[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11948-11964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes, and that following my remarks the Senator from Rhode 
Island be recognized to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my indescribable 
frustration and genuine disbelief that we are looking at two proposals 
that do not do enough to fix this Nation's financial problems--and both 
have been predicted by both respective sides to fail. I speak of the 
Bush tax cuts and how those of us in the responsible middle find 
ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place, with a vote that 
offers, truly, no real solutions.
  It is no secret that I prefer fixing the problems this country faces, 
like most of my colleagues, and we all have different approaches. We 
are hurling toward $16 trillions in debt, and for the first time since 
the World War II era our debt exceeds the output of our economy. Even 
our generals say the greatest threat this Nation faces is not a foreign 
power or a terrorist organization but the debt we have created 
ourselves.
  We are staring down the barrel of insurmountable obligations for 
decades to come, and we are passing up a key opportunity to put this 
country in better shape for the next generation.
  As you can see, and as West Virginians know, we urgently need to put 
our country's financial house back in order, and the people of West 
Virginia are tired of temporary solutions to our long-term problems.
  As I have said so many times, I will work with both sides of the 
aisle, Democrats and Republicans, on a comprehensive solution that 
lowers tax rates, broadens our revenue base, closes loopholes, cuts 
spending, and reduces our debt, like the framework proposed by the 
Bowles-Simpson plan.
  Unfortunately, neither of the proposals on the Bush tax cuts will 
solve our long-term debt and fiscal problems. At the same time, with 
our debt problems getting worse every year, we must come together to 
take responsible action and fair steps toward reducing our debt, even 
if they are only temporary.
  Let's look at the two proposals that have been offered, one from my 
Republican colleagues in the House that, unfortunately, kicks the can 
down the road entirely and extends these tax cuts at a cost of $400 
billion. What people do not know is that even though it would extend 
tax cuts for the wealthiest--and this is what they do not know--it 
would actually get rid of some tax reductions for middle- and low-
income Americans, such as the expanded child tax credit. That is 
tremendously unfair.
  Another proposal from the Democrats here in the Senate, our side, 
would cost about $250 billion, which is at least starting to move in 
the right direction to reduce our deficit, and it keeps the tax cut for 
more than 99 percent of all West Virginians and a high percentage in 
every State such as the Presiding Officer's.
  When considering these two proposals, I kept two priorities in mind--
putting our fiscal house back in order and restoring fairness to the 
Tax Code. So while I would prefer a bipartisan comprehensive solution, 
I will support the plan to keep taxes low on families that make less 
than $250,000. According to the latest available figures from the West 
Virginia Department of Revenue, more than 99 percent of all West 
Virginians will get a break on their taxes under this proposal. And the 
wealthiest among us will pay the rates they did during Bill Clinton's 
Presidency, which was the greatest era of prosperity I can remember in 
my lifetime.
  On the other hand, the proposal that includes extending the tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans carries a heavy price for this Nation. It 
is about $150 billion more than the Democrats' proposal. Given our dire 
budget situation, this country cannot afford that. We simply have to 
prioritize and close the gap. The fact is we cannot keep trying 
temporary solutions to our serious budget problems. And the truth is, 
these tax cuts will not restore confidence in our government or our 
economy to create good jobs or keep the ones we have. They certainly do 
not put our fiscal house back in order. What they will do is be used as 
fodder in political ads in the next 100 days against both sides. I 
cannot understand why we continue to take votes that are more about 
making one side look bad or worse than the other, or taking cheap 
shots, than actually solving the problems we have before us.
  I will continue to work across the aisle on a comprehensive 
bipartisan plan, because when it comes right down to it these tax cuts 
simply will not fix the financial problems our country faces. I have 
talked to countless business leaders and laborers all over the State of 
West Virginia and all over the country. When I asked them what will 
encourage them not only to create the good jobs we need but to keep the 
jobs we already have, the answer is simple: Certainty. They need to be 
able to plan their next steps. They need to know their government is 
working as a partner, an ally, not as an adversary.
  We did not pull these stunts in West Virginia when I was Governor. We 
were willing to get our hands dirty, to come to the table, to have a 
genuine and respectful discussion on the right direction for our State, 
and sometimes that led to respectful agreement to disagree. But in the 
least, we moved forward and made a decision. It has been nearly 2 years 
since the bipartisan commission on reducing our debt recommended a plan 
that people of all political stripes support. It is time to go back to 
that framework and provide this country with an honest solution.
  In fact, the only thing that seems to be holding our feet to the fire 
right now is the sequester, which is becoming quite the scary term 
around here. For people who do not live and work in the Beltway, here 
is what the sequester is: If those of us in Congress cannot agree on a 
real, substantial plan to fix our finances, we will have to make some 
very painful cuts in some very important areas--our Department of 
Defense, our schools, and our domestic priorities such as veterans 
services and Head Start. Both Democrats and Republicans care about 
those issues.
  So both Democrats and Republicans have some skin in the game when it 
comes to finding an agreement, because, let me tell you, the reason the 
sequester was put in place almost a year ago was in case we could not 
come up with an agreement on a big fix, one the so-called 
supercommittee was tasked to put forward. Well, they did not agree on 
the superfix and this is our penalty. I believe the greatest mistake we 
could make would be to walk away before the end of the year and not 
vote on a clear direction to fulfill the commitment and promises we 
made to the American people, which were that we would fix the country's 
financial problems or the sequester would go into effect. That is the 
biggest mistake we can make as a Nation, letting the American people 
down.
  So now a year after Congress has failed to reach an agreement, I am 
surprised to find some of my colleagues who voted for the sequester, 
knowing full well that Congress needs the threat of painful cuts before 
we can get anything done, are complaining about something they 
supported. I stand with those, including the President, who are drawing 
a hard line in the sand on our finances.
  Like it or not, this painful sequester is the linchpin to a better 
government and a better agreement. It is the only way we are going to 
get something bigger. A better agreement will look a lot like the 
bipartisan comprehensive Bowles-Simpson framework, not the Bush tax 
cuts, because this country needs a real solution, because this country 
needs to come together on that solution, because if we cannot come 
together, there will be dire consequences for this country with or 
without the cuts in the sequester.
  I sincerely hope and pray and will work for a compromise. But I 
believe the threat of a sequester might be the only thing that will 
force Congress to get its job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page 11949]]




            Tribute to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks with respect to 
the current debate, let me pay tribute to Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and 
Detective John M. Gibson of the Capitol Police, and to all of the 
Capitol Police officers, men and women who protect us each day.
  I was here on that somber day when these gentlemen sacrificed their 
lives to protect innocent people in this building. Their example 
continues to sustain us and inspire us. They continue to sustain and 
inspire the Capitol Police officers who today are protecting us. We 
thank them all.
  As my colleague from West Virginia commented, we are in the midst of 
a very serious debate with huge consequences for our country, our 
economy, our future. That is why I rise today in support of the Middle 
Class Tax Cut Act. This bill will extend the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax 
cuts for the middle class through 2013. It will provide tax relief to 
every American, especially to those families who have struggled through 
this recession and this weak recovery, and restore some fairness to the 
Tax Code by letting the top marginal tax rates return to the Clinton-
era levels.
  If we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class, the typical 
Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an average 
of $2,200 in 2013. This is not fair to middle-income Rhode Islanders, 
middle-income Americans.
  Unfortunately, I fear many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues 
will block this bill because it does not extend additional tax cuts for 
taxpayers who make over a quarter of a million dollars. Instead, they 
will continue to press for a proposal that doubles down on the failed 
economic policies of the Bush era for a plan that gives more tax cuts 
to the wealthy, while eliminating middle-class tax breaks for families 
with children. Indeed, one of the astounding things about the 
Republican proposal is it will, if you look closely, actually increase 
the tax burden on middle-income Americans.
  In contrast, the bill Democrats propose will benefit every single 
taxpayer in America. It is only when someone exceeds a quarter of a 
million dollars in income that their income in excess of the quarter of 
a million dollar threshold will be subject to the top two Clinton-era 
rates.
  The Democratic plan will extend tax cuts for the vast majority of 
Americans. Only the top 2 percent of earners, approximately 2.1 million 
out of more than 100 million households, households that have 
disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts for more than a 
decade, will see their top rates revert to Clinton era levels. They 
will get to maintain their benefits up to $250,000, but after that, 
they will see an increase. This is the nature of our progressive tax 
system, one which for generations has spread the burden across income 
levels, making sure that middle-income Americans do not shoulder a 
disproportionate burden of the taxes that support this government.
  One of the key facts we have observed, now for more than a decade, is 
that these Bush tax cuts have been very costly. They have been a 
primary driver of this deficit, in addition to unpaid conflicts in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and a prescription drug program that was not paid 
for.
  At least with this proposal, we are beginning to try to reverse that 
trend in a principled way. The wealthiest, those who enjoy the greatest 
economic privilege in the country should shoulder some of the 
responsibility, and should shoulder some of the effort in order to help 
us begin to repair the deficit, which has grown as a result of these 
massively costly and ineffective tax breaks the wealthiest have enjoyed 
since 2001.
  The Democratic bill will cost the Federal Government $249 billion in 
lost revenue for a 1-year extension. The Republican bill will cost $405 
billion. So, again, if you are talking about trying to get a handle on 
the deficit, compare a bill for $249 billion, which is expensive but 
significantly less than $405 billion Republican plan that would do 
virtually nothing to restore fairness to our tax code or create jobs. I 
do not think our Nation can afford this $405 billion Republican 
alternative. There has been a promise or a mantra that has been offered 
over the last decade that these Republican tax cuts create jobs, and 
that they would contribute to our prosperity. But what we have seen, 
particularly over the 8 years of the Bush administration, is that these 
tax cuts for the wealthy did not create jobs. I believe the evidence we 
have shows that there is very little correlation between these tax cuts 
for the wealthy and job creation or economic prosperity.
  Additionally, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans constrain our 
ability to pursue policies that will boost growth in the near-term.
  Indeed, if we do not have the resources to invest in the country, in 
our infrastructure, in our education, in the health of our people, we 
will not have the economic dynamism needed to be competitive and give 
our children the future they deserve. Frankly, like the future our 
parents gave to us. A future that previous generations were able to 
provide for because of Federal tax policies which were fairer, which 
were more progressive, and which allowed for significant investment and 
job growth.
  In my State, with a 10.9-percent unemployment rate and a national 
unemployment rate above 8 percent, it is imperative that we embrace 
fiscal policy that creates jobs in the short-term but also recognizes 
the need for long-term deficit reduction.
  Democrats have offered plan after plan that would preserve and create 
jobs in a fair and fiscally responsible manner. We press for policies 
that will provide more of an economic bang for the buck, policies such 
as the continuation of unemployment benefits and policies that provide 
relief to middle-class households. What we have to do is go forward, 
support this effort, begin the hard and difficult task of not only 
continuing to support middle-income families but begin to address the 
issue of long-term deficit reduction.
  I hope my colleagues do not block this effort. I hope my colleagues 
do not once again decide that doing nothing is a viable alternative to 
helping middle-income Americans and helping our economy overall. 
Unfortunately, they have done that in the past. Earlier this month, the 
Republicans blocked a bill that cut taxes for small businesses that 
hired new workers. The bill was estimated to create 1 million jobs 
nationally and could have created about 3,500 jobs in my State, but 
Republicans filibustered.
  Just last week, the Republicans blocked a bill that would have given 
tax cuts to businesses that brought jobs to the United States and 
closed tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas. Republicans 
blocked that also. I believe the record is clear. Democrats have been 
trying week in and week out to create jobs here at home, to make our 
tax system fairer, to give middle-income families a break, and to do so 
in a fiscally responsible manner. The vote on the Middle Class Tax Cut 
Act will be upon us shortly. I hope it will be a vote on which we 
prevail and go forward together and provide tax relief to middle-class 
Americans. I think it will be a first step toward the larger issues 
that were alluded to by my colleague from West Virginia dealing with 
the potential of sequestration at the end of this year, advancing 
policies that will grow our economy while beginning to restrain our 
deficit and provide a more stable, more sustainable economic 
environment for all Americans.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it has been more than 30 years since I 
was in medical school, but I still remember the day my classmates and I 
stood to recite the Hippocratic Oath. That is an oath which has guided 
doctors for centuries. At its simplest, it can be boiled down to a 
single phrase: First, do no harm.
  I was reminded of that last week when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben 
Bernanke testified before the Senate

[[Page 11950]]

Banking Committee, speaking about the approach Washington should take 
toward healing our sick economy. He said: Do no harm. Well, that is 
good advice for Senators and for Presidents, just as it is good advice 
for doctors. The problem is that we have a President in the White House 
and Democrats in Congress who don't believe it and don't act that way.
  Day after day, as the President makes one policy decision after 
another, his policies do harm to the American economy and to the 
American people. Just look at how sick our economy has gotten since 
President Obama took office. The Federal Reserve projects that the 
gross domestic product will grow by as little as 1.6 percent this year. 
That is not nearly good enough to give us the healthy economy we need.
  The other night, ``CBS Evening News'' opened with this summary: 
``This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had.'' That is 
what they said--the worst.
  Every other President has been able to bounce back from tough 
economic times. Not President Obama. Why is that? Why is our private 
sector economy sicker today than it was when the President took his 
oath of office? The Economist magazine put it this way. It gave a 
characterization of the President as someone ``who has regulated to 
death a private sector he neither likes nor understands.'' And I agree. 
Look at the President's own words. He said that while government 
bureaucrats were struggling, the private sector is doing just fine. 
Doing just fine? It has gotten worse. Because of President Obama's 
failed economic policies, more than 23 million Americans are now either 
unemployed or underemployed. I think those 23 million people would say 
to President Obama: Do no harm. We have now had 41 straight months of 
unemployment above 8 percent. Our economy created just 80,000 jobs last 
month--just 80,000 jobs. More people last month signed up for Social 
Security disability benefits than got a job. That is not doing just 
fine.
  Look at what else the President said recently about small business 
owners. He said:

       If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody 
     else made that happen.

