[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16309-16311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 6156

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no amendments 
be in order to H.R. 6156; that following the reporting of the bill, 
there be up to 5 hours of debate, equally divided by the two leaders or 
their designees during today's session; that on Thursday, December 6, 
at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after visiting with 
and consulting with the Republican leader, there be up to 10 minutes of 
debate, equally divided by the two leaders or their designees; and that 
upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, last 
week, Secretary Geithner brought up for the President an offer that was 
so not serious it makes me wonder what the point of it was. In light of 
that offer, I would like to see if our Democratic friends are willing 
to support it. It includes a $2 trillion tax increase over 10 years, 
which would be the biggest real-dollar tax increase in U.S. history. It 
increases taxes on nearly 1 million small businesses and increases the 
taxes paid by family farmers and small businesses at death in the 
middle of a jobs crisis.
  Most outrageous of all, it gives the President of the United States 
unilateral power--unilateral power--to raise the limit on the Federal 
credit card, the so-called debt ceiling, whenever he wants, for as much 
as he wants.
  I don't think we should have to speculate how Democrats might feel 
about this. I think we should give them a chance to demonstrate for 
themselves how serious the President's plan was and how serious they 
are.
  I would like to ask consent to offer an amendment to the Russia trade 
bill--this is Secretary Geithner's proposal right here--an amendment to 
the Russia trade bill that gives our friends on the other side of the 
aisle a chance to vote on this proposal Secretary Geithner brought up 
last Thursday. It gives the President's proposal to solve the fiscal 
cliff, as delivered by Secretary Geithner and outlined in the 
President's budget, an opportunity to be voted upon.
  I should note I would be happy to have this vote right here or as an 
amendment to the next bill or as a stand-alone. It will not slow down 
what I hope is swift passage of PNTR for Russia. If this proposal was 
made in good faith, our friends on the other side, I am sure, would be 
happy to vote for it.
  Let me just say I expect my good friend, the majority leader, to 
decline this chance to support the President and this laughable 
proposal because they know it couldn't even pass if it was sent to 
their majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I reserve the right to object.
  Just a minute ago, Mr. President, I moved to the Russia trade bill. 
The purpose of moving this bill is to protect American jobs. If we 
don't do this legislation, we will lose American jobs for sure and put 
American companies in even worse shape than they are with Chinese and 
European companies. So the question is really this: Are we going to get 
serious here and legislate or is this more of the obstructionism we 
have felt so much of during this last Congress? The answer to that is 
really obvious. The answer is yes. Are we going to continue the sort of 
political stunts the minority leader is trying to pull here and now?
  On the substance, the Senate has passed a bill that will go a long 
way to address the fiscal cliff. It has already passed here. Last July 
the Senate passed a bill to continue tax cuts for 98 percent of all 
Americans and 90 percent of all American small businesses. If the 
Republican leader were serious about preventing us from going over the 
fiscal cliff, he would urge his colleague, the Speaker, to get the 
House to take up the Senate-passed bill now. There are Republicans who 
have already said that is the right thing to do. Conservatives, more 
moderate Republicans--we even had one Republican Senator today say she 
thinks that will happen and it should happen.
  In the meantime, the Republican leader's request is just a stunt. But 
the election is over. It is time to get down to business. These pieces 
of paper he has--Secretary Geithner didn't bring that stack of stuff to 
me. It was a private meeting--a private meeting--trying to work 
something out with this very troublesome issue facing this country--the 
deficit, the debt. And this private meeting turned out to be a 
publicity stunt for the Republicans talking about what he had said in 
private.
  So, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would add one comment about the 
consent I just offered. I think it would not be inaccurate to assert 
that the proposal the Secretary of the Treasury

