[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16287-16293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the 
need for action on a 5-year farm bill for our farmers and our rural 
communities. The Senator from Iowa, who just spoke, understands how 
important this farm bill is. I know the Acting President pro tempore, 
from the State of New York, understands how important this farm bill 
is.
  This summer, farmers in the Corn Belt of our country waited, 
sometimes in vain, for rain that could either make or break an entire 
year of work. Many of them lost their entire crop.
  This fall, sugar beet farmers along the Red River Valley in Minnesota 
and North Dakota waited for dry weather because they needed that to 
pull out the last of their crop. And right now, at this very moment, 
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities throughout the country 
continue to wait. But this time they are not waiting for weather. They 
are not recovering from weather. They are waiting for a new farm bill. 
In fact, they have waited 167 days since the Senate passed the 
bipartisan farm bill this June, and they have waited 66 days since the 
2008 farm bill expired in September.
  Unlike the drought this summer and the hurricane that hit the State 
of the Acting President pro tempore this fall, the failure to complete 
a farm bill is entirely preventable. Inaction in the House of 
Representatives is hurting farmers right now. Without a new farm bill, 
dairy farmers have lost their safety net. In fact, prices may go to the 
1939 levels. Talk about moving backward; that is what will happen if we 
do not get this farm bill done.
  Livestock producers operate without key disaster programs without 
this farm bill, and farmers and rural communities are left guessing 
about what rules they will operate under as they plan next year's crop.
  These are not small things. What kind of crop insurance are they 
going to be qualified for? Is there going to be some kind of safety 
net? They have absolutely no idea because we wait and we wait and we 
wait for the House of Representatives to act. They did pass a farm bill 
through their committee. I liked ours better, but they got it through 
the committee. But guess what. They have not been able to bring it to 
the floor for a vote, and our farmers and our ranchers and our people 
in our rural communities wait, and they wait, and they wait.
  I believe there are good reasons we can finish the farm bill this 
year. There is already a path forward to complete work on a farm bill 
and have it signed by the President at the end of this year. The farm 
bill passed in the Senate, as we all know. It passed with strong 
bipartisan support. It was approved by a vote of 64 to 35. Thanks to 
Chairman Stabenow's leadership and the leadership of Ranking Member 
Roberts, we were able to get this bill through. We voted on nearly 80 
amendments. We did our job in the Senate.
  The Senate farm bill saves money. It would reduce the deficit by $23 
billion over the next 10 years. That is a savings over the last farm 
bill. The Senate farm bill also makes major reforms, such as 
eliminating direct payments and further focusing farm payments on our 
family farmers.

[[Page 16288]]