  I know a lot of small business owners who would say they worked 
extremely hard to build their own businesses. Farmers and ranchers work 
from sunup to past sundown, and everyone in the family works to keep 
the operation going. The corner drycleaner is trying to keep his doors 
open in tough economic times. The florist is trying to avoid laying off 
another salesperson in the shop.
  Where I live, in Casper, WY, most of the businesses we have are small 
businesses. They were started by men and women with dreams and with 
determination. These people aren't looking for a government handout, 
but they don't think their government should be hostile toward them. 
They work hard every day. They have worked hard to build their 
businesses and have tried to expand and create jobs in the community. 
President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that. That is why, instead of 
doing all he can to help small businesses, he is burying them under 
more regulations, under more redtape, and under threats of increased 
taxes.
  Democrats here in Washington like to say they are in favor of 
creating jobs, but then they turn around and do the very things that 
hurt the people who create the jobs in this country. Washington has 
already put out more than 36,000 pages of new regulations just since 
January of this year. If small business owners could talk to the 
President, I think they would tell him they do not need more paperwork. 
They would tell him: Mr. President, do no harm.
  The damage President Obama's policies have done to our economy so far 
is terrible, and it is likely to get worse. We know the President's 
policies are holding back our economy from the type of normal recovery 
we have had from other recessions in the past. Even worse, he is paying 
for his failed policies by piling an unprecedented amount of debt on 
future generations. Today, our national debt is $16 trillion. In just 
3\1/2\ years, President Obama has managed to waste more taxpayer money 
than any other President, in my opinion, in American history.
  Previous Presidents understood the danger of spending more than we 
can afford. President John Kennedy said: Persistently large deficits 
would endanger our economic growth and our military and defense 
commitments abroad. President Kennedy made that statement 50 years 
ago--in 1962. At the time he made that statement 50 years ago, 
Washington's budget deficit that year was $7 billion. So we have gone 
from $7 billion 50 years ago to a projected deficit of $1,200 billion 
this year--from $7 billion to $1,200 billion. That is 170 times 
greater. Has anything else increased that fast in the past 50 years in 
terms of expenses on anything--a daily newspaper or a bottle of Coke, 
which would have cost 10 cents in 1962? Using this multiplier of 170 
times, that would be $17 today if it had increased at the same rate as 
our Nation's deficit. And gasoline was about 30 cents a gallon back 
then. It would have to be more than $50 a gallon today.
  Look at it a different way. The share of Washington's total debt that 
is owed by every man woman and child in America today is almost 
$51,000. The President is saddling our children with debt to pay bills 
we can't afford for policies that don't work and for goals the American 
people don't support.
  The President demonstrates no sincere interest in cutting government 
spending, even as the Federal Government has grown less efficient, less 
effective, and less accountable. The American people look at 
Washington's out-of-control spending and debt, and their message to 
President Obama is this: Please, Mr. President, stop doing harm.
  Remember, President Obama has been quite clear. He doesn't respect 
small businesses, and he thinks the private sector is doing fine. He 
has increased redtape, increased bureaucracy, and he has mortgaged 
America's future to give taxpayer dollars to his campaign 
contributors--to companies such as Solyndra.
  When he has borrowed all he can--lots of it from China--he still 
doesn't slow down his spending. He says he needs to raise taxes to 
spend even more. The President already raised taxes through his health 
care plan. He pushed through $\1/2\ trillion in taxes and fees. He 
pushed his individual mandate tax to force people to buy insurance. Now 
he is pushing again to impose massive new tax hikes on millions of 
successful families and small businesses.
  The additional damage President Obama would do to our economy with 
his proposals to raise additional taxes would be enormous.
  Now, that is not only my opinion; others agree. The accounting firm 
of Ernst & Young did a study of the President's plan and found it would 
wipe out 710,000 jobs. Middle-class workers who keep their jobs would 
see their wages go down. And 2.1 million business owners would be hit 
with higher taxes. That means less money left to expand and less money 
left to hire additional workers. Again, you can't be for jobs and 
against the people who create the jobs.
  In short, as weak as our economic recovery has been these past 3 
years--the worst ever, as reported in the news--the President's tax 
increases would make matters worse. Just look again at the difference 
between President Obama and a different Democratic President--John 
Kennedy. John Kennedy said:

       The largest single barrier to full employment of our 
     manpower and resources, and to a higher rate of economic 
     growth, is the unrealistically heavy drag of Federal income 
     taxes on private purchasing power, initiative, and incentive.

  This lesson from President Kennedy is lost on President Obama. The 
only solution President Obama seems to see is to raise taxes and to 
raise them most on the very people and businesses we need to lead us to 
prosperity and economic recovery. Remember the words President Obama 
used when he was running for President in 2008. He said that even if 
his tax increases led to less revenue for the government--that is

[[Page 11951]]

what he said, even if his tax increases led to less revenue for the 
government--he would raise taxes anyway as a matter of fairness. 
Fairness? Fairness? What about doing what is best for the country? As 
an orthopedic surgeon, when someone came to me with a broken leg, I 
would try to fix it. You don't break someone else's leg so the two 
people would then be equal and both would have broken legs. The 
President is promoting his vision of fairness over good common sense.
  The American people know those who work hard and take risks should be 
free to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They should not have to suffer 
more angry attacks by the President and by Democrats in Washington. The 
American way should be to promote success, not to punish it.
  President Obama should abandon his misguided agenda to replace the 
long-held American value of equal opportunity with the President's own 
desire for equal outcomes regardless of effort. Before he makes things 
even worse, he should stop and he should do no harm.
  Finally, I would like to address one last issue where I think the 
Democrats in Congress and the White House need to reverse course. Our 
country faces what has been called a fiscal cliff. Unless Washington 
acts in January, taxes will increase across the board--not just on 
small businesses but on middle-class families and even low-income 
people. Republicans in the House have already voted to approve long-
term spending cuts. This month they will vote to stop the tax 
increases. And Republicans have a plan to create a healthier economy by 
making our Tax Code simpler, flatter, and fairer for all Americans. 
What happens next is in the hands of the Democrats in the Senate.
  Financial experts have warned that if Senate Democrats do not act by 
the end of this year, they could create a worldwide recession. This is 
very serious harm. Democrats appear to be ready to do it. The Senate 
Democratic leadership has made clear that they would let the country go 
over the fiscal cliff rather than compromise on tax hikes. President 
Obama recently said the same thing. He said that if Congress passes 
reasonable regulation that keeps tax rates where they are--even 
temporarily, he said, while we sort out long-term tax reform--he would 
veto that. He would raise everyone's taxes and risk another worldwide 
recession. I ask the President to look at what he is saying and stop 
threatening grave damage to America in reckless pursuit of his 
political agenda.
  Mr. President, do no harm.
  Those words that sum up the Hippocratic Oath ring true for so many 
people across America today, for people who believe, as Ronald Reagan 
said, that government should stand by our side, not ride on our back.
  It is time for Washington to change direction, to lower taxes, not 
raise them; to reduce redtape, not increase it; to control our 
spending, not rack up more debt; to free the entrepreneurial spirit, 
not stifle it.
  First, before all else, if we are to heal our sick economy, it is a 
time for Washington to do no harm.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise to speak about the need to 
extend middle-class tax cuts.
  We have a broad bipartisan consensus that middle-class families 
should not see their taxes increase on January 1. We know that if 
Congress does nothing, then the taxes will increase for the broad 
middle class on that date. We have a broad bipartisan consensus that 
should not happen.
  So while we have this moment of agreement, we should act swiftly to 
extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families--about 99 percent 
of the people in my State--right now, today, this week, soon. But we 
will not because special interests and their allies in Congress are 
holding middle-class tax cuts hostage. Why? It is the same old song: In 
order to protect the interests of millionaires and billionaires. It 
seems the default button--certainly in the majority of the House of 
Representatives and far too many in the Senate--is, no matter what, 
protect the interests of millionaires and protect the interests of 
billionaires.
  Let's be clear. Whether it is our plan where we immediately--today, 
this week, as soon as possible--grant tax relief for people who are 
middle class, every American will get a tax cut on their first $250,000 
worth of income. If someone is making $1 million a year, they still get 
a tax cut on their first $250,000. If someone makes $10 million a year, 
they still get a tax cut on their first $250,000. They are only paying 
roughly 4 percent on every $1 above $250,000. So we have bipartisan 
agreement. Let's lock that in so the middle class will get a tax cut.
  There is an old cliche that the definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over, expecting different results. We have been in 
this policy shop before, when they sold us the same flawed economic 
policies based upon tax cuts to the wealthy trickling down to the 
middle class. I was in the House of Representatives in the first part 
of the last decade when President Bush came to us. We had a huge budget 
surplus. In fact, in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in 
American history--surplus, not deficit. Look what we are dealing with 
now.
  So what happened? Two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a bad idea 
to go into Iraq, a contentious issue. The intelligence wasn't right 
that Congress was given. Many of us voted against it.
  But put that aside. Nobody paid for the war in Iraq. Then there were 
the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in our 
society. Nobody paid for those tax cuts. Then there was the Medicare 
partial privatization prescription drug bill. Nobody paid for that. So 
we went from the biggest budget surplus in American history to the 
biggest budget deficit. At the same time, the economic geniuses of the 
time that were running the government didn't use the words ``trickle 
down,'' but that is what it is. They said: If we cut taxes on the 
richest people of our country, all that wealth will trickle down to the 
middle class and to working families and the poor and everybody will 
get richer and the economy will take off.
  We had 8 years of that experiment. What happened? Between 2000 and 
2010, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs under those economic 
policies of giving huge tax breaks to the rich. The fundamental tenet 
and central core of that policy was huge tax cuts for the rich. What 
happened? We lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs. It is only since 
we have begun to bring some more fairness with the Recovery Act, with 
Wall Street reform, with the auto rescue--especially important in my 
State--and other things we have done did we see the economy grow from 
2010. The unemployment rate in my State in 2009 was 10.6 percent. Now 
it is 7.3 percent. That is not good enough, but it is certainly 
progress. There were 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 
2010. Since 2010, almost every single month we have gained, in the 
aggregate, some 450,000 to 500,000 manufacturing jobs.
  So this policy of cutting taxes on the wealthy was going to create 
prosperity. It didn't work that way. We went from a surplus at the end 
of the Clinton years to massive deficits at the end of the Bush years.
  Let's be clear. We are talking about returning the tax rates for the 
top 2 percent of the Americans to the 1993 level, the same year 
President Clinton balanced the budget. Opposition to our bill to extend 
the middle-class tax cuts says that if millionaires have to pay the 
same top marginal tax rate they did in the Clinton years, then job 
creation will suffer. But it doesn't make sense. We want to go back to 
tax rates for the richest people in our country to what they were under 
President Clinton. During that 8 years, jobs increased

