We should not look to Social Security to solve our fiscal deficit 
either. Social Security will continue to spend less than it takes in 
until 2033. And even if we don't do anything to address this very long-
term issue, beneficiaries would still receive 75 percent of their 
expected benefits, according to the law. Moreover, Social Security is 
not a driver of the deficit. If we make any changes to the program, 
they must be done, I believe, outside the debate on the deficit and 
directed at extending the life and solvency of the Social Security 
trust fund in order to keep our commitment, not only to this generation 
of seniors, but to succeeding generations of seniors.
  Shoring up Social Security can be achieved in several ways, for 
example, by broadening the taxable wage base. The last time Social 
Security was reformed in 1983, the cap on taxable income covered 90 
percent of earnings. Now the cap only covers 85 percent of income and 
is steadily decreasing. The first thing we can do is begin to restore 
the original intent of the program and we can do that by lifting the 
cap on wages over $250,000.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side would hear the same message 
with respect to some of their proposals regarding Medicaid. Medicaid is 
already a rather efficient program. Medicaid actually costs less per 
beneficiary than private insurers to cover similar people with similar 
health issues. Medicaid spending has grown at a slower rate for 
beneficiaries than private insurance. Changing the financing structure 
of Medicaid is just another example to score a political victory at the 
expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
  I hope to work with all my colleagues, on both sides, to strengthen 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But now, with only 3 weeks 
left, it is not the time to make hasty and drastic alterations to the 
foundation of economic security for seniors and for their families. 
Because when we talk about seniors, we are also talking about their 
sons and daughters who would have to step up and fill the gap if we 
made unwarranted changes to Medicare and to Social Security.
  Many of these Republican proposals don't sound particularly serious. 
The revenue and deficit reduction targets are deceptive and, worst of 
all, it seems to be more sloganeering, not problem solving. Our goal 
should be improving the economy and reversing the stark trend of income 
inequality that has been exacerbated by this great recession and 
prolonged unemployment.
  We should not cut the deficit on the backs of the middle class and 
seniors. We only have a few weeks before various provisions of the law 
will begin to cut into our economic growth. The loss of unemployment 
insurance, for example, will be immediately harrowing for the 2 million 
on unemployment insurance; middle-income families will be squeezed more 
and more as their taxes rise and government spending in critical 
programs is slashed, all because some on the other side are more 
concerned with protecting tax breaks for the wealthiest.
  Economists believe this kind of economic contraction could lead to 
another recession, where once again low- and middle-income families 
will feel the brunt of the downturn and have the hardest time making up 
lost ground during the ensuing recovery.
  I hope my Republican colleagues drop their attempts to cut the 
deficit on the backs of 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small 
businesses in order to provide additional tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 
percent of Americans. I hope my Republican colleagues drop their 
demands to make drastic and hasty changes to Medicare, Medicaid and 
Social Security. I urge them to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, 
continue unemployment insurance, and work with us to develop a rational 
alternative to sequestration. This approach is fair to the middle 
class, will grow our economy and create jobs, and will help turn around 
income inequality in our country.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S8007]]

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business and that I be allowed to consume as much time as 
needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today with an infinite 
appreciation for the institution of the U.S. Senate as well as a 
profound sense of gratitude as I prepare to conclude my 18 years in the 
Senate and my nearly 40 years in elective office on behalf of the 
people of Maine.
  It has been difficult to envision this day when I would be saying 
farewell to the Senate, just as it was impossible to imagine I would 
one day become a U.S. Senator as I was growing up in Maine. But such is 
the miracle of America, that a young girl of a Greek immigrant and 
first-generation American, who was orphaned at the age of 9, could in 
time be elected to serve in the greatest deliberative body the world 
has ever known and become the third longest serving woman in the 
history of the U.S. Congress.
  So in contemplating how to begin my remarks today, I was reminded of 
the words of the renowned American poet and son of New England, Ralph 
Waldo Emerson, who said:

       Cultivate the habit of being grateful for every good thing 
     that comes to you, and to give thanks continuously. And 
     because all things have contributed to your advancement, you 
     should include all things in your gratitude.