  It extends disaster programs for livestock producers and it continues 
credit provisions to help our farmers get through tough times. It 
creates a public-private partnership to fund agricultural research to 
give farmers the tools they need to stay competitive and feed a growing 
world.
  When Bill Gates comes and talks to me about the farm bill, you know 
this farm bill is more than just about some farmers in Minnesota. It is 
about feeding our country, it is about feeding the world, it is about 
the research we need to do to make sure we have the most efficient 
crops; that we are developing crops and we are developing livestock and 
varieties of crops and farm products that can feed the world.
  This farm bill works to eliminate fraud and waste throughout the farm 
bill to ensure these programs are efficient and targeted. Passing this 
farm bill is important, and that is why 235 agriculture, conservation, 
research, and energy organizations signed a letter this November to 
leadership in the House urging that they pass a farm bill before the 
end of the year.
  Our farmers and agricultural communities understand that tough 
budgetary choices need to be made. That is why the Senate Agriculture 
Committee actually came forward and said: OK, we are going to find a 
way to do this very differently. We are going to eliminate direct 
payments, and we are going to strengthen our crop insurance. We are 
going to still make sure we maintain our nutrition programs--something 
for which the Acting President pro tempore fought so hard as a Senator 
from New York--and we also made sure there were incredibly strong 
conservation programs in the bill, but we still found a way to cut $23 
billion.
  I am also opposed to playing red light-green light with agriculture 
policy which prevents our farmers and ranchers from making long-term 
capital investments that help them remain competitive in today's 
marketplace.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It might be easy to forget as we sit in this Chamber 
all that goes into growing the most abundant, safest food supply in the 
world. But when I travel across our State, I am impressed by the work 
and planning that goes into making each farm and ranch operate in the 
face of market failures, in the face of natural disasters, in the face 
of volatile weather. Well, guess what. This is the time when that 
planning goes on. It goes on right now.
  Anyone who learned in kindergarten about how we plant crops and how 
we get things done knows that the fall and winter is the time when you 
plan ahead, and then you plant your crops, then you move ahead, and 
then pretty soon you are harvesting them. Well, they need to know what 
the rules of the game are to get this done.
  Each year family farmers make tough decisions about which crops to 
plant, what equipment to purchase, and when to market their crops. 
Congress should be no less committed to completing work on the farm 
bill, which provides the safety net and certainty for farmers, for 
ranchers, for rural communities. The stakes are high for Minnesota. 
Agriculture is our State's leading export, accounting for $75 billion 
in economic activity every year and supporting more than 300,000 jobs.
  Minnesota is No. 3 in the country for hogs and soybeans. It is also 
home to pork processors and biodiesel plants. Minnesota is No. 4 in 
corn, and it is also home to 21 ethanol plants that produce over 1 
billion gallons of ethanol every single year. We are No. 1 for sugar 
beets, we are No. 1 for sweet corn.
  But as we all know, this is not just an issue in our State. Our 
Nation's farms and ranches are responsible for a $42 billion trade 
surplus. This is one of the jewels of our economy and our country. We 
actually are making things, producing things, and exporting to the 
world. Why would we want to pull the rug from underneath one of our 
most promising and successful exporting industries in this country? And 
that is the business of farming.
  This is so promising. We are already doing well. We can even do 
better. With the critical role farming plays in our country's economy, 
there is no excuse to further delay the consideration of the farm bill. 
Agriculture is a bright spot in our economy. We cannot jeopardize the 
economic future of rural America and of our entire country just to 
score political points over in the House.
  I continue to believe that the carefully crafted bill we did in the 
Senate finds a good balance between a number of priorities. I urge the 
House of Representatives to complete work, to work with the Senate, so 
we can make sure as we come to the year end we have a major deal which 
we must have on the fiscal cliff, that we also include the farm bill, 
because with the farm bill we save $23 billion over what we have been 
spending in the last few years. So let's get to work and get this done.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. REED. Madam President, we all recognize the country faces many 
challenges. Too many of our neighbors are still looking for work, and 
too often those with a job have not seen a raise in quite some time. 
Indeed, for many years people in Rhode Island and across the country 
have a growing sense that there is too much focus on the powerful few 
and not on the average family playing by the rules.
  A quality higher education seems more unaffordable each year. Working 
men and women do not often feel the government understands their 
struggles and the need to move the country forward. They also want us 
to begin to balance the books, just as we did under President Clinton, 
with a sensible balanced approach, one that led to increasing wages 
across the board, increasing productivity, increasing employment, and a 
budget surplus before George W. Bush's policies took over.
  Last year we took a step in balancing the books. We cut $1 trillion 
of Federal spending. We do not hear much about it, particularly from 
the other side of the aisle. But what it means is that every 
discretionary program will see less funding for the next decade, which 
will have a huge impact on my State and every State in the country.
  If we are going to cut spending on education, research, and 
transportation to the tune of approximately $1 trillion, I think most 
Americans recognize that the other side of the equation has to be 
considered. Revenue needs to be part of a balanced plan to reduce the 
debt. The simple fact of the matter is that virtually every expert 
panel and commentator has said clearly that in order to reduce the 
deficit to a sustainable level, revenues have to go up. It is a matter 
of arithmetic. So the question that presents itself to us is, where 
does the revenue come from? I believe at the end of the day, the 
President's plan to continue to provide tax breaks for 98 percent of 
all Americans and let tax rates for the wealthiest return to the 
Clinton-era levels is about as fair a proposal as is possible at the 
moment. First, it recognizes that the middle class should not be the 
one on the chopping block where there are other options. Second, it 
asks those making more than a quarter of a million dollars to return to 
the same top rates we had for most of the 1990s. Third, it cuts 
everyone's taxes on the first quarter of a million dollars that you 
make.
  What is sometimes lost in this debate is because of our progressive 
tax system, there will be no changes to the tax rates on income up to 
$250,000. The benefits of those tax cuts which were enacted in the 
early decades of the 2000s will still be there for 98 percent of 
Americans, and they will still be there for those paying additional 
revenue because of the reversal of the top two upper income tax rates. 
Yet our Republican colleagues in the House seem to have adopted a 
posture of obstruction and holding the middle class hostage in order to 
preserve nearly $1 trillion in

[[Page 16289]]

tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans. If we do not extend these 
tax cuts for the middle class as the President has proposed, the 
typical Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an 
average of $2,200 in the year 2013. This would be a setback for our 
very fragile economic recovery. It is simply not fair to have these 
middle-income Rhode Islanders who are trying to make ends meet in this 
economy be further subject to a tax increase.
  I think I listen pretty well to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. It seems they agree that, yes, these taxes should not go up 
on 98 percent of Americans. Indeed, in July they dropped their 
filibuster, enabling the Senate to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. 
The bill prevents taxes from going up on 98 percent of Americans and 97 
percent of small businesses, and would cut the deficit by nearly $1 
trillion.
  As I mentioned, if the House does not pass this bill, middle-class 
families will see their taxes go up by an average of about $2,200. All 
the House has to do--and they can do it very quickly under their 
procedures--is take up the Senate-passed bill and pass it. We will put 
a significant downpayment on deficit reduction. We will provide 
certainty to 98 percent of Americans that their taxes will remain the 
same, and we can get onto other sensible appropriate reductions and 
expenditures and move the Nation forward.
  It is heartening to hear some Republicans in the House such as Tom 
Cole of Oklahoma and Mike Simpson of Idaho talk about accepting this 
commonsense approach and locking in these tax rates for middle-income 
Americans. Indeed, if the House, as I suggested, had an up-or-down vote 
on the Senate bill, I would suspect there would be enough Republicans 
willing to join the House Democrats in passing a tax cut for 98 percent 
of Americans and giving the business community the certainty it needs. 
Unfortunately, we have yet to see an indication from Speaker Boehner 
that he will let the Senate approved middle-class tax cut legislation 
have an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that by passing this bill 
every American, including the wealthiest, will get a tax break on the 
first quarter of a million dollars of income, and the Tax Code would 
become a bit fairer.
  I am worried that there are too many on the other side of the aisle 
who are willing to let taxes increase on the middle class in order to 
stop the top two marginal tax rates from returning to Clinton-era 
levels for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. That, to me, is 
unfair. Indeed, it is an uncalled-for imposition on the vast majority 
of Americans.
  Republicans would jeopardize our economic recovery by creating 
uncertainty around letting these tax provisions lapse for all 
Americans. It could hamper demand, restrict commerce, and impede 
recovery at a time when our economy is making fragile gains. Indeed, it 
would be similar to what we are seeing in other parts of the world, 
where austerity measures in Europe have already caused many of their 
economies to slip back into recession.
  We can't do that. We have got to provide both confidence and the 
resources for consumers to go into the marketplace and continue to 
strengthen our recovery. And I would hope to accelerate this recovery 
because we need more demand, more jobs, more activity, not less.
  Unfortunately, the record of some of our colleagues on the other side 
has suggested that when it comes to making difficult decisions on 
behalf of the majority of Americans they balk. I have seen in this 
Congress--the other side threaten a government shutdown and the other 
side seriously consider defaulting on the debts of the United States. I 
have seen threats to end unemployment insurance, which would harm our 
economy and tremendously disadvantage so many Americans who are looking 
for work. I am hopeful the House of Representatives can respond both 
thoughtfully and decisively by passing the legislation the Senate has 
already passed and continue the tax cuts for middle-income Americans 
while beginning to raise revenues from those who are the wealthiest 
amongst us.
  In the spring of 2011, we were faced with the possibility of a 
government shutdown. In the summer of that same year, we were faced 
with the issue of the debt ceiling and government default. All of these 
attempts to disrupt and undercut the process of government had costs, 
real costs to our economy, real costs to our sense and the sense of the 
American people that we are effectively able to manage their affairs, 
for the welfare not of the very few but for all Americans.
  Republicans have also blocked the American Jobs Act. A plan that 
analysts predicted would lead to the creation of nearly 2 million 
jobs--and at a time when those new jobs were and still urgently needed. 
Now with the accumulation of all these different threats to our 
economy, all these different dramatic moments, we are looking at 
automatic increases in taxes if the Middle Class Tax Cut Act is not 
adopted. Failure to pass the bill could severely impede or even reverse 
the economic recovery we have seen to date. And again, this economic 
recovery is not as strong as we want to see it, but it is heading at 
least in a positive direction.
  We have to move forward decisively, with a balanced approach to 
ensure that the vast majority of Americans do not see their taxes go 
up. And that revenue is raised from those who are most able to afford 
it.
  The President has been very clear that he will be strong in resisting 
overtures to extend the tax benefits for the wealthiest two percent of 
Americans. The American people agree. They re-elected him and they 
consistently, in just about every type of public survey, support his 
proposal.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives are out of step and out of tune with the American 
public.
  Speaker Boehner has not proposed a sensible, balanced approach that 
mixes revenues and expenditure reductions. Instead, he once again 
raises the spectre of cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits. 
That is not the approach we have to take.
  What we can do, what we should do, what we must do is simply ask the 
House of Representatives to take up what we have already passed here in 
the Senate, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, immediately. That would 
provide the breakthrough we need to go forward, to continue to build on 
our economic recovery, and continue to respond to the legitimate needs 
of men and women all across this country. I hope House Republicans do 
that. I know I will be here, along with my colleagues, urging them to 
do that as quickly as possible.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time 
under Democratic control be allocated as follows: Senator Boxer for 15 
minutes, Senator Casey for 10 minutes, and Senator Schumer for 5 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think we are trying to make the case 
here today that there is a very easy way for us to climb down from this 
fiscal cliff. The Senate already passed a bill that would extend tax 
cuts to 98 percent of the American people and the House will not take 
it up. This will mean, over 10 years, about $1 trillion in savings, and 
it won't hurt the millionaires and billionaires. They have told us that 
over and over.
  This is when the Senate passed the middle-class tax cuts, July 25, 
2012. The Republicans over in the House have been sitting on it. They 
didn't do anything in July, August, September, October, November, and 
December. Here we are 6 months later and they refuse to allow a vote on 
this for reasons that go to their internal disputes.
  It is time for them to put country over party. It is time for them to 
put country over their ideological battles. That was a mouthful. I am 
going to try it again. It is time for them to put country over their 
ideological battles. It is time for them to make a decision that favors 
the American people.
  I served in the House for 10 proud years. It was wonderful, 
fascinating,