[[Page 11952]]

by 22 million in this country. During the Bush years, with low tax 
rates for the rich, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and had 
absolutely anemic economic growth. One doesn't have to be an economist 
to make this comparison. Look at tax rates during the Clinton years and 
the Bush years.
  I don't want to blame everything on President Bush. That doesn't get 
us anywhere. It makes people quit listening. But I do want to learn 
from history. Look at the tax system we had during the Clinton years 
and the tax system we had during the Bush years and make the contrast 
about what happened: 22 million jobs created; not so good during the 
Bush years, with very anemic job creation.
  For too many people in my home State, the recession didn't mean they 
had to delay buying a new yacht. Workers in Steubenville, in Norwood, 
and Norwalk were struggling to stay afloat. They struggled to make ends 
meet. Too many are still struggling. That is why we have a 
responsibility to the people in New Hampshire and the people of Ohio 
and all over to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.
  The median household income in Ohio is $47,358. For those families, a 
$2,000 tax cut means a whole lot. We know that 98 percent of Americans 
who would benefit from this tax cut are going to put that money back 
into the economy. This isn't trickle down. This is, someone gets a tax 
cut like that and maybe they can put a downpayment on a car, maybe they 
can help pay their son or daughter's way to community college, maybe 
they can do some remodeling in their house, maybe they can do some 
things around the house that they need to do or take their kids to a 
movie or go out to dinner once in a while. But that $2,000 truly means 
a lot for a family with an income of $47,000. That is why this 
legislation is so important.
  We can't afford to stall on this important middle-class tax cut for 
the Americans who need it most. The middle class in our society has 
been beat up long enough, for 10 years, where wages have been stagnant, 
where people are too anxious about layoffs, where people simply haven't 
had the opportunity to do what they need to do to build this great 
country.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, tomorrow we will have the 
opportunity to deliver a little bit of tax certainty to the American 
people by advancing the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. This legislation 
would prevent tax rates from increasing for the vast majority of 
American families and would preserve an important tax credit that 
currently helps millions of students and families afford the costs of a 
higher education.
  The Middle Class Tax Cut Act is the right thing to do for the middle 
class, and I intend to vote for it. The question is, Will it be 
filibustered--a tax cut for millions of hard-working Americans, 
filibustered simply to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying a 
fair share? We will find out.
  This is not a new story. In 2001, when President George W. Bush 
decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from 
President Clinton to cut tax rates across the board, many Democrats 
opposed it because the tax cuts were unfairly weighted toward the 
highest income Americans. As a result of this opposition, Republicans 
were forced to set the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010.
  As 2010 drew to a close, President Obama and many Democrats in 
Congress, including myself, supported extending the tax cuts for 
middle-class families but letting the lower rates on income above 
$200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the 
Clinton-era levels as was scheduled. Senate Republicans filibustered 
that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax 
cut for America's wealthiest. Not wanting tax rates to go up on middle-
class families still struggling during the recovery, the President and 
Senate Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend all the tax cuts through 
this year, which brings us to now. Once again, these tax rates are set 
to expire.
  I would like to keep rates low for middle-class families. Families in 
Rhode Island are still struggling in the aftermath of the mortgage 
meltdown on Wall Street, and this is not the time to raise their taxes. 
But I agree with President Obama that for reasons of fairness and to 
begin to address our deficit, it would be wise not to extend the Bush 
tax cuts for high levels of income.
  Bear in mind in this discussion that the Middle Class Tax Cut Act 
would benefit even high-end taxpayers. When we protect the rates for 
the first $250,000 in income, it is the first $250,000 for somebody 
making $1 million; it is not just the first $250,000 for a family who 
makes $100,000 or $185,000. Whether someone makes $100 million or $185 
million, they still get the first $250,000 tax cut. If a family, for 
instance, makes $255,000, they would only see an increase on the $5,000 
and only to the Clinton-era rates that were in effect during the 1990s 
when our economy was thriving. A family earning $255,000 would pay an 
extra $150 as a result of this bill. Extending the lower tax rates for 
income above $250,000 for 1 year, as the Republicans have proposed, 
would add over $49 billion to our deficit. Even in Washington $49 
billion is significant money, money that would have to be borrowed and 
would add to our deficit problem.
  Many of the same Republicans who voted in the name of deficit 
reduction to end Medicare as we know it--deficit reduction was so 
important to them that they voted on the Ryan budget to end Medicare as 
we know it and would put thousands of dollars in costs on our seniors--
would support deepening the deficit with high-end tax cuts. There is a 
double standard here, and for most Rhode Islanders these are exactly 
the wrong priorities when it comes to deficit reduction.
  In addition to the deficit concerns, we should let the tax cuts at 
the top expire just for fairness reasons. 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.
  Let me say that again so it sinks in. Sixty-five percent, nearly two-
thirds, of individuals earning $1 million or more a year--the vast 
majority of individuals earning $1 million or more annually--pay taxes 
at a lower rate than median-income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. 
Because of the loopholes, because of what the special interests have 
done, our supposedly progressive tax system is upside down to the point 
where 65 percent of those earning over $1 million pay a lower tax rate 
than the median-income taxpayer making $100,000 or less.
  Earlier this year we voted on my Paying a Fair Share Act, legislation 
that would implement the so-called Buffett rule and ensure that 
multimillion-dollar earners paid at least a 30-percent overall 
effective tax rate. During debate on my Buffett rule bill, I cited an 
IRS statistic that the top 400 taxpayers in America in 2008 who earned 
an average of $270 million each in that 1 year paid the same 18.2-
percent effective tax rate on average that is paid by a truckdriver in 
Providence, RI.
  The single biggest factor driving this inequality is the special low 
rate for capital gains, 15 percent under the Bush tax cuts. The special 
capital gains rate allows hedge fund billionaires to avail themselves 
of that so-called carried interest loophole and pay taxes at lower 
rates than their doormen, secretaries, or chauffeurs. If we let the tax 
cuts at the top expire, these rates revert to 20 percent instead of 15 
percent. Now 20 percent is still a pretty low rate for someone making 
$100 million a year, but more like what a family making $100,000 a year 
pays.
  Let's also be very clear about one thing: The proposal that 
Republicans prefer, the tax cut bill introduced by Finance Committee 
ranking member Orrin Hatch, would raise taxes. It would raise taxes on 
25 million lower

[[Page 11953]]

and middle-income Americans. It would raise taxes on those 25 million 
Americans still struggling in these challenging economic times. 
Republicans claim not to want to raise taxes, but the Republican tax 
bill would let very popular lower and middle-income provisions expire 
that would cost 25 million Americans an average of $1,000 each. Under 
the Republican bill, 12 million families would lose part or all of 
their child tax credit, 6 million families would lose part or all of 
their earned income tax credit, and 11 million families would lose 
their American opportunity tax credit which helps pay for college. It 
provides a $2,500 tax credit for higher education. That popular tax 
credit has already helped millions of students and their parents pay 
for college, along with Pell grants, another subject of Republican 
attack.
  Extending the American opportunity tax credit, the college tax 
credit, through 2013 would cost about $3.2 billion. Republicans believe 
we cannot afford a $3.2 billion investment in higher education for 
middle-class Americans, but we can afford $49 billion in continued tax 
cuts for ultra high-income earners. A $2,500 tax credit might seem 
pretty small in comparison to the $92,000 average tax break that 
millionaires, or people earning $1 million a year, would receive from 
another year of high-end tax cuts, but that $2,500 may make a much 
bigger difference in the life of that middle-class family with that 
child trying to get into a college they can afford than that $92,000 
would make in the life of somebody earning well over $1 million a year.
  Once again, look at the priorities here. Republicans fought to 
protect the tax loopholes and taxpayer subsidies for big oil. They 
fought to protect the carried interest tax loophole that lets hedge 
fund billionaires pay lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and 
doormen. They want to go after the child tax credit, they want to go 
after the earned income tax credit, and they want to go after the 
college tuition tax credit. Those are priorities that, like our Tax 
Code, for too many Americans are upside down.
  I hope Republicans will join us tomorrow in voting to advance a 
measure that would keep taxes low for the vast majority of Americans, 
and I urge them to reexamine their proposal to raise taxes on 25 
million low- and middle-income Americans.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, many of our Republican colleagues argue 
that we can't extend tax relief for middle-class families unless we 
also extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. They argue without tax cuts 
for the wealthiest 2 percent, we will harm job creators and slow the 
economy. Their arguments rely on faulty assumptions, mistaken beliefs, 
and misleading statements. Let's get to the facts.
  It is a fact that every American taxpayer would receive a tax cut 
under our bill on the first $250,000 of their income. It is a fact that 
compared to the middle-class tax cut act now before us, the plan the 
Republicans have put forward would increase the deficit by $155 
billion. It is a fact that the bill Republicans have put forward, 
despite their professed support for tax cuts, would raise taxes on the 
middle class by failing to extend the 2009 tax cuts for middle-class 
families, including the American opportunity tax credit and credits 
that help families with children.
  What is unfolding on the Senate floor now is the culmination of a 
rigid Republican adherence to tax cuts for the wealthy as the supreme 
goal of public policy. Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to 
risk government shutdowns. They have demonstrated a willingness to risk 
grave economic damage, to risk rising taxes on the vast majority of 
Americans in pursuit of their highest priority: lower taxes on the 
wealthiest 2 percent of us. They want to risk all of that in service to 
an idea that has already proved a failure.
  When historians look back at the Republican dedication to the tax 
cuts for the wealthy, they will find it remarkable that so many fought 
so long and so hard to go back to a failed policy. Income for the 
typical American family peaked in the year 2000, not coincidentally 
just before the Republican tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy mania reached its 
zenith.
  A June study by the Federal Reserve found that the average middle-
class family's net worth had fallen by 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. In 
2010, the bottom 99 percent of income earners reaped just 7 percent of 
total income growth while 93 percent of all growth flowed to the top 1 
percent.
  As David Leonhardt of the New York Times reported on Monday:

       The top-earning 1 percent of households now bring home 
     about 20 percent of total income, up from less than 10 
     percent 40 years ago. The top earning 1/10,000th of 
     households--each earning at least $7.8 million a year, many 
     of them working in finance--bring home almost 5 percent of 
     income, up from 1 percent 40 years ago.

