[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 170 (Sunday, December 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8543-S8544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FISCAL CLIFF

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are here just hours before a 
looming deadline that is going to affect just about every American in 
some way, and I do believe both sides of the aisle and both sides of 
the Rotunda want to come to a conclusion that will keep us from having 
what looks like a complete meltdown of governing in Washington.
  Someone asked the question in one of our conferences: When was the 
last time Congress was in session and voting between Christmas and New 
Year's? The answer was, since 1970 there has not been such a session. 
And it has actually happened only four times in the history of our 
country, and two of those times were dealing with World War II.
  So I think the enormity of the issue is very clear, and that is why 
we are here. I think we should have done this 6 months ago, a year ago. 
I think all of us agree we should not be here at this last hour still 
trying to negotiate a point at which so many Americans are going to be 
more heavily taxed.
  I was pleased to see that the distinguished deputy leader on the 
Democratic side talked about the three areas we have to address, and 
deficit reduction is most certainly one of them because we are facing a 
ceiling of a $16.4 trillion debt that is getting ready to be exceeded. 
So, yes, deficit reduction and entitlement reform are two areas we must 
address.
  This country cannot continue to have Social Security and Medicare 
spiraling toward insolvency. We cannot do it. But it is going to take a 
bipartisan approach. It is not rocket science to see that we have a 
Democratic Senate, a Republican House, and a Democratic President, and 
that is going to be the same starting January 3 of next year for at 
least 2 more years. So we know what we are dealing with, and I think it 
affects us right now in the fiscal cliff negotiations because we are 
not going to do anything unless it is bipartisan. We will not be able 
to pass anything in the House that does not have significant Republican 
votes in the Senate, and the Democrats in the Senate are not going to 
be able to support something that will not require some votes of 
Democrats in the House.
  So we are together--maybe it is like a dysfunctional family, but we 
do have to work together because without bipartisanship, nothing is 
going anywhere. Therefore, I think you have to go back to negotiations 
101, which is that someone in a negotiation has to win some and lose 
some. The other party in a negotiation has to win some

[[Page S8544]]

and lose some. The President is not going to get everything he wants. 
The Republicans in the House and Senate are not going to get everything 
we want, nor are the Democrats in the House and Senate.
  So we have areas where we can come together, and I have seen it. All 
of us were talking in the last couple of hours about how we have talked 
to our counterparts on the other side of the aisle about what could 
bring us together, and there are very clear areas where we can come to 
an agreement.
  We are not going to be able to negotiate all parts of what we must do 
to get our financial house in order. We are not going to be able to do 
tax reform in a comprehensive way, we are not going to be able to do 
the fixing of and reforming of our entitlement programs, and we are not 
going to be able to set all of the spending cuts we are going to have 
to do going forward right here in the next 36 hours. We cannot do it. 
That has to be done on a basis of determining after many hearings what 
our priorities are and what the ceiling on spending should be. We must 
set a ceiling. Is it 18 or 20 percent of gross domestic product? Is it 
some amount that goes down each year? That is the question that has to 
be decided after a lot of discussion next year.
  But what we can do is avoid a fiscal calamity by not having the 
sequestration take place on January 2 at midnight--but make that for a 
very short term. It cannot be 2 years of a moratorium on sequestration 
because then we would not get to where we need to be in determining the 
priorities that will lower the rate of spending in this country. Our 
problem in this country is a spending problem, and with a $16.4 
trillion debt, more spending is not going to be the answer.
  So let's look at a very short-term avoidance of sequestration because 
we do not want to disrupt our military when they have boots on the 
ground in harm's way. We would not do that. We would not do it on 
either side of the aisle. So we need to talk about some short-term 
sequestration avoidance but not a long-term one because there are 
things we can cut in the military budget that will not affect the 
equipment and the pay and the living conditions of our military. We can 
cut other things. So we have to be able to come to terms with not 
having sequestration but making it very short term.
  I think it is clear the President has wanted to increase taxes on 
what he considers the wealthy. I disagree with the President on what is 
wealthy, and I hope we can come to terms. Even the President has said a 
$400,000 threshold is something he could accept. Many on the other side 
of the aisle have said $500,000 or $600,000--$400,000 or $500,000 or 
$600,000 is something they could work with. And if we do some other 
things, I believe we could come to a consensus--not something that 
we like because I do not think we ought to raise taxes on anyone, and I 
have certainly voted that way, but there is some area where we can have 
a fix that will keep us from having to go over this cliff and hurt so 
many people in this country.