  That perfectly encapsulates how I am feeling on this day--thankful 
and blessed. In that light, I first and foremost want to thank the 
people of Maine for allowing me to be their voice, their vote, and 
their champion for 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 
for three terms in the U.S. Senate. One of the definitions of the word 
``trust'' is ``a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence.'' And 
to have had the trust of Maine people, who have placed their faith and 
confidence in me, is an honor of indescribable magnitude. Indeed, 
serving my magnificent State over the past 34 years in the Halls of 
Congress has been the greatest privilege of my life.
  I also want to thank my amazing husband, Jock McKernan, who is with 
us today and who, as you know, was a former Congressman and former 
Governor of Maine. In fact, when Jock was Governor while I was serving 
in the House of Representatives, we used to joke that our idea of 
quality time together was listening to each other's speeches. But 
truly, we have shared a passion for public service and quite a unique 
journey together, with 56 years between us in elective office, and we 
have never regretted a single moment.
  I am also pleased to say he is joined today by our very wonderful, 
longtime friends, Dan and Sharon Miller from Maine.
  On this occasion, I also think of my family, without whom none of 
this would have been possible. I have often joked that the secret to my 
electoral success is coming from such a large extended family--some of 
whom we started on campaigns at birth, I might add. But they have been 
a source of boundless love and support over the years, through the 
struggles as well as the celebrations, and I thank them from the bottom 
of my heart.
  It is also impossible to serve for this long and at this level 
without dedicated and exceptional staff, and during my tenure in the 
House and Senate, I have had nearly 400 people on my staff who have 
helped to make all the difference for me, for Maine, and for 
Washington. Here we have had tremendous support with the invaluable 
guidance and efforts on the part of my staff through the extraordinary 
events of more than three decades, and they have represented the very 
best and brightest the Nation has to offer. They are here today in the 
back of the Chamber and up in the gallery, and I applaud them time and 
time again. In fact, we had a wonderful reunion of all of my staff, and 
I realize it just simply would not have been possible to have been on 
this legislative journey without them.
  The same is true of my staff in Maine, who have not only been my eyes 
and ears but also my stalwart surrogates in assisting Mainers with 
their problems and in navigating the Federal bureaucracies. Like me, 
they have never been inclined to take no for an answer, and in so doing 
they have touched literally thousands of lives, helping to soften the 
hardest days and brighten the darkest.
  I thank and commend the stellar staff of the Senate, from all of 
those ensuring the operation of the Senate here on the floor, to the 
cloakroom staff, the legislative counsel, to all of our pages who are 
here from all across America, to all those who actually keep the 
facilities running, and certainly to the officers who are on the front 
lines of Capitol security, protecting our visitors and all of us. You 
have my deepest admiration for your immeasurable contributions to the 
Senate and to our country.
  I want to express my gratitude to the minority leader for his 
gracious remarks about my service. Senator McConnell has worked 
tirelessly in leading us through extremely challenging moments for the 
Senate and for the country. His longevity of legislative experience has 
made him a true asset to this body, for our Republican caucus, and I 
have the most heartfelt respect and appreciation for his contributions 
to his home State of Kentucky and to this country.
  To my friend and colleague Susan Collins, I want to thank her for her 
very kind and extremely generous words on the floor last week. Public 
service was imbued in Senator Collins from her earliest days in 
Caribou, ME, where, incredibly, both her parents, Don and Pat, were 
former mayors of the city. I happened to have served with her father 
Don when he was also in the State legislature. For the past 16 years, 
Senator Collins has provided exemplary representation not only for 
Maine but for America with her voice of reason, pragmatism, and 
thoughtfulness, and Maine will truly be in outstanding hands with Susan 
Collins as our senior Senator.
  I am also indebted to my great friend Senator Mikulski, the dean of 
the women in the Senate and for all women, for the warm and wonderful 
comments she made yesterday on the floor. I have known Barbara for more 
than 30 years, beginning with our mutual service in the House of 
Representatives. She is truly a dynamo who has always brought to bear 
an unyielding tenacity that has consistently been reflected in her 
vigorous advocacy for those she represents.
  As I said, in 2011 she became the longest serving woman in the 
Senate, and there is no one I would rather have surpassing the length 
of service of Maine's legendary Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, than 
Senator Barbara Mikulski. What a reflection on her legislative stature 
that she has now assumed the mantle of longest serving woman in the 
history of the U.S. Congress.
  To our Presiding Officer, I would say that I have enjoyed serving 
with her as well in this august Chamber and getting to know her. I know 
she will do well into the future, and I have enjoyed working with her 
over the years.