  Perhaps this vast accumulation of wealth would arguably be acceptable 
if it had resulted in faster economic growth that produced new jobs and 
helped average Americans prosper. Indeed, since the time of President 
Reagan, America has been told that the rising tide lifting up the 
wealthy would lift all boats, and that the benefits would trickle down 
to all Americans. Our Republican colleagues today argue that we must 
continue the President Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or risk harm to 
the ``job creators.''
  But the Republican emphasis on policies that are more and more 
generous to the wealthiest have utterly failed to spark economic growth 
or create the jobs we need. Their experiment failed. The Bush tax cuts 
coincided with the slowest rate of job growth in American history. 
Economic growth, even before the financial crisis, nearly sent our 
economy into depression and was woefully short by historic standards.
  The failure of the Bush policies to spur economic growth and job 
creation underlies the failure of another promise from supporters of 
tax cuts for the wealthy, the promise that those cuts would pay for 
themselves. Republicans backing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 painted 
those grand scenarios that grow so rapidly that it would yield 
increased tax revenue. But instead of growing Federal coffers, we got a 
flood of red ink.
  So the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy failed as a fiscal policy. 
It added to our deficit. It failed as an economic policy, coinciding 
with weak growth and economic output and job creation, and it failed as 
a vital test of public policy in a democratic society because it failed 
the fairness test. Instead, it facilitated massive accumulations of 
wealth for a fortunate few while most Americans have struggled just to 
tread water.
  Yet our Republican colleagues persist in their pursuit of their 
failed policy--persist, in fact, to the point that they are willing to 
force a tax increase on more than 90 percent of taxpayers and 
potentially send our economy tumbling back into recession in adherence 
to that failed policy.
  We are not arguing against this policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest 
because we seek to denigrate success or to stoke class warfare, as some 
Republicans allege. We are arguing against these policies because they 
are broken, they have failed, and they are unfair. We should reject 
them lest they do even more harm. We should reject the Republican 
pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs, every other 
consideration be damned. We should allow middle-class families to keep 
a few of their hard-earned dollars and pass the Middle Class Tax Cut 
Act. At a minimum we should vote tomorrow to overcome the filibuster 
threat and proceed to debate this singularly important issue.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor this 
afternoon to talk about a very important bill, the Violence Against 
Women Act. It is hard for me to believe it has actually been months now 
since we first came to the floor to talk about this important 
legislation, which is why we are here again this afternoon: to try and 
pass a bill into law that has consistently received broad bipartisan

[[Page 11954]]

approval. It is a bill that passed the Senate now almost 3 months ago 
by a vote of 68 to 31.
  The Violence Against Women Act has successfully helped provide 
lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their 
families. Every time we have reauthorized this bill we have included 
bipartisan provisions to address those who are not being protected by 
it. But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support for a bill 
that should not be controversial.
  So, today, the women of the Senate and the men who support the 
Violence Against Women Act have come to the floor with a simple, 
straightforward message for our friends in the House of 
Representatives: Stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan 
Senate bill without delay.
  In the coming weeks we are going to be making sure this message 
resonates loudly and clearly both in the Nation's Capital and back home 
in our States because we are not going to back down, not while there 
are thousands of women across our country who are currently excluded 
from the law. In fact, for Native and immigrant women and LGBT 
individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act is delayed is another moment they are left 
without the resources and protection they deserve.
  The numbers are staggering: 1 in 3 Native women will be raped in 
their lifetimes--1 in 3--and 2 in 5 of them are victims of domestic 
violence. They are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.
  These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women: 25 
to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic 
violence in their relationships, and 3 in 4 abused immigrant women 
never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they were 
eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.
  This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other 
Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of 
women across America who are affected by violence--women such as 
Deborah Parker.
  Deborah is the vice-chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State 
of Washington. Deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young 
age by a nontribal man who lived on her reservation. Not until the 
abuse stopped around the fourth grade did Deborah realize she wasn't 
the only child suffering at the hands of that assailant. At least a 
dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that same man.
  He was a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to 
justice, and still walks free today, all because he committed these 
heinous acts on the reservation and is someone who is not a member of 
the tribe. It is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to be held 
liable for his crimes.
  Reauthorizing an inclusive VAWA is a matter of fairness. Deborah's 
experience and the experience of other victims of this man do not 
represent an isolated incident. For the narrow set of domestic violence 
crimes laid out in the Violence Against Women Act, tribal governments 
should be able to hold accountable defendants who have a strong tie to 
the tribal community.
  I was very glad to see Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and 
several of her Republican colleagues echo these very same sentiments 
last week. In a letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, the 
Republican Members explicitly called on their party leadership to end 
this gridlock and accept ``Senate-endorsed provisions that would 
protect all women of domestic violence, including college students, 
LGBT individuals, Native Americans, and immigrants.''
  So today we are here to urge Speaker Boehner to listen to the members 
of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our 
government's promise to protect its people. I was so proud to have 
served in the Senate back in 1994 with Senator Boxer, who is here with 
me today, when we first passed this bill. Since we took that historic 
step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, 
social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the 
challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with this bipartisan 
support, it has received praise from law enforcement officers, 
prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health 
care professionals, advocates, and survivors.
  VAWA has attained such broad support because it works. Where a person 
lives, their immigration status, or whom they love should not determine 
whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. These 
women across this country cannot afford any further delay--not on this 
bill.
  Today the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to 
the heart of where we are. It began by saying:

       House Republicans have to decide which is more important: 
     Protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the 
     harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their 
     party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

  But the editorial pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way. It 
pointed out:

       In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's 
     Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill.

  Finally, it ends with what we all know we need to take this bill 
forward: Leadership from Congressman Boehner.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 23, 2012]

                       Delay on Domestic Violence

       With Congress just days away from its August break, House 
     Republicans have to decide which is more important: 
     protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the 
     harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their 
     party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.
       At issue is reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, 
     the landmark 1994 law central to the nation's efforts against 
     domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
       In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's 
     Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill. 
     Instead of embracing the Senate's good work, House 
     Republicans passed their own regressive version, ignoring 
     President Obama's veto threat. The bill did not include new 
     protections for gay, immigrant, American Indian and student 
     victims contained in the Senate measure. It also rolled back 
     protections for immigrant women, including for undocumented 
     immigrants who report abuse and cooperate with law 
     enforcement.
       Negotiations on a final bill are in limbo. Complicating 
     matters, there is a procedural glitch. The Senate bill 
     imposes a fee to pay for special visas that go to immigrant 
     victims of domestic abuse. This runs afoul of the rule that 
     revenue-raising measures must begin in the House. Mr. 
     Boehner's leadership could break the logjam--but that, of 
     course, would also require his Republican colleagues to drop 
     their narrow-minded opposition to stronger protections for 
     all victims of abuse.
       Unless something changes, Republicans will bear 
     responsibility for blocking renewal of a popular, lifesaving 
     initiative. This seems an odd way to cultivate moderate 
     voters, especially women, going into the fall campaign.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Today the effort we are beginning in the Senate is an 
effort that will continue for as long as it takes. It is a call for the 
same thing: Leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond 
ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the 
history of a bill that again and again and again has been supported and 
expanded by Republicans and Democrats. It is time for him to do the 
right thing and pass our inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women 
Act because the lives of women across the country literally depend on 
it.
  I am delighted my colleague from California is here with me. She has 
been with us every step of the way in this bipartisan bill that we have 
moved forward. With the women and men who support us, we are going to 
continue to be loud and strong. We need to pass the bill, and Speaker 
Boehner needs to take it up for the women who are watching and waiting.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 11955]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am proud to follow Senator Murray in 
her call to pass the bipartisan Senate bill which would reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act. The Leahy-Crapo bill is the only bill that 
will protect all of the women in our country.
  I well remember when Vice President Biden was then-Senator Biden, and 
in 1990 he wrote the Violence Against Women Act. I was in the House at 
the time. He asked if I would carry the House version of his bill. I 
was extremely honored to do that. We were able to pass small portions 
of the bill early in the 1990s.
  But it wasn't until I came to the Senate that we actually passed the 
entire bill, and I think it was Senator Schumer, who was then in the 
House, who picked up the ball on the bill in the House. It got passed. 
Since then we have seen a decline in domestic violence of 53 percent. 
But even so, even while the law is working, we have to strengthen it 
because, as the Presiding Officer knows because she is a leader in this 
cause, every day three women are killed by their abusive partners. Let 
me say that again. Every single day, three women are killed by their 
abusive partners.
  So in order to change this terrible statistic, we need to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act, and we need to improve it to protect 
more victims of domestic violence. That is what the Senate did. I am 
very proud of the Senate. We passed the bipartisan bill with a vote of 
68 to 31, with 15 Republicans voting in favor.
  The Presiding Officer also worked hard to get the Transportation bill 
done. It was a very similar situation. The Senate had a bipartisan 
bill; it was a very popular bill. It had over 70 votes. The House was 
very slow to take up the measure, and we kept saying: Pass the Senate 
bill. Finally, they passed a small bill, and we got to conference, and 
we hammered it out.
  But here is the thing: We don't have time on this bill. We need to 
ask the House to take a look at our bill and to understand how 
important it is that everybody be included in the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  I am going to put up a chart that shows us how many people are left 
out of the House Violence Against Women Act.
  (Mr. CASEY assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Now, I say Mr. President, we can see that 30 million 
people are left out of the House Violence Against Women Act. That is 
why we have seen a number of colleagues in the House call for passage 
of a bill such as the Senate's bill, because we include everybody. It 
isn't fair to leave entire groups out of the protections of the 
Violence Against Women Act, and that is exactly what they do in the 
House.
  The House bill ignores the wishes of law enforcement and excludes key 
protections for 4 million immigrants. It excludes 16 million LGBT 
persons from critical legal protections and services. More than 44 
percent of LGBT victims who seek shelter are turned away.
  The House bill would also prevent Indian tribes from protecting 
almost 2 million Native American women from their abusers. This is 
outrageous. It is an extremely outrageous omission, given that nearly 
half of all Native American women have been victims of domestic 
violence. Let me repeat that: Almost half of all Native American women 
have been victims of domestic violence. Yet among the 30 million left 
out of the House Violence Against Women Act, we see the exclusion of 
the Native American community.
  Despite the epidemic of sexual assault and dating violence on our 
college campuses, the House bill leaves out improved protections for 
more than 11 million college women.
  The House bill would deny vital protections to women such as an 
immigrant woman who is my constituent who had been stabbed by her 
boyfriend 19 times while she was 3 months pregnant. During her ordeal, 
her boyfriend drove her from one part of town to the other, refusing to 
take her to the emergency room, even though she was losing 
consciousness and bleeding profusely.
  Thankfully, the woman received medical attention, the baby was not 
lost, and she made a full recovery. This brave woman, despite her 
physical and emotional scars, fully cooperated with police and the 
prosecutor to eventually bring her abuser to justice. A women's shelter 
helped her get a U visa based on her cooperation with law enforcement, 
and she and her child were able to move on with a new life.
  If we look at some of the most vulnerable people living in America 
today, in addition to our children--and I know what the Presiding 
Officer is dealing with in Pennsylvania, with an unbelievable, 
horrific, violent crime that took place on a college campus over a 
period of years--we know our children are vulnerable, and our immigrant 
women are extremely vulnerable, too, because they are scared they are 
going to be kicked out of the country and, therefore, their abuser 
knows that and puts them in a horrific situation, where if they go to 
the police to report the abuse on themselves and their kids, they may 
be kicked out of the country.
  That is why we have the U visas. The U visas say: If someone 
cooperates with law enforcement, they will not be kicked out. So we 
have to include immigrant women and, by extension, their children in 
the 30 million who are left out. We have to add them back in.
  The House bill fails to ensure that people such as Jonathon, a gay 
man who was abused by his partner of 13 years, receives full protection 
under the law and cannot be discriminated against.
  When Jonathon did seek shelter from his abuser, he was refused by 
three L.A. area domestic violence shelters, none of which could give 
him a reason for excluding him. But he was left out because this 
community was not mentioned in the Violence Against Women Act. It is 
not mentioned in the House act, and Jonathon falls among the 30 million 
who are left out of the House act.
  The House bill also leaves out students such as Mika, who was 
physically assaulted by her ex-boyfriend while she was in college in 
San Francisco. Her ex-boyfriend broke her phone, broke into her home, 
stole her belongings, stalked her at school, and severely beat her.
  She got a restraining order against him but struggled to get her 
school to enforce that restraining order. She should not have had to 
struggle. She should have had the school on her side.
  Sadly, only the Senate bill would help her, not the House bill. The 
House bill does not protect these women. Only the Senate bill ensures 
that all women, LGBT individuals, and college students are protected 
equally under the law, as well as Native American women.
  The consequences of denying anyone the critical protections in the 
Violence Against Women Act are too great. When someone is bleeding on 
the floor, we need to help them in this great country. We do not want 
to start asking them questions. Are you gay? Are you straight? Are you 
an immigrant? Are you a college student? Are you a Native American? If 
someone is bleeding on the floor, we help them in this country. That is 
what America is about.
  We see the compassion and the love every day in our country, and we 
saw it pour out in Aurora, CO, for an unspeakable situation. When there 
is violence, we have to help the victims. Only the Senate bill, the 
Senate Violence Against Women Act, the Leahy-Crapo bipartisan Senate 
bill, affords protection to all our people.
  So what we are saying to Speaker Boehner is: Please hear our plea. 
This is not about the Senate saying it is any better than the House. 
What we are saying is, in a bipartisan way, we figured out a bill that 
will protect everybody, and we are asking Members to pick up that bill 
and pass it.
  There are some technical issues--a blue-slip question. We have 
studied that. What did we find out? Those technical problems can be 
overcome in 5 seconds. So there is no reason why the House cannot pick 
up and pass the Senate bill.
  The safety of women across the country, the safety of all our 
communities, is at stake, and it is time we pass it.

