[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16199-16203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               ANIMAL FIGHTING SPECTATOR PROHIBITION ACT

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1947, and that the Senate proceed to its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1947) to prohibit attendance of an animal 
     fighting venture, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3309) was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 2, line 21, insert ``knowingly'' before ``cause''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I recognize that the hour is late. I 
wish to take a very brief moment to thank my colleagues, beginning with 
Senator Kirk and Senator Brown--my distinguished colleagues from 
Illinois and Massachusetts--who have done such great work on this 
measure over many months, as well as Senator Cantwell of Washington and 
other colleagues who have cosponsored this measure, including Senators 
Collins, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Kerry, Landrieu, Merkley, Mikulski, 
Murray, Vitter, and Wyden. They are all tireless advocates for animals.
  This bill is about ending animal fighting which, plainly and simply, 
is a blood sport. It is cruel and inhumane. It leaves animals scarred 
and disabled. And, it is associated with many other criminal 
activities. People who attend animal fights are often also engaged in 
drug dealing, extortion, assault, and a variety of other crimes, and 
the enabling activity is animal fighting.
  That is why this bill increases the penalties for knowingly attending 
an animal fight with a child and, indeed, makes it a crime to knowingly 
attend an animal fight. These stricter penalties are contingent upon a 
purposeful support for this cruel and inhumane sport.
  Very simply, this legislation provides new tools to law enforcement 
for eliminating not only animal fighting, but also the activities that 
may be attendant to them.
  Animal fighting is a Federal matter, and it requires a Federal 
response. This is particularly important because an animal fighting 
ring often involves players from many different States. Under current 
law, a county sheriff or a local prosecutor simply lacks the authority 
to root out, apprehend, and effectively prosecute such an operation.
  This bill has the support of many law enforcement organizations whom 
I thank, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and 
Fraternal Order of Police. County sheriffs from across the country have 
also signed on as supporters, along with the American Veterinary 
Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States. I hope 
it will have support from this Chamber.
  Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on passage of the bill.
  The bill (S. 1947), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1947

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Animal Fighting Spectator 
     Prohibition Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHT OR CAUSING A 
                   MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL FIGHT.

       Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting 
     an Animal in'' and inserting ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting an 
     Animal in, Attending, or Causing a Minor To Attend'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``In General'' and 
     inserting ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (3)'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Attending or causing a minor to attend.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to--
       ``(A) knowingly attend an animal fighting venture; or
       ``(B) knowingly cause a minor to attend an animal fighting 
     venture.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) the term `minor' means a person under the age of 18 
     years old.''.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS.

       Section 49 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Whoever'';
       (2) in subsection (a), as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section, by striking ``subsection (a),'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(1),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) Attending an Animal Fighting Venture.--Whoever 
     violates subsection (a)(2)(A) of section 26 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each 
     violation.
       ``(c) Causing a Minor To Attend an Animal Fighting 
     Venture.--Whoever violates

[[Page 16200]]

      subsection (a)(2)(B) of section 26 (7 U.S.C. 2156) of the 
     Animal Welfare Act shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, for each 
     violation.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. First of all, I commend and compliment my friend from 
Connecticut for sponsoring this bill and pushing it through. Animal 
fighting is a despicable thing to be engaged in. To think people take 
their kids there, and families. It is something we should not be doing 
and I thank the Senator for his leadership on that issue, getting the 
bill passed.


         Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

  I want to take the floor for a few moments. I know others want to 
speak. They were kind enough to let me get in front of them. I want to 
comment for a couple of minutes on the vote today on the Convention on 
the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. I said off the floor that this 
was a shameful day for the Senate, and I meant it. Today was a shameful 
day for the Senate. To turn our backs on a convention, a treaty which 
was based upon the Americans With Disabilities Act in our own country 
that is now 22 years old and has done so much to enhance opportunities 
for people with disabilities and their families, to turn our backs on 
that for no real reason is something I have a hard time comprehending, 
and I have been in the Senate a long time now.
  There are reasons people can come up with a vote this way or that on 
certain things and most times they are very legitimate. People might 
have some legitimate concerns about a bill or an amendment. I could 
find no legitimate concerns about the Convention on the Rights of 
People With Disabilities--legitimate concerns. We heard all this talk 
about home schoolers, people who are homeschooling their kids, the U.N. 
was going to come in and take them away--nonsense, utter, sheer 
nonsense.
  What happened today was the triumph on the Senate floor of fear. 
Unfounded, unreasonable fear triumphed over experience--the experience 
we have had with the Americans With Disabilities Act, reasoned, 
rational thought--unfounded fears that somehow, someplace, somebody is 
going to do something. Out of the U.N. they are going to come in and 
take over or something. But we proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that 
none of our laws had to be changed. This gave the U.N. no authority 
over our country or our laws or anything. Yet this unfounded fear took 
hold to the point where people who were sponsors of the bill voted 
against it. Sponsors of it now turned around and voted against it. 
Again, for what reason? Unfounded fear.
  What message did we send today to the rest of the world? A message 
that, OK, we are pretty good. We did a lot of good stuff in terms of 
passing legislation to uphold the rights of people with disabilities, 
to break down barriers, give people with disabilities opportunities the 
same as everyone else. We have become a better country for it, a better 
Nation.
  Other countries have come to us over the intervening last 22 years to 
find out how we did it, what they could do. So here the United Nations 
said we would come up with a convention, a treaty for all countries, 
and put it up for them to sign it, encouraging them to emulate what we 
did. This would be giving us a seat at the table helping other 
countries to bring their laws more up to what ours are in terms of the 
rights of people with disabilities.
  But we turned our backs on that. There are a lot of things that make 
America a shining city on a hill, but there is one thing that no one 
can dispute that does put America as a shining city on a hill and that 
is the Americans With Disabilities Act and what it has done to our 
society, like our Civil Rights Act, what it has done to break down the 
barriers and to show that people with disabilities can contribute to 
society if only given the chance and the opportunity.
  You would think we would want to then say, yes, we will be a part of 
a worldwide effort to break down those barriers against people with 
disabilities. We want to be part of a worldwide effort to say it is not 
all right, it is not OK to leave a baby on the side of the road to die 
simply because that baby has Down Syndrome. You would think we would 
want to be part of a global effort that says it is not all right to 
keep kids out of school and away from education because they have a 
physical disability--they use a wheelchair--or have an intellectual 
disability. You would think we would want to be part of an effort such 
as that, that says it is not OK to put people in cells, chained in 
cells, people whose only crime is that they are disabled. You would 
think we would want to be part of that effort.
  We have done that in this country. We have done wonderful things. Yet 
there is some fear, some unfounded fear that the United Nations is 
going to come in with a black helicopter or something, I don't know 
what, and say you cannot homeschool your kids.
  The Americans With Disabilities Act, we had it for 20 years. Did it 
stop home schooling? Of course not. Did it lead to more abortions? Of 
course not.
  After this vote, after it was defeated, I walked out into the 
reception room, the Senate reception room. There was a throng, a number 
of people in the disability community. They were crushed, just crushed. 
They could not understand this. How could it be? Every disability 
community in America, every disability organization supported this. We 
had 21 veterans organizations, everything from the American Legion to 
the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Disabled Veterans of 
America--21. Every veterans group supported this.
  I ask, were these veterans groups so dumb, so blind, so misled to 
support something that is going to give the U.N. the right to come in 
and take kids out of your home? That is what people were saying. They 
do not get it, veterans groups? Is that what they were saying, that 
they do not understand this?
  Of course they understood it. They know those were unfounded fears. 
Walk out and see Yoshiko Dart out there, holding Justin Dart's hat; 
Justin Dart, God love him. A man in a wheelchair, used it almost every 
day in his life; a man who traveled throughout this country day after 
day to get people organized to support the Americans With Disabilities 
Act, Justin Dart. He has since passed on, but his widow carries his hat 
around. She had his hat there and they were just crushed by this vote. 
How could we turn our backs on something so important to our country 
and the world? Pat Wright--others.
  Before we had the vote we had a wonderful ceremony honoring Bob Dole. 
Yesterday was the International Disability Rights Day, so they wanted 
to honor Bob Dole for all he had done, Senator Dole. It was a wonderful 
event. I saw people over there honoring Bob Dole for all the work he 
had done on disability rights who voted against the bill today.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
  Mr. HARKIN. I said, wait a minute, they are there to honor all the 
work Bob Dole had done on disability and Bob Dole was one of the 
strongest supporters of the CRPD, as it is called. He came over here 
today in his wheelchair with his wife, former Senator Elizabeth Dole. 
Yet people voted against it. I do not get it.
  Veterans? There was a young veteran sitting in the gallery today. I 
met him yesterday for the first time. Senator Kerry spoke at length 
about him. His name is Dan Berschinski. I ask unanimous consent to have 
his op-ed printed in the Record at the conclusion of my speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. I met him yesterday, a young man 25 years old. He said 
for the first 25 years of my life I was an able-bodied American and 
played football and soccer, even ran a few marathons.
  He graduated from West Point and went to Afghanistan and had both of 
his legs blown off. He walks on prosthetic legs now and talks about 
going to South Africa on a trip and the fear gripped him because of the 
fact he couldn't get around. In the hotel they had curbs. He had the 
kind of problems he doesn't have here.