  I see two of my colleagues here: Senator Isakson, who is my neighbor 
in the Russell Office Building--a gentleman in every way. He has been 
magnificent to work with. And, of course, my colleague Senator 
Murkowski from Alaska, who has made some great contributions to the 
Senate with her consensus-building, her dedication, and her exceptional 
abilities. I want to thank them because I have certainly enjoyed 
working with them and getting to know them.
  To all of my Senate colleagues, past and present, this Chamber would 
simply be another room with fancy walls without the lifeblood of 
passionate service and dedication you bring to this institution and our 
Nation.
  We all have our stories about where we came from, about what shaped 
our values and aspirations and why we care so much about public service 
as a vehicle for securing for others the American dream, for all who 
seek to embrace it. In my instance, my own legislative journey 
commenced when I was elected to fill my late husband's seat in the 
Maine House of Representatives. I felt then, as I have throughout my 
career, that our role as public servants, above all else, is to solve 
problems. I

[[Page S8008]]

have often reflected on my 6 years in the State house and the State 
senate in Augusta, ME, because that is where I found politics and 
public life to be positive and constructive endeavors. Once the 
elections were over, my colleagues and I would put the campaigns and 
the party labels behind us to enact laws that genuinely improved the 
lives of Mainers.
  I also inherited a legacy of bipartisanship and independence from 
Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who is best remembered for her remarks 
made during only her second year of her first term in the U.S. Senate 
when, with truly uncommon courage and principled independence, she 
telegraphed the truth about McCarthyism during the Red Scare of the 
1950s with her renowned ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech on the 
Senate floor. In 15 minutes she had done what 94 of her colleagues--
male colleagues, I might add--had not dared to do, and in so doing 
slayed a giant of demagoguery.
  So when people ask me why I may be challenging a particular party 
position or why I don't simply go with the flow, I tell them: Please 
don't take it personally. I can't help it, I am from Maine. That is 
what Maine people truly expect from their elected officials--they 
expect you to do what you believe is right for the right reasons and in 
the right way. We have seen that reflected time and again, not only 
with Margaret Chase Smith but in the distinguished service of great 
Senators who have preceded me from Maine, from Ed Muskie to Bill Cohen 
and the former majority leader of the Senate, George Mitchell.
  Throughout my tenure, I have borne witness to government's incredible 
potential as an instrument for that common good. I have also 
experienced its capacity for serial dysfunction. Indeed, as I stated in 
announcing I would not seek a fourth term in the Senate, it is 
regrettable that excessive political polarization in Washington today 
is preventing us from tackling our problems in this period of 
monumental consequences for our Nation.
  But as I prepare to conclude my service in elective office, let me be 
abundantly clear: I am not leaving the Senate because I have ceased 
believing in its potential or I no longer love the institution, but 
precisely because I do. I am simply taking my commitment to the Senate 
in a different direction.
  I intend to work from the outside, to help build support for those in 
this institution who will be working to reestablish the Senate's roots 
as a place of refuge from the passions of politics, as a forum where 
the political fires are tempered, not stoked--as our Founding Fathers 
intended. Because the Senate in particular is our essential legislative 
mechanism for distilling the vast diversity of ideologies and opinions 
in America, so that we might arrive at solutions to the challenges we 
face.
  The fact is, we are a can-do country, infused with an irrepressible 
can-do spirit. It is in our blood, and in the very fiber of who we are. 
It is in our hardworking families, and in the limitless 
entrepreneurship and innovation of our people. And it is profoundly 
reflected in our heroic men and women in uniform--whose unflagging 
bravery and professionalism I have been privileged to witness firsthand 
throughout my tenure in Congress as they answer the call in places like 
Iraq and Afghanistan, with many having made the ultimate sacrifice so 
that we may live and that freedom may always ring.
  Here in this chamber, I have spoken with many of you who came here to 
get things done, to solve problems and achieve great things for our 
Nation. I have heard you lament the inability to accomplish more in 
today's polarized atmosphere. And as I have traveled throughout Maine 
and America--even overseas, people ask me, has it always been this way?
  I tell them, I am so passionate about changing the tenor in Congress 
because I have seen that it can be different. It has not always been 
this way. And it absolutely does not have to be this way.