[[Page 11956]]

  In closing, I would say this: Vice President Biden is a wonderful 
human being, and he could not sit back when he was in the Senate and 
see violence against women go on and on and on without any way to 
ensure that women could get into shelters, that women could get 
counseling, that law enforcement could be trained, that doctors could 
be trained, that nurses could be trained, and that we enhance the 
penalties for those who would harm another in a domestic violence 
situation.
  He had tremendous foresight. In this bill, Senator Leahy and Senator 
Crapo have amazing foresight because they have strengthened this. We 
have cut back domestic violence by 53 percent. But we have a long way 
to go when three women a day are killed--killed--by their abuser.
  Again, we have a very clear message for the House: Please join hands 
with us. Please, with all the politics and all the fighting and all the 
problems, there are certain times when we should reach out to one 
another and protect the American people. This is one of those times. We 
have the bill. It is bipartisan. It works. Please accept it, and let's 
get on with our work.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague 
from California for her leadership over many years and her steadfast 
courage and vision on this issue; likewise, my colleague from the State 
of Washington who spoke before her, Senator Murray, for her leadership, 
as well and others in this body who passed VAWA, the Senate's version 
of that measure, S. 1925, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, in 
fact, 68 to 31, back in April.
  This measure truly is bipartisan, and it has commanded overwhelming 
support in this body and, more important, from across the American 
public.
  In Connecticut, I hear again and again from men and women, members of 
all communities, that the Violence Against Women Act is an idea whose 
time came 18 years ago but continues to demand the kind of respect and 
support the Senate has given it.
  Now is the time for the House to adopt the Senate bill because it is 
more inclusive and more effective. For a bill that works, as this 
measure truly does, to include more potential victims, to provide more 
tools of enforcement is absolutely appropriate and necessary at this 
point in our history.
  Of course, I hear from Connecticut constituents such as Hillary from 
Fairfield, who tells me:

       One in four women, worldwide and in the U.S. is at risk for 
     violence at some point in her life. Men are at risk too, and 
     VAWA supports provisions for men to be safe and healthy in 
     their relationships as well. VAWA supports programs for both 
     men and women perpetrators of abuse to get the help they need 
     to stop the violence, and it ensures that women and their 
     children have a safe place to go when in danger.

  Susan from New Haven:

       Reauthorizing VAWA sends the message that survivors of 
     sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and 
     stalking must have the tools to heal and reclaim their lives; 
     that women and girls, our communities and our families, must 
     be safe; that the next generation must be engaged in this 
     effort--and that the evolution of our collective thinking on 
     how to break the cycle of violence is a national priority. To 
     send any other message is unconscionable. Congress must act 
     swiftly. Renew VAWA now.

  Renew VAWA is the message we carry to the House: Renew VAWA with the 
improvements and reforms we have wisely adopted in this body and 
continue a measure that has benefited 54,000--let me repeat that, 
54,000--domestic violence victims in Connecticut alone, millions across 
the country, and has provided organizations in Connecticut nearly $5 
million in just the last fiscal year from VAWA programs.
  These measures make a difference in people's lives. So often we can 
speak and think in this Chamber without the kind of connection to 
individual lives, where we see legislation, our acts here, making a 
difference. This measure offers us the opportunity to make a difference 
by broadening and making more inclusive this measure.
  It makes it more effective. I am proud it makes it more effective 
with an amendment I offered to prosecute criminals who use the Internet 
to intimidate, threaten, harass, and incite violence against women and 
children.
  The use of the Internet is increasingly prevalent for these kinds of 
crimes. The legislation I introduced, included in the Senate's bill, 
enhances current law for the Internet age. That section of the bill is 
not in the House version. It should be. That is a reason I am urging 
the House to adopt the Senate version.
  But it is also more inclusive in including lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
and transgender constituents--whom all of us have--in these 
protections.
  LGBT Americans experience domestic violence at the same rate as the 
general population, but they often face discrimination in accessing 
services. In fact, a survey found that 45 percent of LGBT victims were 
turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. 
There is a real need--an unquestionable and immediate need--to improve 
the access and availability of services for LGBT victims, and our 
measure does it; the House version does not.
  Over 800 constituents--and I welcome them in contacting me--have 
written me to urge that we preserve the LGBT provisions of the Senate 
bill as VAWA moves forward.
  S. 1925 also includes protections for Native Americans that are 
absolutely vital. One of the invisible, unknown, unrealized, 
unacknowledged facts about this community is that nearly three out of 
five Native American women are assaulted by their spouses or intimate 
partners. One-third of all American Indian women will be raped during 
their lifetime. Those numbers alone should dictate the result. The 
members of the Tribal Council of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation 
and others across the country--the Mashantucket Pequots happen to be 
from Connecticut--have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions 
in the Senate measure, not to waiver, not to relent to the House 
version.
  Again, I urge the House to adopt our measure.
  Protecting immigrant populations ought to be a given for the Senate. 
The House version of VAWA would ``endanger the safety of noncitizen 
victims and society as a whole.'' That is a quote from the 
International Institute of Connecticut, which has urged me to hold firm 
to support the provisions of the Senate bill and not surrender to the 
House and relent on protecting immigrants who need this help.
  Again, I quote. The House version would ``endanger the safety of 
noncitizen victims and society as a whole.'' VAWA symbolizes for our 
immigrants, those who come to this country, what makes America great. 
We protect everyone who needs it. We enforce the laws equally without 
discriminating against people as to their national heritage or origin 
or ethnicity or race or other background. Equal protection of the law 
is one of the unique constitutional principles of the American 
democracy and the American Constitution. Our landmark measure enhances 
and enforces equal protection of the law.
  I hope this body stands firm. I hope the House understands that it is 
not one body being better than another. We are way beyond that kind of 
comparison at this point. It is one version of the same legislation, 
one set of provisions seeking a common goal, doing it better, more 
inclusively, and more effectively in the great tradition of the 
legislative process.
  I urge the House of Representatives to put partisanship aside, to put 
aside any kind of cameral personal differences and take immediate 
action to support all in America who are victims of domestic violence 
and sexual abuse.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the need to 
extend

[[Page 11957]]

the current tax rates and to reject the tens of billions of dollars in 
higher taxes the President and Senate Democrats want to impose next 
year. I believe the upcoming vote or votes will be some of the most 
important votes the Senate holds this year.
  As early as tomorrow, we will hopefully vote on tax plans that 
represent two competing philosophies. One plan, introduced by Majority 
Leader Reid and supported by Senate Democrats and the President, 
proposes higher taxes on American entrepreneurs, investors, and small 
business owners.
  The Democratic plan represents the philosophy that if only the 
government could raise enough money, Congress could somehow spend our 
way to prosperity. It is a viewpoint that holds that the Federal 
Government can spend hard-working American tax dollars better than they 
can. Rather than leaving the money in the private economy where it can 
be invested or spent by private citizens, this view holds that the 
government should instead bring these dollars here to Washington, DC, 
to redistribute them through the Federal bureaucracy. This philosophy 
was probably best articulated by the President recently when he said, 
``If you've got a business--you didn't build that. Someone else made 
that happen.'' In other words, no one is extraordinary by virtue of 
their hard work and accomplishments. When someone works hard and 
succeeds, we should not celebrate that person as an example to others, 
we should instead take from him or her in order--again, as the 
President said--to ``spread the wealth,'' to quote another of his 
lines.
  I am hopeful that the tax-and-spend philosophy of the Reid tax plan, 
however, will not be our only option. I hope we will also have the 
opportunity to vote on legislation introduced recently by Senator Hatch 
and Minority Leader McConnell. This plan takes a very different 
approach by following the view that now is not the time to raise 
anyone's taxes. This view holds that our American free enterprise 
system works best when government gets out of the way, leaving 
Americans free to pursue their hopes and dreams. One way we can leave 
Americans free to pursue their dreams is by not raising their taxes 
next year. And we especially should not raise taxes when Americans are 
struggling to get by.
  Ironically, the view that we should extend current tax policy at a 
time when the economy is weak was articulated, interestingly enough, by 
the President just 2 years ago when he signed an extension of all of 
the tax rates. At that time, President Obama said that raising taxes 
would have ``been a blow to our economy just as we're climbing out of a 
recession.'' Interestingly enough, real GDP growth when he made that 
statement was around 3.1 percent. That was the average when the 
President made the statement that if we raised taxes, it would have 
``been a blow to our economy.'' Well, real GDP growth this year is on a 
pace to average 2 percent and possibly less. Those numbers are 
consistently being revised and being revised downward. If it did not 
make sense to raise taxes when our economy was recovering, why does it 
make sense now to raise taxes as our economy is slowing? How does it 
make sense to raise taxes in an environment where over 23 million 
Americans are out of work or underemployed, when the unemployment rate 
has been stuck at over 8 percent now for 41 consecutive months?
  The votes tomorrow are incredibly important--not because either plan 
is likely to become law immediately but because Americans deserve to 
know where their Senators stand when they go to vote this November. Do 
you stand for stable tax rates that encourage work and investment or do 
you stand for increasing taxes on the very businesses we rely on for 
job creation? Do you stand for a free enterprise system that rewards 
hard work and innovation or do you stand for making it more difficult 
for small businesses to grow and succeed? These are the important 
choices that will have a real impact on hard-working Americans and on 
our economy at large.
  Consider the Reid tax plan. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, this plan will impose a tax increase on nearly 1 million 
business owners. Proponents of this increase are going to argue that it 
will only affect a small segment of our economy. Yet the Joint Tax 
Committee estimates that the President's tax increase in the Reid plan 
will hit more than 50 percent of all income earned by businesses that 
pay their taxes at individual rates. These are so-called passthrough 
businesses, and they apply to S corporations, partnerships, sole 
proprietorships, and LLCs. They are the ones who are going to see their 
cost of business go up next year for no other reason than the desire by 
the Senate Democrats to ``tax the rich.''
  Small businesses, which accounted for two-thirds of the net new jobs 
over the last decade, will be particularly impacted by these tax 
increases. According to a survey of small businesses by the National 
Federation of Independent Business, 75 percent of small businesses are 
organized as passthrough businesses. NFIB also found that the 
businesses most likely to be hit by the Reid tax increases are those 
businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees. According to the 
U.S. census, the data that they collect, these businesses employ more 
than 25 percent of the workforce. So the million small businesses that, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will see their taxes go 
up under this proposal employ 25 percent of the American workforce and 
account for over 50 percent of all passthrough income. So you are going 
to see taxes go up dramatically on over 50 percent of passthrough 
income and on small businesses that employ 25 percent of the American 
workforce.
  Does that make sense in this economy? It should be no wonder that the 
political party advocating this kind of tax policy has also presided 
over the weakest economic recovery literally since the end of World War 
II.
  The impact of the Reid tax increase on small business will be bad 
enough, but unfortunately these tax increases will have significant 
ramifications for our entire economy. According to a study released 
earlier this month by Ernst & Young, the Reid tax plan would hurt our 
economy in the long term. According to Ernst & Young, the tax increases 
in the Reid plan would reduce economic output by 1.3 percent. This 
would mean $200 billion less in economic activity if translated into 
today's economy. The Ernst & Young study estimates that the tax 
policies in the Reid plan would reduce employment by one-half percent, 
meaning roughly 710,000 fewer jobs.
  The study estimates the Senate Democrats' approach will reduce the 
Nation's capital stock by 1.4 percent and investment by 2.4 percent, 
and this approach will reduce aftertax wages by 1.8 percent. So we will 
be reducing investment, costing the economy over 700,000 jobs, and 
reducing aftertax wages for hard-working Americans in this country. Yet 
here we are talking about a tax increase that would do dangerous damage 
and harm to our economy.
  I would say, these aren't partisan statistics compiled by Senate 
Republicans. These are the estimates by a respected accounting firm as 
to what will happen if we follow the tax policies proposed by Senate 
Democrats and the President. We will have less economic growth, fewer 
jobs, and a lower standard of living in the long run. These numbers 
simply confirm common sense. If we want individuals and businesses to 
spend and invest more, we shouldn't raise the amount of the income they 
have to pay to the Federal Government, and that is what this does.
  We have major tax policy decisions to make, decisions reflected in 
the votes we will take tomorrow. Do we want to encourage capital 
formation in this country? In other words, do we want to encourage 
investors to put their capital at risk so that businesses will have 
money to make new investments? Well, by raising the capital gains tax 
rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for some investors, the Reid bill 
will make it less attractive to invest in our economy. According to an 
Ernst & Young study from February of this year, the top rate of capital 
gains