[[Page 16290]]

interesting. I served there when Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the 
House. Tip O'Neill understood the magic of 218.
  What do I mean by that? The magic of 218 was finding 218 votes to get 
something done. Tip didn't care if he got it from a liberal, from a 
conservative, from a moderate, from an independent, from a whacko. It 
didn't matter. He didn't care who you were, what you were, if you 
thought you were great or bright or not. He had to put together 218 for 
the good of the country, and he did it when Ronald Reagan was 
President. He did it when there was a President who had different views 
from his own, and they worked together for the good of the country.
  I look over at the House, and I don't know what I see. There are a 
few brave voices there speaking out and saying let us do this, let us 
extend the middle-class tax cuts. But let me tell you, we have 27 days 
left to do this before people start facing higher taxes. On average, it 
is $2,200 a family, and that is a lot of money for a middle-class 
family.
  I want to be completely honest here and bring up an issue, which is 
that I never voted for the Bush-era tax cuts--I was one of the few in 
the minority--because I worried that it would destroy our fiscal 
responsibility. I hate to say it now: I was right. I was right.
  There were surpluses that Bill Clinton left us. But because George W. 
Bush went in front of the microphone and said, I have political 
capital, I am going to cut everybody's taxes, he then put two wars on 
the credit card, and that was the end of surpluses. We went into 
deficits, deficits as far as the eye could see, deeper and deeper in 
debt. So you might ask then, Senator Boxer, why are you now supporting 
those tax cuts being renewed for 98 percent of the people? The answer 
is it is a different time and a different place. We are getting out of 
a recession. We can make up the monies we need to balance this budget 
by going just to the top rate, going to the people over $250,000.
  Remember, this plan that we passed in July gives a tax break on the 
first $250,000 of income, in essence giving everybody a break on that 
first $250,000. It is only after that that the taxes go back to the 
Clinton era. Because this is a different time and place, I support 
giving a tax break, continuing it, for 98 percent, but asking the 
wealthiest to pay their fair share for the greatest country on the face 
of this Earth.
  My father was born into dire poverty. He was the only one of nine 
children born in America. He was the only one of nine children to go to 
college at night in your great State, City College, at night, while he 
supported a family by day. He became a CPA. After he got his 
bachelor's, he went at night to a place called Brooklyn Law School, 
where he got his law degree in 5 years. I was about 10. This is 
America. He was able to do that.
  When he was a CPA, he would oversee everybody's taxes in the family. 
I was a kid and I got my first job working for a long time when I was a 
telephone operator for Hilton Hotels one summer. I will never forget 
it. I was not good at it. I kept putting those wires into the wrong 
places, but I managed to get through. When I got my first paycheck, I 
went to my dad, as I was earning minimum wage--I think it was 75 cents 
an hour, I don't know. I know I am dating myself here. It is okay. I 
said, ``Dad, why is it I have to pay a whole bunch of money somewhere 
else, to the government?'' He said, ``Well, we all, when we earn money, 
pay taxes. If at the end of the year we pay too much, we get a 
refund.''
  But he said, ``Honey, I want to tell you something. You are so 
fortunate and blessed to be a citizen of the United States of America. 
I know people will laugh at you when you say this, but people who live 
here, who work here and have the privilege of that freedom and the 
privilege to grab the dream, they should kiss the ground of this 
country every time they pay taxes.''
  I once said that on the campaign trail, and I got booed. They said, 
She is telling us to kiss the ground of America when we pay taxes? That 
was how my father felt.
  Clearly, he also believed in a progressive tax system. He was a smart 
man, and he believed that those at the bottom end shouldn't pay 
anything at all and, as you go up, you pay a little more.
  That is what President Obama ran on. We had a huge election for the 
Senate where the Democrats picked up seats. A race for the Presidency 
that was supposed to be Governor Romney's, according to his people, was 
President Obama's. This was mainly because President Obama stood up for 
the middle class and said, When it comes to taxes, we all have to pay 
our fair share, no more, no less.
  When you tell your friends the President wants to give a tax cut, 
tell them also it is being held up by the Republicans in Congress who 
are sitting on a bill that passed the Senate on July 25, 2012, where 98 
percent of the American people will get their tax break continued and 
only income over $250,000 will be taxed at the same rate when Bill 
Clinton was President.
  Let's take a look back at those days. Were they harsh for people? No. 
We had more millionaires created, I remember in those days, than we had 
in generations. You know why? Because the middle class is strong--and 
President Clinton invested in the middle class; he invested in our 
people--they get good jobs, they pay enough taxes, they go to the mall, 
they take a trip across the country to see all the great landmarks, and 
people across this country who have businesses do well also. That is 
why we see so many businesspeople, including small businesspeople, 
standing at President Obama's side saying it is good for business to 
give the middle class their tax breaks.
  What are these Republicans thinking over there? If we are having an 
argument, and I tell you I will give you 98 percent of what you want 
and you walk away from me, I say you are unreasonable. Who gets 98 
percent of what they want? No one. In an argument, usually we meet each 
other halfway--50-50. We are giving the Republicans 98 percent of what 
they want on the tax cuts, but they are holding the 98 percent hostage 
for their friends, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson--the 
billionaires. That is wrong, and we had an election about it.
  This is a country of, by, and for the people, not of, by, and for the 
billionaires. I am going to say to my Republican friends--and they are 
my friends; I have served with them for a long time, I have worked with 
them--what are you thinking? What are you doing?
  Let me talk about one of the things they offered in their package. 
This is outrageous. They want to raise the eligibility age of Medicare 
by 2 years. I cannot tell you how many people come up to me--and it 
shocks me when I hear it--and say: I am praying for my 65th birthday so 
I can get on Medicare because I have no insurance. There is a huge 
number of people uninsured between the ages of 55 and 65. So this is 
their Christmas present? This is the happy holiday gift from Speaker 
Boehner?
  In the Speaker's tax package, not only is he giving the tax break to 
the wealthiest, he is even cutting their taxes further but paying for 
it by raising the Medicare age. What does that do? It is surprising 
just how bad it is. When we raise the age of Medicare from 65 to 67, 
ipso facto, 300,000 senior citizens go uninsured. Merry Christmas to 
all. It would increase the cost to businesses by $4.5 billion because 
they have to keep people on their plans. Merry Christmas to you, too, 
businesspeople. It will increase the out-of-pocket costs for those 
between 65 and 66 by $3.7 billion. It would increase costs to the 
States by $700 million, and millions--millions--would pay an average of 
$2,200 more for their health care.
  I will use every tool at my disposal to prevent the destruction of 
Medicare. What kind of counterproposal is that? It takes my breath away 
the pain that would be felt if this went through. I can't help 
remembering--and I am sure the Chair remembers as well--the attack 
leveled by Representative Paul Ryan, who was the Republican nominee for 
Vice President--he is chairman of the House Budget Committee--against 
President Obama for ``cutting'' $700 billion out of Medicare, when, in 
fact, the President got savings from people who were cheaters--the 
providers who were ripping off Medicare--