[[Page 16201]]

  I saw him out here in the reception room after the vote. He had been 
sitting in the gallery. He came down. I went up to him and I said: Dan, 
what can I say? I am sorry. I am sorry. But, I said, we will come back 
again. We are going to come back at this thing. But, I said, I am 
sorry.
  You know what he said to me? He said: You know, Senator, watching 
this and seeing this makes me want to get just about as far away from 
politics as I can.
  Is that the message we send to young veterans, young heroes like 
this?
  I don't want to take any more time. Others want to speak. As I said, 
it is a shameful day. I do say we will be back. Senator Kerry will be 
back, Senator McCain. Again, I give them the highest plaudits for what 
they did. Senator McCain and Senator Kerry did a magnificent job, and 
Senator Lugar, in carrying this bill forward. I know they do not want 
to give up either. I was hoping we would pass it before Senator Lugar 
leaves the Senate. It would have been wonderful that Senator Lugar did 
this during his time here in the Senate. But I guess that is not to be.
  We will be back in January or February. Senator Kerry is committed to 
doing that, bringing it back to the committee, so we will be back 
again. I hope over the Christmas break and New Year's those who did not 
vote to support this will search their conscience, search their soul, 
think more about our being involved in this and having a seat at the 
table, helping the rest of the world change their laws. I hope when we 
come back we will have some reconsiderations and people recognize that 
maybe the first vote was not the right vote and change their vote and 
maybe we can get it passed then. That is my hope. I hope we can get to 
that when we come back after the first of the year.

                               Exhibit 1

                             [Dec. 4, 2012]

                Leading on Disability Beyond Our Borders

                          (By Dan Berschinski)

       For the first 25 years of my life I was as an able-bodied 
     American. I played football and soccer and even ran a few 
     marathons. All of that changed three years ago. Having 
     graduated from West Point, I was serving my country as an 
     Army infantry officer in Afghanistan when I was seriously 
     wounded: I stepped on the unseen trigger of an improvised 
     explosive device, and both my legs were instantly torn from 
     my body. From that moment on, my life has, been drastically 
     different.
       Today, after three year's of hard effort, I'm proud, to be 
     able to walk using prosthetic legs. Yet obstacles that might 
     seem inconsequential to the fully able-bodied, like sidewalk 
     curbs and stairs, take on a whole new meaning for people like 
     me who struggle to walk, or who use a wheelchair. 
     Fortunately, the United States leads the world in 
     accessibility and equality of opportunity for the disabled. 
     Unfortunately, the advantages we take for granted here at 
     home--the policies that allow people like me to live 
     fulfilling, independent lives--don't exist in much of the 
     rest of the world.
       Eight months after being wounded in combat, and while still 
     a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I joined a few 
     friends in a trip to South Africa to watch the World Cup. 
     There I found myself in a different country, with no legs, a 
     brand-new wheelchair and a lot of apprehension. While I 
     should have been enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime trip, I was 
     constantly worried about my ability to get around. South 
     Africa had done a fairly good job on accessibility, but there 
     were still plenty of curbs that had to be jumped, ditches 
     that had to be crossed, and flights of stairs that had to be, 
     well, hobbled up. As a disabled Anierican at home, I can 
     depend on accessible accommodations; as a disabled tourist 
     abroad, I had to hope for the best while preparing for the 
     worst.
       Today, the United States has an opportunity to show 
     leadership and reduce the challenges that millions of 
     disabled people around the world face every day: The Senate 
     can vote to join the U.N. treaty on rights for people with 
     disabilities. By encouraging other nations to strengthen 
     their own accessibility laws, we can improve the lives of our 
     56.7 million disabled U.S. citizens, including 5.5 million 
     disabled veterans like me, when we travel and work abroad. 
     Many of those opposing this treaty claim to support military 
     veterans, but a vote against ratifying this treaty undercuts 
     that support.
       I am honored to join fellow veterans, Republicans and 
     Democrats, including Sens. John Kerry and John McCain and 
     former Sen. Robert J. Dole, to say that the case is clear-
     cut: Only by voting in favor of the Convention on the Rights 
     of Persons with Disabilities can the Senate truly honor the 
     sacrifice of those disabled while answering this nation's 
     call. I am proud to have served my country; I am proud of how 
     my country has taken care of me. And I will be proud when we 
     extend our leadership on disability issues beyond our 
     borders.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senator from Iowa is on the 
floor--and I will be very brief because there are others waiting to 
speak--I am so moved and touched by what he had to say. I had the 
privilege of being in that room with the Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Harkin, and Senator Dole--both Senators Dole, Senator Bob Dole and 
Senator Elizabeth Dole.
  The Senator referred to Justin Dart's widow and his hat was there. My 
colleague and I saw him wearing that hat the day the disability 
legislation was signed into law on the White House lawn. In fact I have 
a photograph I took of the Senator standing there.