[[Page 11958]]

will rise from 56.7 percent on January 1 of next year, after taking 
into account corporate, investor, and State taxes. This will be the 
second highest combined capital gains tax rate in the world among OECD 
and BRIC nations. America already has the highest corporate tax rate in 
the developed world. It appears as if the Senate Democrats are going 
for No. 1 when it comes to capital gains taxes as well.
  If there is anything I can say that is positive about the Democrats' 
tax increase plan, it is that at least they rejected the President's 
proposal to nearly triple the tax on dividends paid by upper income 
Americans. Even Senate Democrats, who are not shy about raising taxes, 
understand the President's proposal to impose a top rate of over 40 
percent on dividend income would be terrible for millions of seniors 
who rely on dividend-paying stocks and for those American companies 
that rely on dividends to raise capital.
  Instead, the Reid bill would increase the top rate on dividends from 
15 percent to 20 percent. I believe this tax increase is bad policy, 
but it won't be nearly as harmful as the President's approach would 
have been.
  On another issue of critical importance, however, the Senate 
Democrats have decided to run to the left of this liberal 
administration, and this is on the issue of the estate tax, better 
known as the death tax. The Reid plan would impose a huge new death tax 
on family farms and businesses next year. Under current law, businesses 
and farms are exempted from the death tax on the first $5 million of 
the value of an estate. Values above this amount are taxed at a top 
rate of 35 percent.
  I believe we ought to completely eliminate the death tax, and I have 
introduced legislation, with 37 of my colleagues, to do so. But the 
current death tax treatment exempts the large majority of family farms 
and businesses from the tax. The Reid plan, however, would allow the 
death tax to revert to the provisions in effect before 2001.
  This means, under the Reid plan, that family farms and businesses 
will face a top death tax rate of 55 percent on estates above $1 
million in value.
  This is a massive death tax increase on tens of thousands of small 
businesses and family farms across America. In fact, according to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, the Reid plan will increase the number of 
estates subject to the death tax in 2013 from 3,600 estates under 
current law to 50,300 estates under the Reid proposal.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Reid plan will 
subject 20 times more farming estates to the death tax in 2013--a 
2,000-percent increase. The Reid plan will subject 9 times more small 
businesses to the death tax--a 900-percent increase.
  If the death tax policy in the Reid plan were made permanent over the 
next 10 years, the number of small businesses subject to the death tax 
will increase from 1,800 to 23,700, and the number of family farms 
subject to the death tax would increase from 900 to 25,200. That is all 
data put together and reported out by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  The reason for this massive expansion of the death tax is because the 
$1 million exemption amount is much too low, given the value of 
successful farms and small businesses today. I will use my State of 
South Dakota as a good example. Take family farms in South Dakota. 
According to the Department of Agriculture, the average size of a farm 
in my State is 1,374 acres. According to the USDA, the average value 
per acre of cropland in South Dakota is about $1,810. This means the 
average value of a farm in my State is nearly $2.5 million. So if you 
have a death tax law that only exempts $1 million and has a 55-percent 
top rate on everything above that, imagine what that is going to do to 
the average farm in a State such as South Dakota. And South Dakota is 
not unique in that regard. We have seen land values rise across 
America's heartland, from Nebraska to Missouri to Montana.
  Let's be clear: The Reid bill would subject many more families to a 
punitive double tax--the death tax--when a loved one passes away. It 
will make it much more difficult to pass family farms and businesses 
from one generation to the next. And we should never forget that most 
family farms are land rich and cash poor. Lots of assets, land values, 
and those sorts of things, but what you don't want to see happen is a 
family farm that can be passed on to the next generation have to be 
liquidated to pay the IRS because of a punitive death tax. That is 
precisely what this policy, as proposed by the Democrats' plan, would 
do.
  The USDA estimates 84 percent of farm assets are comprised of farm 
real estate. That is where most farm and ranch families have their 
assets. That means family farms don't have extra cash on hand to pay 
the death tax. Instead, they will have to sell off land or take on 
additional debt in order to pay these higher taxes. That is exactly 
what we don't want to see happen in this country.
  I don't believe the President's proposal--which is a $3.5 million 
exemption and a 45-percent top rate--is adequate, but it is much better 
than what Senate Democrats in the Reid plan have proposed.
  Let me summarize, if I might. Tomorrow we are going to vote on the 
Reid proposal to raise taxes at a time when Americans are hurting and 
our economy is fragile. The Reid proposal will impose higher taxes of 
more than $50 billion on successful small business owners and families. 
It will hurt our economy, reducing economic growth and job creation at 
the same time it lowers wages for hard-working American families. It 
will impose a new death tax of $31 billion on 43,100 family farmers, 
ranchers, and small businesses.
  We will also vote, I hope--I hope--on the Hatch-McConnell alternative 
plan to keep tax rates where they are, to prevent a tax increase on any 
American next year. In addition to keeping tax rates where they are, 
the Hatch-McConnell proposal provides instructions to the Finance 
Committee to report out fundamental tax reform legislation by 12 months 
from the date of enactment of the bill. The Hatch-McConnell approach is 
the correct approach: Prevent a tax increase now and move to 
fundamental tax reform next year.
  Of course, extending current tax law temporarily is only a short-term 
fix. What is needed is comprehensive tax reform, much like the Tax 
Reform Act of 1986. Real tax reform will drive economic growth higher, 
will lead to robust job creation, and will result in more revenue to 
the Federal Government.
  But real tax reform is going to require Presidential leadership, 
something that has, unfortunately, been lacking over the past 3\1/2\ 
years. Perhaps next year we will have a President truly willing to 
commit to tax reform, a President who is not content with simply 
releasing a 23-page framework for corporate tax reform.
  But until we get to comprehensive fax reform, the least we can do now 
is to ensure Americans do not face a massive new tax hike during a weak 
economy. I hope we will get that vote tomorrow. I hope Senate Democrats 
will find their way to give us a vote on extending the tax rates for 
all Americans so that small businesses aren't whacked with a big tax 
increase next year, so that our economy doesn't get plunged perhaps 
into a recession, and we don't see that unemployment rate tick even 
higher.
  Those are the results, those are the outcomes, those are the types of 
things that are going to happen, according to all the independent 
analysis, with the tax proposal that is before us today.
  Remember, there is always this idea that somehow, if we raise more 
taxes, we will be able to pay down more of the debt. Well, I have to 
say, it has been my experience that when there is money around 
Washington, DC, it gets sucked up and it gets spent. I think a lot of 
Americans would welcome the idea of seeing their taxes going to pay 
down the debt, but what we will see is a massive tax increase on 
Americans used to grow government here in Washington, DC. That is not 
what the American people want, and that is not what we in the Senate 
should be for.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page 11959]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying:

       I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, 
     they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The 
     great point is to bring them the real facts.

  There have been a number of inaccurate claims over the past several 
weeks accusing Democrats of proposing tax hikes. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. So let me set the record straight, as Lincoln 
said, and bring them the real facts.
  Democrats are proposing to extend a tax cut for 100 percent of 
taxpayers. Under the Democratic proposal, all taxpayers get a tax cut. 
Those lower income, those middle income, and those upper income all get 
a tax cut. Everyone does. Millionaires get a tax cut under the 
Democratic proposal, billionaires get a tax cut under the Democratic 
proposal, and all taxpayers who pay ordinary income tax are going to 
get a tax cut.
  Why is that? It is very simple. Because even if your income is above 
$200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a family, you are still 
getting a tax cut for your first $200,000 of income or the first 
$250,000 of income. So you are getting a tax cut. Everybody is getting 
a tax cut. I want to make that clear: All Americans get a tax cut under 
the Democratic proposal.
  Even though the most wealthy are also getting a tax cut under the 
Democratic proposal, those on the other side of the aisle want to give 
an even greater tax cut to those earning above $200,000 as individuals 
or $250,000 as a couple. So let me repeat: Everyone gets a tax cut 
under the Reid bill. The other side of the aisle says: Okay, maybe that 
is so, but they want to give an even greater tax cut to those earning 
over $250,000. That is the fact.
  An awful lot of people think the Democratic bill does not cut taxes 
for those above $200,000 and $250,000. It does. It does. The facts are 
clear. The numbers don't lie. It does. Everyone gets a tax cut. So 
there should be no question about that.
  As I said, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
threatening to oppose a middle-income tax cut, which actually is a tax 
cut for everybody. They say, oh, no, don't do that. They say, do that, 
but then add a greater tax cut for those top 2 percent of the 
wealthiest of Americans.
  But let's go back and ask ourselves why are we here, in part? These 
tax reductions were instituted in 2001, at a time when our country had 
record surpluses. I think the total tax cut in 2001 was projected to be 
about--I may be off a little here--$1.5 or $1.6 trillion over 10 years, 
at a time when our Nation had a projected surplus of about $3 trillion 
or up to $5 trillion. I have forgotten exactly, but it was way above 
the 2001 tax cut. That is why, in large part, the 2001 Congress 
decided, well, we have these big projected surpluses, so let's give 
some of it back to the people. I voted for it.
  That is why I voted for it. It made sense to me--with the great 
projected surpluses--to take a little less than half of that and give 
it back to people in terms of tax cuts.
  But times have changed. In the wake of two wars that have cost over 
$1 trillion, unpaid for--Iraq and Afghanistan--and also the 2008 
financial collapse that very much hurt our economy, times have changed 
since 2001. As a consequence, our Nation now is faced with record debt, 
and we cannot continue to spend money we don't have. We have to put our 
Nation back on solid fiscal ground. So a lot has happened since 2001.
  In addition, something else has happened, regrettably. Today, the 
average household income indexed for inflation is lower than it was 
when the tax cuts for the wealthy were put into effect. This means more 
people are making less money now than they were when these cuts were 
signed into law. Today, American families have less money to spend on 
their mortgages, gasoline, and groceries, for example. Actually, 
including benefits, Americans are not as well off as they were 10, 15 
years ago.
  These cuts were enacted in 2001 for all Americans. Those top two 
rates for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans has cost future 
generations nearly $1 trillion. I think it is bad economics to continue 
these highest income tax cuts without evidence they actually solve 
America's economic woes. They don't. It is especially bad economics 
when our Nation's debt has increased by $10 trillion since they were 
first enacted.
  Hard choices need to be made as we work to get our debt back to 
sustainable levels. We are all going to be asked to contribute. We need 
to make sure the most fortunate pay their fair share to deficit 
reduction as well. Again, they are already getting a tax break under 
the Democratic proposal. Everyone gets a tax cut under the Democratic 
proposal, but it is wrong to go further and say those making above 
$250,000 should be getting an even greater tax cut.
  With a greater contribution from them, we could more easily work to 
get our Nation's debt down to manageable levels.
  Some have argued we cannot let the tax rates expire for the 
wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--because they are ``small 
business owners.'' Let me address that and marshal the facts, as 
Abraham Lincoln would ask us to do.
  Being wealthy is not the same as being a small business owner. One 
can be very wealthy in America but not be a small business owner. Some 
might have us believe there are 1 million small business owners earning 
over $200,000 a year. How do they get that number? They get that number 
from an estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a 
bipartisan group that gives us accurate data--both Republicans and 
Democrats, Senators and House Members.
  The Joint Committee predicts that in 2013 there will be about 940,000 
taxpayers with some business income in the upper two tax rates. But 
that Joint Committee estimate isn't the number of small businesses. 
That is a different number. Instead, it is the number of all 
individuals in the top two rates who receive any amount of income, from 
a passthrough business or from rental real estate, royalties, estates 
or trusts. That number of 940,000 taxpayers does not tell us whether 
the taxpayer spent any amount of time actually working in the business 
or if that taxpayer is merely an investor sitting on the sidelines. In 
addition, that number does not tell us whether the income is from a 
large business or from a small business. It can be a large business 
passthrough. So that number of 940,000 doesn't tell us is it large or 
is it small. It does not tell us if the business actually even employs 
anybody. We don't know that. There are a lot of taxpayers at that 
bracket who don't employ anybody. They are not small businesspeople.
  So that 1 million number being thrown around includes taxpayers who, 
for example, invest in publicly traded partnerships which can be 
purchased on the New York Stock Exchange similar to any other stock. 
They are not small businesses as ordinary Americans think them to be. 
The 1 million number also includes celebrities and sport stars who 
receive income from speaking engagements. They are not small 
businesspeople, but yet they are lumped into that same number. 
Americans wouldn't regard sports celebrities as a small businessperson. 
That is not right.
  That 1 million number also includes best-selling authors receiving 
royalties for book sales. That 1 million number includes partners in 
law firms and hedge funds who receive their income as a share of a 
partnership distribution. They are not a small business. The 1 million 
number also includes wealthy individuals who rent out their vacation 
homes for just a few weeks a year.
  Both President Obama and Governor Romney would be considered small 
business owners in 2011 under this definition. I wouldn't think they 
are small businesspeople, Americans don't think they are small 
businesspeople, but they would be included in the definition the other 
side bandies about.
  In reality, only a very small fraction of the top earners actually 
own or control or manage a business that is small and has hired anyone. 
I have forgotten the exact number, but it is a small number. It isn't 
sound fiscal policy to