[[Page 16310]]

brought up last Thursday would not have passed the House when Nancy 
Pelosi was Speaker. This was an unserious proposal. And I can 
understand why my good friend the majority leader would rather not vote 
on it because I can't imagine that it would get many, if any, votes 
here in the Senate as well.
  Having made that point, with regard to PNTR for Russia, when the two 
parties first sat down to discuss the so-called fiscal cliff, it was 
widely assumed among Republicans that President Obama and Democrats 
actually wanted to avoid it. That was the premise on which any possible 
agreement hinged. That was the common goal--or so we thought. Over the 
past couple of weeks, it has become increasingly clear to many of us 
that we were simply wrong about that. Incredibly, many top Democrats 
seem perfectly happy--perfectly happy--to go off the cliff. That is why 
the President has been more interested in campaign rallies than 
actually negotiating a deal, and it explains why the President is now 
stubbornly insisting on raising tax rates when he himself said just 
last year that you could raise more revenue from capping deductions and 
closing loopholes.
  Look, this isn't about the deficit for them or balance. It is about 
an ideological campaign most Americans thought would have ended on 
November 6. And that is also why the President sent Secretary Geithner 
up here last week with a proposal so completely ridiculous it wouldn't 
have passed the House, as I indicated earlier, if Nancy Pelosi were 
still Speaker. It was more of a provocation than a proposal, to be 
perfectly frank about it. It was a message that the President really 
doesn't want to deal at all.
  To date, not a single Democrat has come forward to support the 
Geithner proposal, and anybody who looks at the details would certainly 
understand why. As I just indicated, it includes a $2 trillion tax 
increase over 10 years--the biggest real-dollar tax increase in U.S. 
history. It increases taxes on nearly 1 million small businesses in the 
middle of a jobs crisis. According to Ernst & Young, this type of rate 
hike would cause more than 700,000 Americans to lose their jobs. It 
raises taxes on investment income, harming economic growth even more. 
It includes tens of billions of dollars in more Washington spending in 
a deal supposedly to cut the deficit. And most outrageous of all, it 
gives the President of the United States unilateral power to raise the 
limit on the Federal credit card--the so-called debt ceiling--whenever 
he wants, for as much as he wants.
  While I am flattered that the administration has taken to calling 
this the ``McConnell provision,'' they seem to have forgotten how this 
provision worked in the Budget Control Act. Yes, we gave the President 
the authority then to request a debt ceiling increase, but that was 
only after the White House agreed to $2 trillion in cuts to Washington 
spending and agreed to be bound by the timing and amount set by 
Congress.
  This time, the request is for the President to have the ability to 
raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants, for as much as he wants, with 
no fiscal responsibility or spending cuts attached. This is an idea 
opposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. It is a power grab that has 
no support here, and so it is not only completely dishonest, it is 
juvenile to compare it to last year's debt ceiling agreement. It would 
also be incredibly irresponsible since history shows that the only 
major deficit-cutting deals we ever do around here--ever--come after 
debates over the debt ceiling. It may be a good idea if you don't care 
about the debt, but it is a nonstarter for those of us who do. It also 
represents a dangerous attempt by the President to grab more power over 
spending--power Congress must not and will not cede.
  Beyond these details, not only would the President's plan raise taxes 
on certain individuals, it would also cap their ability to deduct 
donations they make to charities, the interest they pay on mortgages, 
the contributions they make to retirement accounts, and the value of 
employer-based health insurance. Don't get me wrong, you have heard me 
say that if Democrats insist on getting more money to Washington, 
capping these deductions is a better way to raise revenue, but capping 
deductions and raising taxes is a recipe for economic disaster.
  The President's proposal would also subject tens of thousands of 
small businesses and family farms to a massive tax hike to be paid by 
the family upon the deaths of the owners. It would impose a crushing 
tax increase on industries that employ millions of Americans, including 
manufacturers in my State, businesses that operate abroad, the 
insurance industry, and would raise the price at the pump by targeting 
the oil and gas industry for special tax treatment.
  It is so ridiculous, as I have said repeatedly, it wouldn't have 
passed the House under Speaker Pelosi, and that is why even the most 
liberal Members of Congress, the President's most ardent supporters, 
haven't come forward to support it. So for the White House to demand a 
response shows they are just playing games at this point.
  If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: How many Democrats would 
vote for this bill? Not many. But I didn't think we should have to 
speculate. I still think we should give Democrats a chance to 
demonstrate for themselves just how serious the President's plan was 
and how serious they are.
  That is why I just asked consent to offer an amendment to the Russia 
trade bill that gave them that opportunity. As I noted, I would be 
happy to have this vote here or as an amendment to the next bill or as 
a stand-alone. It will not slow down what I hope is swift passage of 
PNTR for Russia. If the President's proposal was made in good faith, 
our friends should be eager to vote for it. So I am surprised the 
majority leader just declined the chance for them to support it with 
their votes. I guess we are left to conclude that it couldn't even pass 
by a bare majority of votes and they would rather take the country off 
the cliff than actually work out a good-faith agreement that reflects 
tough choices on both sides.
  To be fair to the Secretary and to the President, we didn't just put 
together a bill that included his $2 trillion tax increase, we also 
added the almost $400 billion in new tax stimulus measures he wanted as 
well. This bill contains a continuation of the payroll tax holiday, a 
10-percent credit on new wages that will go to businesses large and 
small, and it included a fix to one of the many flawed provisions of 
ObamaCare, an expansion of the tax credit for businesses that no one 
uses. This proposal reflected exactly what was in the President's 
budget and his various submissions to Congress. I, for one, was eager 
to see this vote, to see if Senate Democrats were ready to support it. 
I think folks should know who actually wants to raise taxes on family 
farmers and manufacturers and who thinks we can solve our fiscal 
problems without doing anything serious to our real long-term 
liabilities.
  Our Democratic friends are so focused on the politics of this debate 
that they seem to forget there is a cost. They are feeling so good 
about the election, they have forgotten they have a duty to govern. A 
lot of people are going to suffer--a lot--if we go off this cliff. That 
is why we assumed Democrats would have preferred to avoid it. We 
thought this was the perfect opportunity to do something. Apparently, 
we were wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no Geithner proposal. This is all 
made up.
  Mr. President, I remember Dorothy in ``The Wizard of Oz''--I think 
she was from Kansas and she wound up in Oz. We are here in Washington, 
DC, and yet suddenly we are in Oz--a real strange place.
  The Republican leader is an expert in ways to kill legislation, and 
people who are watching can see he is trying to torpedo the fiscal 
cliff negotiations which are ongoing.
  Republican Senators have spoken to people in the White House today. 
This is no serious way to negotiate, out here