  I have been in the Congress long enough to have experienced firsthand 
what can be accomplished when individuals from various political 
backgrounds are determined to solve a problem. For instance, when I 
first came to the House of Representative in 1979, I joined the 
bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, which I ultimately 
cochaired for 10 years with Democratic Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. We 
certainly did not agree on everything, but with only 17 women in the 
House and Senate, we simply could not afford to draw political lines in 
the sand when it came to matters of importance to women.
  So when we spoke on these issues, we spoke as women, not as 
Republicans or Democrats. That is what drove our agendas at the 
caucus--and, together, we started to make a real difference for women. 
That was a time in America when child support enforcement was viewed as 
strictly a woman's problem, a time when pensions were cancelled without 
a spouse's approval, a time when family and medical leave wasn't the 
law of the land, and a time when, incredibly, women were systematically 
excluded from clinical medical trials at the National Institutes of 
Health--trials that made the difference between life and death.
  As Senator Mikulski eloquently described yesterday in this chamber, 
she was waging a battle for equity in women's health research in the 
Senate while Pat Schroeder, Connie Morella and I were fighting in the 
House. At a pivotal juncture, Senator Mikulski launched a key panel to 
explore this shocking discriminatory treatment which further galvanized 
national attention. And in the end, together, we produced watershed 
policy changes that, to this day, are resulting in life-saving medical 
discoveries for America's women.
  In the House, we often worked across party lines to craft our Federal 
budgets, in sharp contrast to today's broken process where we cannot 
pass a budget in 3 years, even with unprecedented deficits and debt. 
When President Reagan was elected in 1980, he knew he had to build 
coalitions to pass budgets that would address the tumultuous economy. 
And the result was that the moderate northeast Republican group called 
the Gypsy Moths and the conservative-to-moderate Democratic group 
called the ``Boll Weevils'' negotiated budgets together, to help 
reconcile our political and regional differences and in a model for 
bipartisanship, all of us spent days and weeks fashioning budgets, 
literally going through function by function.
  Arriving at compromise was not easy by any means. It never is. But 
the point is, we can undertake the difficult work, if we choose to do 
so.
  I was able to make a difference even as a member of the minority 
throughout my entire tenure in the House, by reaching across the 
political aisle. And in 1995, when the voters of Maine entrusted me to 
be their voice and their vote in the U.S. Senate and I was finally 
serving in the majority, I believed this kind of cooperative 
disposition would remain an indispensable commodity in meeting the 
challenges of the times.
  That is why I joined the Senate Centrist Coalition shortly after 
arriving in the Senate, which had been formed by Senators John Chafee 
and John Breaux during the 1994 health reform debate to bridge the 
political divide. After Senator Chafee passed away in 1999, Senator 
Breaux and I thought it was an imperative that we revive the Coalition 
to help foster bipartisanship following the divisiveness of the Senate 
impeachment trial. And following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 
Bush v. Gore that adjudicated the presidential election, and an evenly 
split Senate with 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, Senate leaders Lott 
and Daschle joined with nearly one-third of the Senate at a meeting of 
the coalition to explore how to move forward in a bipartisan fashion.
  And it is precisely this kind of approach that is crucial, because it 
is only when we minimize the political barriers that we can maximize 
the Senate, allowing it to become an unparalleled incubator for results 
that truly matter to the American people.
  It was a cross-aisle alliance that produced the so-called E-Rate 
program in 1996. This was a landmark law ensuring every library and 
classroom in America would be wired to the revolutionary resources of 
the Internet, which one publication has ranked as fourth in a list of 
innovations and initiatives that have helped shape education technology 
over the past generation.
  My good friend and colleague Senator Rockefeller, with whom I have 
been privileged to work on so many issues, was doggedly determined to 
enact this

[[Page S8009]]

benchmark initiative. In typical fashion, Jay was not going to take no 
for an answer--which made us perfect partners and co-authors, as I was 
equally determined. And by working with Members of both parties who 
were willing to hear the facts and judge on the merits, we overcame the 
hurdles and the E-Rate program was born.
  During the 2001 tax debates, Senator Blanche Lincoln and I as members 
of the Finance Committee joined together to increase the amount of the 
child tax credit and make it refundable, so that low income families 
who didn't earn enough to pay Federal taxes could still benefit from 
the credit. Ultimately, our measure was enacted, becoming only the 
second refundable tax credit ever, and ensuring the child tax credit 
would assist an additional 13 million more children and lift 500,000 of 
those children out of poverty.