[[Page 11960]]

extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans just because 
a small portion of them have income from a business and a tiny portion 
of them manage a small business. But that is what some would have us 
believe. I don't have the number with me, but it is very small. There 
aren't very many at all.
  Finally, the argument that higher taxes on the wealthiest hinders job 
creation is tenuous at best. Why do I say that? I say that because even 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that extending the 
high income tax cuts for those in the top two rates was the least 
effective way of creating jobs among a list of alternatives commented 
on by the Congressional Budget Office. As I recall, the top of the list 
were items such as payroll tax. If we cut the payroll tax, that is a 
big job creator. If we extend unemployment insurance benefits, that is 
a big job creator. Down at the bottom of the list of job creation on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis is extending the 2 percent top rates. That 
creates very few jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Actually, it hurts job creation, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. Why? It found that extending the high income tax cuts 
actually reduces the gross domestic product and the number of jobs over 
10 years. Why? Because doing so increases the deficit. The CBO said 
that actually extending the top two rates is a job reducer, not a job 
creator--a job reducer--because it would add to the deficit and, in 
doing so, all things being equal, would lose jobs.
  So despite efforts to hide behind small businesses, the fundamental 
question is, What is fair? What is best for our country? Should we 
drive up deficits further, reducing growth as a result by extending the 
tax cuts for the top 2 percent? Don't forget, we are already reducing 
their taxes under the Reid bill. Should we tame our deficits by ending 
Medicare as we know it and cutting important social programs to the 
bone? The more those top two rates are extended, the more we have to 
cut someplace else. It is just mathematics. It is a choice we have to 
make in our country. There is no free lunch. We know that. We can't 
have our cake and eat it. Life is choices. Our fiscal situation needs 
choices. We have to decide what makes the most sense or should we 
control our deficits through a balanced approach that thoughtfully cuts 
spending and ask the wealthiest 2 percent to contribute no more than 
they did 11 years ago? Clearly, as we reduce our debt and try to cut 
spending, there is no question about that. There is also no question 
that there has to be some combined income tax increase along with the 
spending cuts to be able to reduce our budget deficit.
  The answer is clear: We should vote for Leader Reid's bill and 
continue down the path toward responsible deficit reduction. I wish to 
make the point again, if it wasn't clear. The Reid bill reduces tax 
rates for all Americans, middle income and upper income, because we 
have a marginal rate system. The most wealthy have to pay in the 10-
percent bracket, then they pay in the 15-percent bracket, then they pay 
in the 25-percent bracket, then they pay in the 28-percent bracket, all 
the way up to the top bracket today which is 35 percent. They pay in 
all brackets. So what we are saying is we are going to reduce your 
taxes; we are going to make sure you stay at those low rates for the 
next year so you, therefore, are going to pay less in income taxes, 
even if one is a billionaire.
  Let's go with the Reid bill. It is fair. It is the right course. I 
hope the Senate adopts it and we get enough votes--60 votes--to get 
this passed.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I have filed an amendment to extend 
for 1 year the individual income tax provisions of the 2001 and 2003 
tax relief acts for all Americans, but with a surtax of two percent on 
those earning $1 million or more, coupled with a ``carve-out'' to 
protect our nation's small businesses.
  The Congressional Budget Office has warned us that the ``fiscal 
cliff'' created by the expiration of current tax rates on December 31, 
coupled with ill-advised and deep cuts in defense spending that would 
result from ``sequestration,'' would likely result in a recession in 
the first half of next year. It makes no sense and should be 
unacceptable to all of us to allow our country to go over this ``fiscal 
cliff.''
  I have long urged that we begin the debate on comprehensive tax 
reform aimed at creating a simpler, fairer, pro-growth tax code. I also 
believe that multimillionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more 
to help us deal with our unsustainable deficit.
  My amendment would, therefore, impose a 2 percent surtax on 
millionaires, with a carve-out to protect small business owners who pay 
taxes through the individual income tax system. Our Nation's small 
businesses must not be lumped-in with millionaires and billionaires. 
The ``carve-out'' I am proposing would shield small businesses owners 
from tax increases intended to fall on the very wealthy.
  These small business owner-operators are on the front lines of our 
economy, and of the communities in which they live. The income that 
shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to create 
jobs, finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their 
hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that help 
American workers compete.
  Congress still could tackle tax reform this year but, unfortunately, 
this is not likely. That is why, in my amendment, I propose extending 
the current individual tax rates for all Americans through 2013, to 
give us the time we need to consider and adopt comprehensive reform 
that results in a simpler, fairer, pro-growth Tax Code. The surtax on 
the very wealthy, combined with protection for small businesses, will 
help us begin to deal with the deficit without harming the job creation 
engine of our economy--small business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


               Honoring Ghana's President John Atta Mills

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to express my 
sympathy and condolences to the people of Ghana and to the family of 
its President, John Atta Mills.
  President Mills died in a military hospital today in Accra, Ghana, of 
throat cancer. Four hours after his death, the Vice President was sworn 
in as the new President of Ghana, a testimony to the democratization of 
that country and its leadership on the continent of Africa.
  Ghana has been one of the shining beacons of light in Africa for its 
transition to business, trade, prosperity, and economic development. 
John Atta Mills deserves the credit for taking Ghana to the height it 
has gone to today.
  Senator Coons from Delaware and I traveled to Ghana last year to meet 
with President Mills. We saw firsthand how he has developed a large-
scale oil-producing country in Ghana, making that wealth come back to 
be reinvested in the people of that country. We visited the Millennium 
Challenge Compact that Ghana made with the United States of America to 
help her pineapple plantation producers be able to extend the life of 
their pineapple and export them into Europe for increased trade and 
agriculture in Ghana. We visited hospitals, where money from the oil 
and petroleum the country has discovered is now being reinvested in 
that country and in her people.
  Today, with his tragic death, we also saw the light of democracy as 
the government made its transition, the Vice President ascended to the 
Presidency, and elections will be held later in the year for the next 
President of Ghana.
  But it is important to pause as a tribute to President Bush and 
Condoleezza Rice, to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, our Secretary 
of State, who have worked tirelessly during the past decade and a half 
to work with the countries of Africa to develop. Americans have 
invested in PEPFAR, and we have reduced the growth of AIDS. We have 
invested in malaria prevention, and we have reduced the growth of 
malaria. Nigeria is the last place on Earth where polio exists, and it 
is about to be eradicated because of the investment of the American 
people.
  I have said oftentimes as the ranking member of the African 
Subcommittee

[[Page 11961]]

that Africa is the continent of the 21st century for our country, and I 
think it is. I think the investment our taxpayers have made and the 
investment our last President and our current President and both 
Secretaries of State have made are paying great dividends.
  But it is important for us to pay tribute to those bold, brave 
African leaders who ran for office to promote democracy, who served and 
reinvested the profits they made in their country's wealth and their 
people and shine as beacons of light for hope on what has been known in 
the past as the Dark Continent.
  In this sad moment for the people of Africa, and particularly the 
people of Ghana, it is time for us also to rejoice on what democracy 
has made in that country, and what John Atta Mills did to produce that 
democracy and to make it work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Honoring the Life and Legacy of Dr. Sally Ride

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and 
legacy of Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman to enter space and 
who passed away, sadly, this week.
  A truly extraordinary woman and an American icon and hero, Sally was 
a trailblazer who, with a steadfast fortitude and an insatiable spirit 
of exploration, accomplished what no other female in American history 
had before. When she rocketed into the heavens aboard the Space Shuttle 
Challenger on June 18, 1983, she also soared into the hearts of 
millions of Americans, including myself. Indeed, we recognized in her 
landmark achievement the realization of the quintessential American 
dream--that anyone, regardless of their gender, can succeed to even the 
greatest of heights, even if it is the stars.
  I was fortunate enough to have been present at Cape Canaveral--along 
with my good friend and colleague then-Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski--
on that historic June morning when Sally took to the skies. I can 
vividly recall the palpable optimism and unabated excitement that 
saturated the air. At that point, I had been a member of the House of 
Representatives for 4 years and was 1 of only 23 women in Congress. You 
can imagine the tremendous amount of pride we all felt in witnessing 
such a watershed moment.
  Indeed, it was a triumphant pinnacle in the fight to topple gender 
barriers and a progressive stride in the movement to shatter oppressive 
social norms. It was a bold response to those who could only see so far 
as to ask her before the flight, ``Will you wear makeup in space? Do 
you cry on the job?'' It was a bright beacon of hope to millions of 
young girls across the country, and indeed the world, who would come to 
recognize Sally Ride as the embodiment of their most fervent hopes and 
dreams.
  I was very proud to be able to participate in a tribute at the Air 
and Space Museum as cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's 
Issues a month later to pay tribute to Dr. Sally Ride and the entire 
Challenger crew, where I expressed to them that ``their achievement is 
America's achievement.''
  In fact, in a testament to the depth of her remarkable character, 
Sally Ride lamented the unprecedented nature of her trip when she said:

       It's too bad this is such a big deal. It's too bad our 
     society isn't further along. It's time people in this country 
     realized that women can do any job they want to.

  She recognized rightly that while her excursion was extraordinary, it 
should not have been. Today, we nonetheless recognize that through her 
words she gave voice to countless women, and through her actions she 
gave the vision and courage to seize their dreams. That is the message 
Sally Ride engendered as an astronaut, as a professor, and as the 
founder of Sally Ride Science, her namesake company which strives 
tirelessly to inspire and inform students by providing them with 
innovative science programs and resources.
  I had the opportunity to see Sally Ride last year. She was recounting 
with enthusiasm the work she was doing in working with so many young 
people across this country and sharing her commitment and her passion 
for education and for space. I was also privileged to have Sally as a 
neighbor of mine during her time working in Washington, DC.
  Indeed, she was a pioneer and a true American icon whose 
inspirational journey into space will long serve as an example that we 
can accomplish anything we put our minds to. Perhaps even more 
importantly, she bequeaths to future generations a legacy that 
transcends her time unbounded by earthly ties. She leaves to us the 
omnipotent notion that we can and will do what is hard and that we will 
achieve what is great, regardless of who we are, and it will 
indisputably resonate for generations to come.
  Leonardo da Vinci once observed:

       When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the 
     Earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, 
     and there you will always long to return.