[[Page 16291]]

and then put it back into Medicare and extended the life of the program 
by 8 years.
  These are the same people who ran ads against Democrats--maybe they 
did it to the Chair as well, I don't know--all across the country 
saying Democrats voted to cut Medicare. These same people who were 
crying these bitter tears are now suggesting destroying Medicare as we 
know it. I can't believe it. I truly can't believe it. I wonder whom 
they fight for? That is the basic question. Why are they here? Whom do 
they fight for? Do they fight for the middle class? I believe we do on 
our side of the aisle. I believe President Obama does.
  I believe, if we look at the tax package that came over from Speaker 
Boehner and all the cuts to Medicare--and by the way, the Presiding 
Officer is a leader in protecting children--we will see there are cuts 
to child nutrition in there, major cuts. I have to say: Why do they 
have to cut food to poor kids? Why do they have to kick people out of 
Medicare? Their answer is, if they were honest, to protect the 
billionaires and the millionaires. Because that is what it is about. We 
know it. It is a fact in evidence.
  I believe we owe more to the American people. We need to find a way 
back to the fiscal responsibility and the economic growth we had when 
Bill Clinton was President. I have served with five Presidents 
already--it is amazing--in my time in this Congress, and I have seen 
people come together in moments of crisis, such as when Social Security 
needed to be strengthened, when Medicare needed to be strengthened, 
when we had deficits as far as the eye could see and we had to resolve 
that. I have seen all that happen. We have 27 days left to see 
something good happen about this fiscal cliff.
  When people say, oh, it is very complicated, don't believe it. Don't 
believe it. It is not complicated. There are several parts to this 
fiscal cliff. The biggest one is the Bush-era tax cuts that are 
expiring on 100 percent of the people, and if they expire, it means 
people will have to pay more in taxes at a time when we don't want them 
to have to struggle. We want them to have disposable income because it 
is good for their families, it is good for the economy, it is good for 
business, and it is good for economic growth. The Bush-era tax cuts are 
expiring on December 31. Why don't we find the common ground, get rid 
of that issue, get those tax cuts to 98 percent of the middle class who 
need them and fight about the millionaires and the billionaires later? 
They are OK. They are fine.
  We need to do that simple step. The House must pass the Senate's bill 
which we passed on July 25. We did it. It is done. We don't have to 
worry about it. We did our job over here. We got the votes. So the 
House needs to pick it up and pass it over there.
  I understand that Democratic Leader Pelosi has done something very 
interesting. She has taken this bill, the same exact bill, and put it 
at the desk in the House and started what they call a discharge 
petition. What that means is, since Speaker Boehner will not bring up 
this bill, if 218 people sign the discharge petition, there will be an 
immediate vote on the floor. I wish to urge Republicans and Democrats 
and Independents over in the House to sign the discharge petition to 
have a vote. We have a few days left until the end of the year--27--to 
get this done.
  Then we can talk about the automatic spending cuts, and there are 
ways to stop those. People are upset about those. Personally, I think 
we have to make spending cuts, but I think we can soften the blow of 
those spending cuts by bringing home the money from the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan to this country. That would soften the blow of those 
cuts. We also need to be making some more investments in 
infrastructure, which we desperately need after superstorm Sandy hit 
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland. We now see 
our infrastructure has to be what we call hardened, made stronger. We 
can do that if we invest in our people.
  The President has offered a very clear plan that is fair that takes 
us off the fiscal cliff. We have 27 days to do the right thing. The 
Senate already passed the tax cuts for 98 percent of the people. All we 
are asking is for the House to do that, to match us, and then we can 
get back to the table and figure out a way to soften the blow of the 
automatic spending cuts. We can look at tax reform.
  Let me just say this about tax reform. When our colleagues complain 
about tax rates and say: We would rather close loopholes, watch out. In 
order to raise the kind of funds needed to lower this deficit, we would 
be looking at the two of the biggest ``deductions.'' One is for your 
mortgage and one is for charitable contributions. I would ask 
rhetorically: What billionaire do you know who has a mortgage? I don't, 
frankly, know any. They own their own homes. They are not hurt by that. 
But who does get hurt? The middle class.
  So let's do the right thing. We passed the right thing on July 25, 
2012. We have 27 days left before taxes on the middle class go up. I 
know we have the wherewithal to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about where we are with 
regard to the end of the year and especially where we are with regard 
to the focus we should bring to bear on middle-income families. We have 
had a lot of discussion in the last couple weeks, using terms such as 
``fiscal cliff'' and terms that involve tax policy. All that is 
important to debate, but sometimes what is lost in the midst of all 
that is what is happening to middle-income families.
  The sense I have, in talking to a lot of those families in 
Pennsylvania, is they have been asking their representatives in 
Washington to do at least two things: No. 1 is to try to work together 
to get agreements, not just in the near term but over a long period of 
time; and No. 2--and not in second place, because they are as fervent 
about this as they are about No. 1--they ask me all the time to do 
something to create jobs at a faster pace, to put in place strategies 
that will lead to job creation that is more accelerated.
  The good news is we have had some progress. If we look at the numbers 
for August, September, and October, it is right around 511,000 jobs 
created. That is good news and it is good progress. It is a lot better 
than where we were in the spring. If memory serves me, in the time 
period of April, May, and June, we had only created about 200,000. So 
this 3-month period with more than half a million jobs created is 
progress.
  But we have a long way to go, and we need to move the job-creation 
pace or the pace has to be accelerated. We have in the midst of all 
that a good bit of uncertainty. Middle-income families look at 
Washington and don't see enough progress on jobs, they don't see folks 
coming together yet. I think we will, but until they see that, until 
they have a sense there is something substantial that is decided that 
affects their lives, they are going to be very uncertain. I hear this 
from taxpayers. I also hear a lot about uncertainty from small business 
owners.
  At the same time, the House has something they can do about it right 
now. On July 24 we passed in the Senate a tax cut for middle-income 
families, meaning we would continue tax rates for those families. That 
kind of certainty is badly needed right now. So one of the best things 
that could happen right now is the House could vote and then the 
President would sign into law legislation that would provide certainty 
for middle-income families--98 percent of American families and some 97 
percent of small businesses. So it is time for the House to act.
  Secondly, we have to take steps to make sure we are creating jobs at 
a faster pace. As I mentioned before, I am introducing legislation 
today to help middle-class families and to boost hiring. The bill is 
called the Middle-Class and Small Business Tax Cut Act, and it would 
expand the payroll tax cut from last year for 1 year and give employers 
a tax credit for hiring.
  The payroll tax cut we put into place last year had a number of 
benefits. I won't go through all those today, but

[[Page 16292]]

the Joint Economic Committee--the committee of which I am the 
chairman--put out a fact sheet in the last 24 hours that highlights 
some of the benefits of the payroll tax cut. I wish to highlight a few 
of those.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Joint 
Economic Committee fact sheet on the payroll tax cut dated December 4, 
2012.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Fact Sheet: Payroll Tax Cut, Joint Economic Committee, United States 
   Congress, Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr., Chairman, December 4, 2012


 The Payroll Tax Cut Supported the Economic Recovery, Created Jobs and 
            Bolstered the Social Security Trust Fund in 2012