                    Persons with Disabilities Treaty

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving in this 
body every day that Tom Harkin has been here. Nobody has spoken more 
eloquently for the needs of the disabled than Senator Harkin. He 
learned sign language so he could communicate with his brother. I have 
seen him with members of the disabled community. He is loved and 
respected.
  This was not the Senate's finest day. It was not ``Profiles in 
Courage'' to see what happened. I am glad the Senator mentioned the 
veterans, as though any of them would stand for something that would 
take over our country. Many of them lost limbs fighting for this 
country and fighting for the security of this country. They represent 
people who died fighting for this country.
  So this is one Senator who will be here next year. I pledge to the 
Senator from Iowa and to Senator Kerry, my seatmate--actually, I have 
both Senators on either side of me--that I will be here, and I will 
support the Senators every step of the way.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and former chairman 
with whom I have served all of these years in the Senate for his very 
kind remarks and kind words. More than that, I thank my friend for his 
many kindnesses that he has shown me and for upholding the finest 
traditions of the Senate.
  I say to Pat Leahy, through the Chair, when we think about a Senator 
and what a Senator should do and how a Senator should conduct himself 
or herself, we have to think about Pat Leahy. He has just been a 
stalwart. He is always willing to work with people, always willing to 
give someone the benefit of the doubt, always willing to help move 
legislation through the Senate. That is the way the Senate used to be. 
It used to be that way. Thank God, we still have people here like Pat 
Leahy.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUTS

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, tens of millions of middle-class 
families face the distinct possibility of higher tax rates in January. 
With so many Americans who are still struggling to find their economic 
footing after the deepest recession of our lifetimes, these looming tax 
hikes would be hard for those middle-class families, and they are 
completely unnecessary.
  Newspaper stories day after day on the so-called fiscal cliff often 
omit that the Senate has passed legislation to shield 98 percent of 
families and 97 percent of small businesses from the income tax part of 
this so-called fiscal cliff.
  We passed the Middle Class Tax Cuts Act on July 25 of this year. We 
sent the measure to the House of Representatives. Did Speaker Boehner 
and the Republicans in the House promptly

[[Page 16202]]