[[Page 16311]]

on the Senate floor. At the end, the Republican leader is complaining 
because President Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share, and as 
usual Republicans are defending the rich, holding tax cuts for the 
middle class hostage.
  At the first of the year, unless we work something out, taxes will go 
up for people making less than $250,000 a year, an average of $2,200 
each--not per family but each person. The Senate has already passed the 
centerpiece of President Obama's offer, and his offer has always been 
the same.
  We are not going to go through the same thing we have gone through 
here for years where we lay out different ways to cut spending and 
there is never any revenue. The President has made it very, very clear. 
They have already passed the President's proposal, which is to make 
sure people making less than $250,000 a year are not burdened with an 
extra $2,200 each after the first of the year. That passed in July. The 
House could take that up. Every Democrat in the House has agreed they 
will vote for that. We need only 25 or 26 Republicans in the House to 
make life something that is stable for people making less than $250,000 
a year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I ask my friend from Maryland if he 
has spoken on the Magnitsky portion of this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. We have not yet gotten to the bill. I believe we are now 
prepared to go to H.R. 6156. I know the Senator from Connecticut would 
like to speak for 5 minutes, and I was hoping we could get some time 
where we could go back and forth and talk about the Magnitsky aspects 
of that legislation now.
  Am I correct, Mr. President, that the bill has not yet been reported 
or it will be reported now and that perhaps we can enter into a consent 
agreement as to the next 30 or 40 minutes?

                          ____________________