       Last winter, Congress took action to prevent a temporary 
     two-percentage-point reduction in payroll taxes from lapsing 
     at the end of 2011, extending the tax cut through the end of 
     2012. The payroll tax cut for 2012 increased take-home pay 
     for over 120 million American households, providing tangible 
     benefits as the economy continued to recover from the Great 
     Recession. The additional money in individuals' pockets 
     contributed to increased consumer spending in 2012, 
     supporting economic recovery and job growth. Including 
     October, the private sector has added jobs nationwide for 32 
     consecutive months. Finally, the boost in employment due to 
     the payroll tax cut, coupled with transfers from the General 
     Fund, helped to fortify the balance of the Social Security 
     Trust Fund.
     Benefits of the Payroll Tax Cut in 2012
       122 million households received additional take-home pay. 
     Cutting payroll taxes immediately increased the income of 
     everyone who received a paycheck. By the end of 2012, the 
     two-percentage-point payroll tax cut will give an additional 
     $1,000 to the average American family.
       The payroll tax cut boosted consumer spending. Additional 
     take-home pay allowed working families to make purchases that 
     supported economic growth and job creation. In the third 
     quarter of 2012, real consumer spending grew 2.0 percent at 
     an annual rate, following gains of 2.4 percent and 1.5 
     percent in the first and second quarters.
       Middle-class families are responsible for the bulk of 
     consumer spending. The most current data show that families 
     making under $150,000 are responsible for the vast majority 
     (81.9%) of consumer spending. Moreover, families earning less 
     than $70,000 per year are responsible for nearly half (44.8%) 
     of all consumer spending.
       The payroll tax cut targets those most likely to spend it. 
     Compared with reducing the tax rates of the highest income 
     earners, cutting payroll taxes puts more money in the hands 
     of middle- and lower-income working families. Over half of 
     the benefits of the payroll tax cut went to households 
     earning less than $100,000 annually, and 85 percent of the 
     benefits went to those making less than $200,000.
       Economic growth and job gains were stronger in 2012 due to 
     the payroll tax cut. The two-percentage-point payroll tax cut 
     for 2012 boosted economic growth nationally by an estimated 
     one-half of a percentage point in 2012. The payroll tax cut 
     also saved or created an estimated 400,000 jobs.
       The payroll tax cut bolstered the Social Security Trust 
     Fund. The annual OASDI Trustee's report for 2012 confirms 
     that the payroll tax cut has no negative effect on the 
     balance of the Social Security Trust Fund in the short or 
     long term. All reduced revenues are recovered through 
     transfers from the Treasury General Fund.
       Furthermore, the additional jobs generated by the payroll 
     tax cut added to the Social Security Trust Fund's balance. 
     The JEC estimates that the boost in employment driven by the 
     payroll tax cut contributed at least $1 billion in additional 
     Social Security tax withholding and payments. This assumes a 
     majority of the jobs created or saved because of the payroll 
     tax cut, as during the recovery more generally, were in 
     occupations such as food services, retail and employment 
     services. The additional Trust Fund revenue could be much 
     larger--as much as $3 billion--if those jobs were in higher-
     wage industries such as manufacturing or professional 
     services, or if the number of additional jobs was greater 
     than previously estimated.

ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF THE PAYROLL TAX CUT IN 2012 FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES,
                                BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Median Household
                                     Wage and Salary    Additional Take-
               State                   Income (2011     Home Pay from 2%
                                        Inflation-      Payroll Tax Cut
                                    Adjusted Dollars)       in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.....................            $51,726             $1,035
Alabama...........................            $45,821               $916
Alaska............................            $66,185             $1,324
Arizona...........................            $47,348               $947
Arkansas..........................            $40,729               $815
California........................            $58,243             $1,165
Colorado..........................            $54,985             $1,100
Connecticut.......................            $69,240             $1,385
Delaware..........................            $58,040             $1,161
District of Columbia..............            $71,277             $1,426
Florida...........................            $45,821               $916
Georgia...........................            $48,061               $961
Hawaii............................            $61,094             $1,222
Idaho.............................            $40,933               $819
Illinois..........................            $56,003             $1,120
Indiana...........................            $48,061               $961