  I think it is so important that we look at the big-ticket items in a 
comprehensive way, knowing that we are going to have to do that next 
year. But there are things we can do right now. I do not know 1 person 
out of 100 here who wants the AMT to take effect and cause people who 
make $33,750 to have to pay more taxes. I think we should do away with 
the AMT completely, but certainly it should not kick in at $33,750. We 
need to fix it, and I think everybody here agrees we need to fix it.
  The distinguished deputy leader was talking about the death tax. Now, 
he does not think we should fix the death tax. I certainly do. If we go 
to a $1 million exemption and a 55-percent tax, I think that is going 
to hurt family-owned businesses, it is going to hurt farms and ranches, 
and it is going to hurt the people who work for those family-owned 
businesses. Why is that? It is because the value of farms and ranches, 
which is land, does not have a revenue stream that allows you to pay 
the tax. So what do you have to do? You have to sell an asset, but you 
cannot get the full valuation that is put on it. You cannot do it. I 
have owned a manufacturing company, and I can tell you, you cannot sell 
the equipment for the value that is put on that piece of equipment. So 
what happens to a family-owned business? They end up having to sell at 
pennies on the dollar to pay the tax, and people are put out of work. 
Is that really what we want?
  The exemptions we have now are $5.1 million and a 35-percent rate. It 
would go to $1 million--in 36 or 48 hours--$1 million and a 55-percent 
rate. And remember, the death tax is a tax that has already been paid 
again and again and again. It is a tax on the value of the equipment or 
the land that has already been taxed with a property tax or a sales tax 
on the equipment.
  So there is a reason to have some accommodation in the death tax so 
that we will not face more unemployed people who worked for a family-
owned business or farm, and if it is not the No. 1 issue of the Farm 
Bureau of this country, it certainly is in the top two or three because 
they know--they know--what it is like to have to sell land at a value 
that is not realistic and pay a tax. And a 55-percent tax is pretty 
confiscatory.
  So I do hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis because if we 
do not come together on a bipartisan basis, nothing will get done, 
because we have the House that is looking to the Senate, which is 
supposed to be the adult in the room, and they are looking at us to see 
how the votes turn out, and we need a large majority on both sides of 
the aisle to send to the House something that has a firm stamp of 
approval of this body.
  We need the President to be a player here as well. I am encouraged 
that he is now talking to our leaders and hopefully being constructive. 
And certainly our Vice President, who served in this body for so long, 
does understand the importance of the one-on-one talks, and he is 
talking to, I know, our leader and most certainly the Democratic leader 
as well.
  So the hour is getting late, both figuratively and literally. We do 
not have much time to settle an issue that will affect the economy of 
this country.
  Last but not least, I am sure the President does not want to have a 
calamity like this happen on his watch. And I do not want, on my watch, 
as one who is leaving the Senate this year, for this to be the last 
thing that happens on my watch. I do not think anyone here is going to 
benefit from a calamity happening in this country's economy--even for a 
few days--because it just looks as though we cannot govern.
  It is time to realize that on a bipartisan basis we can do some 
things that will not be universally liked. It will not be liked by 
everyone in this room because we are not going to get everything we 
think is right. But we can move our country forward. We can help 
everyone in this country, every taxpayer.
  But we are not going to raise taxes to spend more. We should be 
saying, OK, if there is going to be a threshold that pays more taxes, 
we should know it is going to bring down the deficit. That is a very 
important point that we hope will be determined at the end of this road 
in 36 to 48 hours.
  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.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________