pass this popular bill and send it to President Obama for his 
signature? Did they move to protect 98 percent of middle-class families 
from this tax hike in January? No. They decided to hold the middle-
class tax cuts passed by the Senate hostage in an attempt to push for 
tax cuts for the folks they care about the most, the top 2 percent of 
the highest earning households.
  Republicans fighting for millionaires and billionaires is not a new 
story. In 2001 President George W. Bush decided to spend a large 
portion of the surpluses he inherited from President Clinton to cut tax 
rates. Many Democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair 
by favoring the highest income Americans. To overcome that obstacle, 
the Republicans resorted to a parliamentary technique of budget 
reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts 
but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the 10-year budget 
window.
  So we scroll forward to 2010. As 2010 ended, President Obama and many 
Democrats in Congress, including myself, wanted to extend the tax cuts 
for middle-class families but let rates on income above $200,000 for an 
individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the Clinton-era levels. 
Our Senate Republican friends filibustered that effort, refusing to 
allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for the highest 
incomes as well. Their hostage strategy worked that time, and the 
President and Senate Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the tax 
cuts for 2 more years.
  Now the 2 years is up and these tax rates are again set to expire. 
That is why Senate Democrats passed the Middle Class Tax Cut Act in 
July. This measure balanced our desire to keep tax rates low for 
middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national 
budget deficits. By keeping tax rates low for 98 percent of Americans 
and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over 
$250,000 a year, the Democrat plan would cut the deficit by as much as 
$1 trillion over the next decade. Now, that alone doesn't cure our 
budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and 
smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution.
  Let's be clear about one thing: the Middle Class Tax Cut Act would 
still benefit high-end taxpayers. Families making over $250,000 a year 
would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. So if a family made 
$255,000, they would only see an increase on the top $5,000, and only 
to the Clinton-era rates that were in effect during the 1990s, when, as 
we all recall, our economy was thriving. Under the Senate-passed plan, 
a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra $150 in taxes.
  In opposing the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, Republicans claim that it 
would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of 
income earners. Speaker Boehner reiterated that line last week saying: 
It'll hurt small businesses. It'll hurt the economy.
  Well, that is vintage Republican political theory, but it is just not 
supported by the facts. In a recent report, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the middle-class 
tax cuts would boost our national GDP, gross domestic product, by 1.25 
percent next year. It said the economic effects of extending only the 
middle-class rates are similar to those of extending all of the rates. 
Why? Because upper income taxpayers are less likely to spend their tax 
savings and put it back into the economy.
  In other words, CBO reports we would get virtually no economic bang 
for our Federal buck by extending the upper income tax cuts for which 
the Republicans are fighting. CBO's analysis is confirmed by the 
experience of real-world businesspeople.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks an op-ed by former Stride Rite CEO Arnold 
Hiatt entitled ``Smite the myth that tax cuts create jobs.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Arnold Hiatt founded a successful 
small business before selling it to Stride Rite and then becoming CEO. 
He says:

       As every good businessman knows . . . the soundness of a 
     company and its ability to create jobs do not rest on lower 
     taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its senior 
     management.

  He continues:

       It is a fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called 
     ``job creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy.

  Mr. Hiatt goes on to explain:

       In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal 
     income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as 
     high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or 
     anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today 
     we're paying about half of that on the top portion of 
     salaries and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk 
     of our income that comes from investments. That's why I . . . 
     and many other millionaires pay a lower income-tax rate than 
     many working American families.

  He continues:

       Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who 
     do will create them regardless of the tax rate, and certainly 
     won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5 
     percentage points that the president has proposed.

  He concludes this way:

       The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off 
     by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S. 
     House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same 
     millionaires. They know little of what makes companies 
     successful.

  That is the CEO of Stride Rite shoes.
  If we extend the upper income tax cuts for another year, it would add 
over $49 billion to the deficit. Even in Washington, $49 billion is 
real money, money that would have to be borrowed and would add to our 
debt problem. Believe it or not, Republicans who voted to turn Medicare 
into a voucher program in the name of deficit reduction support adding 
to the deficit with high-end tax cuts. In Rhode Island, at least, those 
are lousy priorities when it comes to deficit reduction. We should let 
the tax cuts at the top expire for reasons also of fairness. Loopholes 
and special provisions allow many super-high income earners to pay 
lower tax rates than many middle-class families.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 65 
percent of individuals earning $1 million or more annually pay taxes at 
a lower rate than median income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. 
Sixty-five percent--nearly two-thirds--of individuals earning over $1 
million a year actually pay a lower tax rate than median income 
taxpayers. That is a tax system that is turned upside down and needs to 
be fixed.
  Earlier this year a majority of Senators voted to advance my Paying a 
Fair Share Act, the Buffett rule bill to ensure that multimillion-
dollar earners pay at least a 30-percent effective Federal tax rate. 
The rate they are supposed to pay is 35 percent under the income tax 
laws. But because of all these loopholes and special rates, IRS 
statistics show the top 400 taxpayers in 2008 who earned, by the way, 
an average of $270 million each that year, paid the same 18.2 percent 
effective tax rate as paid by, for instance, a truckdriver in Rhode 
Island. The single biggest factor driving this inequality is the 
special low rate for capital gains that allows, for instance, hedge 
fund billionaires, through the carried interest loophole, to pay taxes 
at lower rates than their secretaries and chauffeurs. If we let the tax 
cuts at the top expire, those rates revert to 20 percent instead of 15 
percent. Twenty percent is still a low rate for someone making $100 
million a year, but it is closer to what a middle-class family is 
expected to pay.
  In short, allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for income above 
$250,000 is the fiscally responsible thing to do and the fair and 
proper thing to do. Why, then, hasn't Speaker Boehner called a vote on 
the Senate-passed Middle Class Tax Cuts Act? Because threatening 
middle-class families with higher taxes is their strategy, to push for 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires--the hostage strategy--with 
the middle class as the hostages as Republicans fight for whom they 
truly care about.
  If Speaker Boehner continues to ignore the Senate-passed bill, I urge 
President Obama to stand firm on his opposition to extending the upper 
income tax cuts. The American people