Iowa..............................            $49,894               $998
Kansas............................            $48,875               $978
Kentucky..........................            $44,802               $896
Louisiana.........................            $45,821               $916
Maine.............................            $45,821               $916
Maryland..........................            $71,277             $1,426
Massachusetts.....................            $68,018             $1,360
Michigan..........................            $47,959               $959
Minnesota.........................            $57,021             $1,140
Mississippi.......................            $39,711               $794
Missouri..........................            $46,839               $937
Montana...........................            $42,257               $845
Nebraska..........................            $48,875               $978
Nevada............................            $48,875               $978
New Hampshire.....................            $64,149             $1,283
New Jersey........................            $71,277             $1,426
New Mexico........................            $42,766               $855
New York..........................            $60,076             $1,202
North Carolina....................            $43,886               $878
North Dakota......................            $47,348               $947
Ohio..............................            $48,875               $978
Oklahoma..........................            $43,784               $876
Oregon............................            $46,635               $933
Pennsylvania......................            $52,948             $1,059
Rhode Island......................            $57,021             $1,140
South Carolina....................            $42,766               $855
South Dakota......................            $46,839               $937
Tennessee.........................            $42,766               $855
Texas.............................            $50,199             $1,004
Utah..............................            $54,985             $1,100
Vermont...........................            $52,948             $1,059
Virginia..........................            $63,131             $1,263
Washington........................            $58,040             $1,161
West Virginia.....................            $42,766               $855
Wisconsin.........................            $50,912             $1,018
Wyoming...........................            $54,985             $1,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Economic Committee Chairman's staff calculations using
  data from the 2011 American Community Survey micro data files.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, just a couple of points when you look at 
the economic impact on families when they have dollars to spend. The 
payroll tax cut puts $1,000 on average in the pockets of most families 
in America. Families making under $150,000 are responsible for almost 
82 percent of consumer spending. So the reason we are creating jobs 
with the payroll tax cut or a tax credit--the idea I mentioned before--
is because we are giving consumers, families, and small businesses the 
opportunity to create jobs because of economic activity.
  I mentioned the job impact of the payroll tax cut. It created or 
saved 400,000 jobs in the last year, and it didn't in any way harm the 
Social Security trust fund. In fact, it enhanced our ability to have 
more payroll revenue over time because of that job creation.
  So I think we should do both--continue the payroll tax cut as well as 
have a tax credit for businesses so that if they hire in year one 
versus a year after the year the credit is in place, that hiring can be 
given credit and they can be incentivized to hire more.
  Tomorrow our Joint Economic Committee will be engaged in a hearing on 
fiscal cliff issues. We will discuss strategies to create jobs, and we 
will discuss the implications of the fiscal cliff and what will happen 
if we don't get some work done by the House to pass the middle-income 
tax cut that was passed here in a bipartisan fashion. So we have a lot 
of work to do, but I think one thing we have to make sure we do is to 
continue to focus on middle-income families, their lives, their 
struggles, and what we can do to make sure they have more dollars in 
their pockets to continue economic growth.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my great colleague 
from Pennsylvania. I enjoyed sharing a table last night with him and 
his beautiful, charming, intelligent wife, whom he would be the first 
to admit he is lucky to have married, and their four great girls. I 
also thank him for his excellent on-target remarks. We have a great 
chairman of the JEC, and every time he comes to the floor it shows.
  Senator Olympia Snowe, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, 
Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho, David Brooks, Congresswoman Bono 
Mack, Congressman Walter Jones, and the National Review, we are here to 
say that passing the Senate's middle-class tax cut is the right thing 
to do, but you don't need to take our word for it. Two-thirds of the 
American public agrees with us, but you don't need to take their word 
for it either. Just listen to the voices within Speaker Boehner's own 
party.
  It is clear that Speaker Boehner needed cover from his right flank 
before he could agree to any deal on taxes with the President. The 
Speaker didn't