  I also think of how my friend, Senator Landrieu who is sitting here 
in the chamber as well, and I formed the Senate Common Ground Coalition 
in 2006, to rekindle cross-party relations. And not only have Mary and 
I made history as the first women to serve simultaneously as chair and 
ranking on a standing committee, but we have worked together on 
numerous measures that are assisting America's greatest jobs 
generators, our small businesses.
  In a shining example of what is possible with civility and bipartisan 
teamwork, Senator Ted Kennedy and I coauthored the landmark Genetic 
Nondiscrimination Act--to stop insurance companies and employers from 
denying or dropping coverage based on genetic tests, so individuals 
would not forgo those potentially life-saving tests. At that juncture, 
Democrats were in the majority--and traditionally, the chair of a 
committee takes the lead name on legislation. But Ted approached me and 
said essentially that, because my work on GINA had made it possible, it 
should be ``Snowe-Kennedy'' not ``Kennedy-Snowe''--a magnanimous 
legislative gesture from the legislative lion of the U.S. Senate. And I 
am proud to say GINA passed in 2008 and has been referred to as ``the 
first major civil rights act of the 21st century.''
  So there are templates for working together effectively in the U.S. 
Senate on behalf of the American people. But on occasion, it is the 
very institution of the Senate itself that is preserved when we stake 
out common ground.
  Even in the highly charged atmosphere of the presidential impeachment 
trial, we made the process work. During a gathering of the Republican 
Caucus, I advocated that we hold a bipartisan meeting in the Old Senate 
Chamber, to generate agreement between the parties on the conduct of 
the trial. The Senate had been about to decide the guidelines of the 
trial on a purely partisan basis, but by convening both parties, we 
were able to chart a logical, reasonable and judicious course.
  In 2005, I joined the so-called ``Gang of 14,'' comprised of 7 
Republicans and 7 Democrats and spearheaded largely by Senators John 
Warner, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Ben Nelson. The group was formed 
to avert an institutional crisis as a result of repeated, systematic 
filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees that had been a 
corrosive force on the Senate. In response, the Republican majority was 
seeking to break the logjam by exercising the so-called ``nuclear 
option,'' that would have jettisoned longstanding rules requiring 60 
votes to end a filibuster.
  That 60 vote threshold had always been a bulwark protecting the 
rights of the minority, but would have become just a simple majority 
vote. Yet, just as we were about to cross this political Rubicon, the 
Gang of 14 forged a pact based on mutual trust, that we would only 
support a filibuster of judicial nominees under what we labeled 
``extraordinary circumstances,'' and we would oppose the ``nuclear 
option,'' an agreement that embodied the very manifestation of the 
power of consensus building.
  So as this body contemplates changes to its rules in the next 
Congress, I would urge all of my colleagues who will return next year 
to follow the Gang of 14 template and exercise a similar level of 
caution and balance. Because what makes the Senate unique, what 
situates this institution better than any other to secure the continued 
greatness of our Nation, is that balance between accommodation of the 
minority and primacy of the majority. And regardless of who is in the 
minority, any suppression of the ability to debate and shape 
legislation is tantamount to silencing millions of voices and ideas--
which are critical to developing the best possible solutions.
  I have mentioned all of these examples as illustrations of the 
boundless potential of the Senate--and that our problems are not 
insurmountable, if we refuse to be intractable. It is not about what is 
in the best interests of a single political party, but what is in the 
best interests of our country.
  As far back as the fledgling days of our Nation, our Founding Fathers 
warned of the dangers of undue allegiance to political parties--a 
potential that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison specifically cited 
in the Federalist Papers. Now, one study by three political scientists 
pegs Congress at its highest level of polarization since the end of 
Reconstruction in 1877. It is true that, in the intervening years, we 
have had no duels to settle disagreements and no canings on the Senate 
floor as occurred in the earlier years of the Senate--although there 
was a physical brawl on the Senate floor in 1902. Yet, the fact we are 
still more polarized now than at any moment in 140 years speaks 
volumes.
  So instead of focusing on issues as the Senate was uniquely 
established to do, we've become more like a parliamentary system where 
we simply vote in political blocks. And we have departed and diverged 
from the Senate's traditional rules and norms in a manner that is 
entirely contradictory to the historical purpose of the Senate and the 
role of the Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to play.