[[Page 16203]]

support that approach, and we should not cave in to pressure.
  I would also urge the President and congressional leaders to work to 
include the Buffett rule principles in any deficit deal. Letting the 
upper income tax cuts expire and ensuring multimillion-dollar earners 
pay a fair share will assure the American people we are working for 
them and not the special interests as we allocate the burden of 
addressing our deficits.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From the Providence Journal]

                Smite the Myth That Tax Cuts Create Jobs

                       Providence Journal Edition

                           (by Arnold Hiatt)

       As every good businessman knows--including former 
     Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with whom I had been 
     associated as a limited partner at Bain Capital Ventures--the 
     soundness of a company and its ability to create jobs do not 
     rest on lower taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its 
     senior management.
       If the now defeated presidential candidate Romney and 
     congressional Republicans continue to insist on renewing the 
     special Bush tax cuts that go only to the wealthiest 2 
     percent of Americans like me, it will do nothing to create 
     jobs. It is a fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called 
     ``job creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy.
       Just the reverse is true. Instead of spending nearly $1 
     trillion on tax cuts to make millionaires even richer, those 
     tax dollars can be used more constructively to retain 
     teachers, police officers and firefighters, and repair roads 
     and bridges. These are all essential services that will 
     rebuild our economy and maintain a civil society. In 
     addition, these tax dollars will contribute to deficit 
     reduction.
       The son of a Lithuanian immigrant to this land of now 
     diminishing equal opportunity, I had the good fortune to 
     start a small company that enjoyed a measure of success and 
     that was eventually acquired by Stride Rite Corp. Twelve 
     months later I was asked to become president of Stride Rite.
       Throughout the last 10 years of my tenure, the company's 
     return on investment was in the top 1 percent of all 
     companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We created 
     thousands of new jobs. By the time I left, we had over 5,000 
     employees. Our success rested on the quality of the product 
     and service provided to consumers. It was a reflection on the 
     quality of the workforce as well as the management. My 
     success could not have been possible without the people whom 
     we continued to hire and to train as we grew. I depended on 
     them as much as they depended upon me.
       In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal 
     income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as 
     high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or 
     anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today 
     we're paying about half that on the top portion of salaries 
     and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk of our 
     income that comes from investments. That's why Governor 
     Romney and I and many other millionaires pay a lower income-
     tax rate than many working American families.
       Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who 
     do will create them regardless of the tax rate and certainly 
     won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5 
     percentage points that the president has proposed.
       The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off 
     by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S. 
     House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same 
     millionaires. They know little of what makes companies 
     successful.
       Romney knows better. It is a matter of record that during 
     the time tax rates, both corporate and personal, were so much 
     higher, our economy was booming. Conversely, the slowest job 
     growth since World War II took place between the Bush tax 
     cuts for millionaires and the 2008 economic meltdown.
       A few months ago, every Republican in the House and Senate, 
     along with 19 House Democrats and two Senate Democrats, voted 
     against a bill ending the Bush tax breaks for the richest 2 
     percent, but extend them for 98 percent of Americans and 97 
     percent of small businesses. I hope they will take a fresh 
     look at the facts. That's why I joined with over 100 other 
     millionaires in signing a Voices for Progress letter to all 
     members of Congress, appealing to them not to renew these tax 
     breaks. Allowing the richest 2 percent to withhold tax 
     dollars robs children of health and education. It is not only 
     immoral, it is bad economics. They are the future of our 
     country, which has begun to fall behind our competitors. It 
     is also destroying the American Dream, which brought my 
     father to this country alone at the age of 15.
       Both he and the Founding Fathers would agree that the 
     future of this nation should not be compromised by the 
     shortsightedness of those so well off in the present. These 
     are not the values that made this country great.
       Arnold Hiatt is a former chief executive of Stride Rite 
     Corp., based in Lexington, Mass. This article previously 
     appeared in The Boston Globe.

  I thank the Chair. I 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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________