[[Page 16293]]

have it before, but he sure has it now. When the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page says that decoupling would not go against conservatives' 
antitax principles, that gives a whole lot of cover to the Speaker. 
When Grover Norquist refuses to declare whether decoupling would 
violate his group's pledge, that, too, gives a whole lot of cover to 
the Speaker. And when more and more rank-and-file Republicans come out 
publicly every day in favor of passing the Senate bill, that, too, 
gives cover to the Speaker.
  You really have to salute Congressman Tom Cole. He was the first one 
on the other side to dare speak the truth about what should be done on 
taxes, and he has been on TV almost every day making the case to his 
party in public. The day after Congressman Cole went public, he was 
dismissed as having a minority opinion. Well, that is not true anymore. 
His comments sparked a trend. In addition to those Republicans who have 
spoken out publicly, there are probably dozens of other Tom Coles in 
the House who just don't feel free to speak their mind but agree with 
him privately.
  Just this morning, in an appearance on cable television, the junior 
Senator from Oklahoma, an unquestioned conservative, came out on higher 
tax rates on the wealthy. He said:

       Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don't really 
     care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see the 
     rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us 
     greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in 
     the future.

  Well, if Senator Coburn does not provide conservative cover, I don't 
know who does.
  The House Republican leadership is like generals hunkered away in a 
bunker who don't realize their army has already laid down their arms. 
The Republican leaders are in search of an exit strategy, while they 
have one in the form of a discharge petition that has been filed in the 
House. It is an out for the Speaker. With the discharge petition, the 
Speaker doesn't have to outright endorse the Senate bill; all he needs 
to do is tell his Members: Sign your conscience. If you believe in the 
discharge petition, sign it, and there will be no recrimination against 
you.
  If Speaker Boehner does that, I am confident the discharge petition 
will get 218 signatures and then we will get 218 votes on the floor. We 
may not get a majority of the majority, but we will definitely get 218 
votes. So we may never win over the Paul Ryans in the other Chamber, 
but they aren't necessary--they can vote no or they can even vote 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Put the bill on the floor, let rank-and-file Republicans 
vote their conscience, and this bill can pass.
  In the New York Times today, it was reported that senior aides on the 
Republican side are considering just such a strategy to give them a 
soft landing on this tax debate--agree to the President's offer on the 
tax, the thinking goes, and live to fight another day on spending cuts.
  We agree that a tax hike on middle-class Americans should be taken 
off the table. Once Republicans agree to higher rates on the wealthy, 
an agreement on the other sticking points of a grand bargain can 
quickly fall into place. So let's stop with the offers and the 
counteroffers that are leaked only to manufacture headlines in the 
press. Let's get serious and cross the biggest item of our to-do list 
off and get the Senate tax cut bill passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next 45 
minutes be devoted to a colloquy between myself and my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________