  The very name of our institution, the Senate, derives from the Latin 
root senatus, or council of elders, where the council of elders 
represented the qualities of experience and wisdom and not just some 
experience and some wisdom in a deliberative body, but more experience 
and more wisdom in the highest deliberative body.
  For thousands of years, and for the Greeks and our Framers alike, the 
Senate has stood as an assembly where the lessons of individual 
experiences were translated by measured wisdom into stable collective 
judgments. Therefore, understanding through patience, appreciation 
through tolerance, and consensus through moderation are all required to 
reach such judgments and to do the work of the people. Indeed, I would 
argue it is only by recognizing and striving to meet the institutional 
ideals of the Senate that we can aspire to fill our obligations to 
those we represent.
  We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I have 
always believed this oath necessarily included a duty to support and 
defend the Senate as an institution and the integrity of its 
deliberative process. That requires the ability to listen before 
judging, to judge before advocating, and to advocate without 
polarizing. It also includes a capacity to differ with one's own party, 
and even to reach agreement and compromise with another party when 
one's own party is unable to prevail. Such leadership necessarily 
requires all Members to recognize their individual duty to serve the 
people best by serving our Chamber with the highest standards of 
consideration, deliberation, and explanation.
  Former Supreme Court Justice Souter once said, and I am paraphrasing: 
All of the Court's hard cases are divisive because one set of values is 
truly at odds with another, and the Constitution gives no simple rule 
of decision. For, in truth, we value liberty as well as order, we value 
freedom as well as security, and we value fairness as well as equality.
  So in the tough cases judges have a hard job of choosing not between 
those things that are good and those that are evil, but between the 
many, and often competing, good things that the Constitution allows. 
Justice Souter could have been talking about the work of the Senate and 
the often difficult choices we too are required to make. This 
observation accepts the intrinsic competition that defines these 
difficult choices but resolves to rely on reason, meaning, and the 
reputational integrity of the process to make and explain the ultimate 
decisions.
  Indeed, the Justice concluded his remarks by saying he knew of ``no 
other

[[Page S8010]]

way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are--and who we 
mean to be--as the people of the United States.''
  We have witnessed the heights the Senate is capable of reaching when 
it adheres to its founding precepts. Just think about how we came 
together in the aftermath of the catastrophic events of September 11 to 
secure our country and to help heal our Nation. Just think about the 
major debates of the 20th century on such watershed issues as the 
establishment of Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. 
None of these profound advancements would have been woven into the 
fabric of our society today if they had been passed simply on party-
line votes rather than the solidly bipartisan basis on which each of 
them was enacted.
  I am not claiming there was some kind of golden age of bipartisanship 
where everyone all sang from the same legislative hymn book, and I am 
not advocating bipartisanship as some kind of an end unto itself. That 
is not the point. What I am saying is we have seen how cooperation in 
the past has resulted in great achievements, which likely never would 
have occurred if bipartisanship had not intervened as a means to 
attaining those most worthy ends.
  Our grandest accomplishments in the Congress were also a reflection 
of the particular compromises and level of urgency required by the 
times in which they were forged. Recently, New York Times columnist 
David Brooks summarized this concept well when he wrote that there are 
policies that are not permanently right and that ``situations matter 
most. Tax cuts might be right one decade but wrong the next. Tighter 
regulations might be right one decade, but if sclerosis sets in then 
deregulation might be in order.''
  As we confront the impending confluence of issues known as the fiscal 
cliff, we are at a moment of major significance that requires the 
application of the principle that Brooks describes. For the sake of the 
country, we must demonstrate to the American people that we are, in 
fact, capable of making the big decisions by putting in place an 
agreement and a framework to avoid the fiscal cliff before we adjourn 
this year.
  We are surrounded by history perpetually in the Senate as well as 
throughout the Capitol. How could we not be inspired by it to rise to 
this occasion? Indeed, if you know history, you understand the very 
story of America's most formative days was defined by an understanding 
that effective governance requires the building of consensus, and such 
consensus is achievable even after the exercise of passionate advocacy, 
which, in conclusion, brings us back to the creation of a document we 
all cherish and revere; that is, our United States Constitution.
  Madam President, 225 years ago, 55 leaders from divergent geographic 
and philosophical backgrounds converged on the city of Philadelphia to 
draft a new structure of government to strengthen our fledgling 
country. These were no shrinking violets. They had risked their lives 
and fortunes to establish a new nation under God, indivisible, with 
liberty, and justice for all.
  They were strong-willed and unabashedly opinionated. They disagreed 
and argued about a great many matters, both petty and consequential. 
Thomas Jefferson even considered Virginia, and not the United States, 
as his country. Yet by September of that year, 39 of the original 
delegates signed the most enduring and ingenious governing document the 
world has ever known, the Constitution of the United States.
  It didn't happen because 55 people who shared identical viewpoints 
gathered in a room and rubber-stamped their unanimous thinking. It 
happened because these visionaries determined that the gravity and the 
enormity of their common goal necessitated the courage to advance 
decisionmaking through consensus.
  I worry that we are losing the art of legislating. When the history 
of this chapter in the Senate is written, we don't want it to conclude 
it was here that it became an antiquated practice. So as I depart the 
Senate that I love, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the Founding 
Fathers' blueprint in order to return this institution to its highest 
calling of governing through consensus. For it is only then that the 
United States can ascend to fulfill the demands of our time, the 
promise of our Nation, and the rightful expectations of the American 
people.
  Thank you, Madam President. May God bless you, and may God bless the 
United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, for those of us in the Chamber, and 
those of us listening, that was one of those beautifully crafted and 
beautifully deliberated and eloquent statements not only about a 
Member's service as a Member of the U.S. Senate, but a vision of the 
world we created and what we can be again. It is so appropriate for the 
parting words of the Senator, who is truly among the great that has 
served here.
  I have had the great pleasure of working with the Senator from Maine. 
As she very graciously pointed out, we served together on the Small 
Business Committee. We were the first of two women to chair a major 
committee for an entire Congress.
  There are Members here--Senator Mikulski and others--who served for 
many years with Senator Snowe. For the minute that I have before others 
speak, I just wanted to say that she has served for over 34 years in 
public office. Her integrity is beyond reproach. She served with 
intelligence and grace that is widely admired, not just on Capitol Hill 
and in her home State of Maine, but broadly throughout the United 
States and the world. Her capacity for hard work and tedious 
negotiations on important matters is inspiring to us all. She has been 
a clear and clarion voice for women and girls in Maine, the United 
States, and around the world, for their legal rights, their economic 
advancement, and their social advancement.
  Above all, as we just heard, she has been a clarion call for common 
sense and common ground. She was literally involved in every major 
effort in the last 30 years to find common sense and common ground in a 
place that is getting harder and harder to find those two qualities 
every day. So it is with a deep sense of regret that I, for one, am 
going to have to say goodbye to her as a colleague and a Member of the 
Senate.
  I want her to know that I will continue--and I know many of my 
colleagues feel this way--to work as closely with her in any capacity 
of her choice to continue to be a great voice for compassion, 
compromise, and common sense.
  The people of Maine are losing a great Senator. The United States is 
losing a unique talent that has served this country and this 
institution so magnificently. We wish her the best, and we say a 
respectful goodbye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, yesterday I had the honor of 
addressing the full Senate to pay a more amplified tribute to the 
gentlelady from Maine. I will miss her dearly and deeply. We have 
served both in the House and the Senate together. We have done real 
good things, including one of our finest bipartisan efforts in the area 
of women's health in getting women included in the protocols 
appropriately, the scientific way at NIH when we were excluded. We 
helped to advance the whole issue of more money for research for breast 
cancer and other diseases that are generally specific to women.
  I will never forget the day when Good Housekeeping called and said 
that Senator Snowe and I were going to get an award. I immediately 
called my family and told my sisters that I had won the Good 
Housekeeping Award. Well, they thought that was hilarious. I have many 
awards for speaking, longest serving, but not Good Housekeeping. When I 
told them I was getting the award with Senator Snowe, they knew it had 
integrity, credibility, and was well deserved.
  So I just want to, from the bottom of my heart, not only thank the 
people of Maine, who will express their gratitude for her service. She 
has a duty-driven approach, an uncommon sense to get the job done in a 
way that is inclusive and has benefited our entire country whether they 
be small business or the little people whose voices are never heard.

[[Page S8011]]

  So we wish her God bless, Godspeed, and we hope to see her speaking 
out exactly on what she did today, a call toward citizenship and more 
bipartisanship and less partisanship.
  God bless you, Senator Snowe.

                          ____________________