  Well, today we fondly remember a woman who had her eyes turned 
skyward not only for herself but for the women of future generations 
who would follow in her example and in her footsteps. We take comfort 
in knowing that the stars are now indeed where she rests, and we 
continue to firmly keep her family and friends in our thoughts and 
prayers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from New Hampshire.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues who 
have been to the Senate floor earlier this afternoon to emphasize the 
importance of getting the House to act to pass the Violence Against 
Women Act. We have passed a bipartisan reauthorization in the Senate 
and now it is time for the House to do the same.
  There are provisions in the Senate version of the bill that offer 
critical protections for survivors, Native Americans, immigrants, the 
LGBT community, and for students, young women on college campuses. It 
is that importance of protecting those victims on college campuses that 
I want to specifically address this afternoon.
  According to the Department of Justice, 25 percent of college women--
that is 1 in 4--will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they 
graduate within their 4-year college period. The Rape, Abuse, and 
Incest National Network reports that college-aged women are four times 
more likely than any other age group to face sexual assault. In 
addition, experts believe that rape and sexual assault are among the 
most underreported crimes, so that one in four could be even greater.
  In the Senate-passed legislation, the Leahy-Crapo bill, there are 
provisions to address the challenges that young women face on college 
campuses. The legislation we passed here in the Senate requires schools 
that receive VAWA funds to do the following: State the policies and 
procedures that are in place to protect victims and provide prevention 
education for all incoming students. Many young girls arrive on a 
college campus to live on their own for the very first time. They are 
struggling to orient themselves in a new environment, and this makes 
them vulnerable. They need to be given clear guidance about what to do 
in case they become victims.
  The legislation also requires institutions to implement a coordinated 
response both internal and external to the campus. This means that 
survivors are helped if they want to hold their attackers accountable, 
whether through a process that the university has set up or by bringing 
criminal charges and working with the police. This provision tells 
young women they are not alone; they are supported and their school 
will help them.
  The third part of the provision that is very important in the Senate-
passed bill is that it would require schools to provide training on 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

[[Page 11962]]

stalking for campus law enforcement and to members of the campus 
judicial boards.
  Last week in New Hampshire my office spoke with Forrest Seymour, the 
sexual assault prevention coordinator at Keene State College, which is 
a small college with about 6,000 students in the western part of New 
Hampshire. Forrest said that all of these provisions in the Senate-
passed bill are very important and necessary because universities need 
more guidance about how to best serve students who are victims of rape, 
dating violence, and stalking. This is especially important at small 
universities such as Keene where they have limited resources.
  Training for campus law enforcement is critical because they are the 
first responders. School administrators who serve on campus judicial 
boards also need special training because word spreads very fast on 
college campuses about whether survivors should feel comfortable going 
forward. These processes need to be handled with appropriate 
sensitivity, and the training that is required by the Senate Violence 
Against Women Act will help make sure these young women feel safe.
  The Senate-passed version of the bill will help young women like 
Harmony, who began her first year in college at Plymouth State 
University in New Hampshire in 2006. She was excited to be there. She 
made new friends, and she quickly became comfortable in her new 
surroundings.
  Unfortunately, one night someone she thought was a friend took 
advantage of that trust and sexually assaulted Harmony. Harmony was 
ashamed and confused. She felt violated. She began to question all of 
her new relationships. She was scared all of the time, and she was sure 
everyone could tell she was a victim, so Harmony didn't tell anyone. 
She didn't know where to turn. She was scared that she would not be 
believed, and she even considered dropping out of school.
  Fortunately, Harmony did finally reach out and found support. She 
graduated from Plymouth and now she works as a case manager for 
survivors of domestic violence in an emergency shelter helping other 
survivors through the most difficult periods in their lives. Harmony 
shares her story all over the country, encouraging victims to come 
forward, promising them they will be believed, they will be supported.
  If Harmony has the bravery and the courage to make these promises to 
survivors, so should we. We owe it to the young and vulnerable women on 
college campuses across this country to pass the Violence Against Women 
Act now. It is time for the House to act. The session is running out. 
We need to see this legislation reauthorized. We need to see the Senate 
version reauthorized so we can guarantee to young women such as Harmony 
across this country that they will get the support they need.
  I yield the floor and 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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Aurora, Colorado Shootings

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as does the Presiding Officer, 
I come to the floor this evening with a heavy heart. I know that as 
Senators and leaders we are expected to have words for every occasion, 
but what happened last Friday morning makes it very difficult to bring 
forth words that are appropriate. However, as I think of the Coloradans 
who were there whom we are so lucky to represent, their actions spoke 
louder than words. Their actions spoke very loudly on Friday morning in 
the city of Aurora.
  I wish to focus on the actions of those brave, decent Coloradans who 
were victims in a variety of ways at the horrific movie theater 
shooting that took place there in Aurora. It cut short the lives of 12 
people. It injured approximately 58 others. I rise to pay tribute to 
all of those people as well as to their families and their loved ones. 
I think I know the Presiding Officer, my colleague and my fellow 
Senator from Colorado, knows that, most importantly, we are here to 
state emphatically that Aurora will triumph over adversity in our State 
of Colorado to emerge stronger than ever.
  From the time I awoke to the news of the movie theater shootings in 
Aurora early Friday morning, July 20, I, along with the rest of 
Colorado and our country, have experienced emotions ranging from deep, 
profound sadness to, frankly, utter outrage. Our State was just 
starting to recover from the devastating wildfires that destroyed 
hundreds of homes, forced tens of thousands to evacuate their 
communities, and scorched thousands of acres in our beautiful State of 
Colorado. With that in mind, none of us could have been prepared for 
the news of these mass shootings in one of our communities.
  I know the Presiding Officer has three beautiful daughters. I have 
two children. I know that having loved ones stolen from us in such a 
tragic and violent fashion is something for which one can never be 
prepared. But it is during these times we are also reminded to cherish 
those all-too-brief moments we have with the people we love.
  Although this heinous crime may have shaken us, it did not break us, 
and it will not break us. We will mourn those we have lost and those 
who were injured, and with them in mind we will heal and we will become 
stronger.
  Sadly, this kind of tragedy is not new to Colorado. It was 13 short 
years ago that we learned of another mass shooting at Columbine High 
School on the western side of Denver. As a nation, we are reminded of 
more recent shootings at Virginia Tech; Fort Hood, TX; and Tucson, AZ. 
These incidents may occur in one city or in one State, but they are 
national tragedies that tear at us all and then cause us all to tear up 
and cry together.
  Like all Americans, my heart goes out to the victims and their 
families. I also remain hopeful--the Presiding Officer and I went to 
one of the hospitals--that the survivors are going to defy the odds on 
their road to recovery. We have been truly inspired by their stories.
  I wish to take a moment and applaud the leadership shown by 
Colorado's public servants, from Governor John Hickenlooper, Aurora 
Mayor Steve Hogan, and especially Chief of Police Dan Oates and the 
Aurora Police Department. There are also other metro area law 
enforcement professionals who came to the scene almost immediately, 
including first responders, and medical professionals on site and at 
the number of hospitals where the victims were taken.
  I think what is most notable is that they worked seamlessly to carry 
out the city's disaster plan and protect the victims from further harm. 
The police and firefighters arrived a mere 90 seconds after the first 
9-1-1 call was placed. There is no question that lives were saved by 
the swift and coordinated action of Aurora's first responders.
  I have to say that this incident shows what similar tragedies have 
before: that America shines brightest when the night is darkest, and 
that was literally the situation at midnight on Friday morning in 
Aurora.
  We had the uplifting experience of hearing the stories of bravery 
coming out of Aurora. We marveled at those stories on Sunday. We start 
with the fact that at least four young men demonstrated the heights of 
heroism when they sacrificed their lives to protect their girlfriends 
from the hail of this gunman's bullets. One young woman had the courage 
to remain by the side of her wounded friend, calmly applying pressure 
to her friend's bleeding neck wound while dialing 9-1-1 with her other 
hand as the gunfire continued around her. Let me put it this way: Lives 
were saved Friday morning by those who did not let fear override their 
capacity to care for one another.
  These experiences have underlined for me and our entire Nation that 
what makes us great and will help us endure this tragedy is our people. 
I saw that Sunday night, as did the Presiding Officer, while 
participating in a moving vigil in Aurora where our community not only 
mourned together but also

[[Page 11963]]

held together during this most difficult time. Although the West is 
known for its rugged individuals, Colorado is also known for its rugged 
cooperators--people who help their neighbors in times of adversity. We 
saw that after the recent wildfires, and we see it again now.
  President Obama's visit with victims and families on July 22--just 
Sunday--2 days ago in Aurora, provided comfort and support to those in 
need and again reminded us that the sanctity and strength of family and 
community is what unites us in the face of adversity. Coloradans have 
seen that in the wake of this tragedy, our Nation has come together for 
Aurora and our State, and to my colleagues and anyone listening today, 
let me say humbly that we are grateful.
  I wish to take a moment to say the names of the 12 people who were 
taken from us too soon. I know that later my colleague will share even 
more of their stories with us and with the Nation. Their families and 
friends have my commitment that we will, to honor these good people, 
these Coloradans, never forget them as the healing process goes on.
  The 12 Coloradans, the Americans whom we lost Friday morning are 
Jonathan T. Blunk, Alexander J. Boik, Jesse Childress, Gordon Cowden, 
Jessica Ghawi, Micayla Medek, Matthew McQuinn, John Larimer, Alex M. 
Sullivan, Alexander Teves, Rebecca Wingo, and I think the hardest name 
for all of us to say is that of 6-year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan. I 
smile in my sadness because I think the Presiding Officer has seen the 
photo of her with an ice cream cone in hand, delight on her face, ice 
cream on her nose. I guess maybe what we could do is take the time to 
enjoy an ice cream cone, maybe leave that ice cream on our nose for a 
little bit, and remember her.
  In honor of these victims, I have submitted a resolution--S. Con. 
Res. 53--along with my colleague, the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Bennet. Congressman Perlmutter has filed an identical resolution in the 
House of Representatives. The resolution, among many things, strongly 
condemns the atrocities which occurred in Aurora; offers condolences to 
the families, friends, and loved ones of those who were killed in the 
attack and expresses hope for the rapid and complete recovery of the 
wounded; applauds the hard work and dedication exhibited by the 
hundreds of local, State, and Federal officials and others who offered 
their support and assistance; and last but certainly not least, honors 
the resilience of the community of the city of Aurora and the State of 
Colorado in the face of such adversity. I ask all of my colleagues in 
the Senate to support Aurora and support this resolution.
  As we pay tribute to our fallen fellow Americans and the heroes 
around them, here is what I hope will come out of what can only be 
described as a senseless tragedy: We must harness the sense of 
community we feel this week and use it to create a lasting sense of 
collaboration in America and use it to solve our shared challenges in a 
measured, respectful, and thoughtful way. We can truly learn from those 
who selflessly gave of themselves during the chaos of the Aurora 
shootings and draw from it the strength to be better people, better 
family members, and, yes, even better legislators.
  In Roman mythology, Aurora is the goddess of the dawn who renews 
herself each morning. At dawn on Friday, the chaos and the pain and the 
tragedy of the night before still lingered over that wonderful city of 
Aurora, but by dawn on the second day, signs of heroism, of recovery, 
of community began to shine through the darkness of the great Colorado 
city called Aurora.
  As each dawn signals a new day, we owe it to the victims to rise to 
the occasion and renew our commitment to make this a better, stronger, 
and more perfect Nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my friend--and 
I do not mean that in the political sense, I mean it in the real 
sense--the senior Senator from Colorado, the Presiding Officer from 
Colorado, for his incredibly thoughtful remarks about the tragedy last 
week in Colorado. I cannot think of any more fitting place to be than 
here with the Senator tonight to have this conversation. So I thank the 
Senator very much for his words.
  In just a few dark moments last week, in Aurora, CO, 12 innocent 
lives were taken from us--12 people, full of life and aspirations, 
loved by family and friends, and now 12 people remembered by an entire 
nation.
  As the Presiding Officer said, thousands of Coloradans attended a 
vigil hosted by the city of Aurora on Sunday evening. We shared tears 
and prayers. We also resolved to support one another, to heal, and to 
always remember those who lost their lives on July 20, 2012. It is for 
that purpose that the Presiding Officer and I come to the floor this 
evening.
  The first is Jonathan Blunk, age 26. Jon was a father of two who 
moved to Colorado in 2009, after three tours in the Persian Gulf and 
North Arabian Sea for the U.S. Navy. He was a certified firefighter and 
EMT. Jon lost his life protecting his friend Jansen Young from the 
gunman's line of fire. Jon shielded her from gunfire by pushing her to 
the ground while shots were fired. He was supposed to fly on Saturday 
to Nevada to see his wife Chantel Blunk and his 4-year-old daughter and 
2-year-old son. Instead, his wife had to put up the dress her daughter 
had picked out to wear to the airport. She told her daughter that they 
would not see their dad anymore but that he would still love them and 
look over them. His daughter Hailey is comforted by calling her 
father's cell phone and hearing him on voice mail.
  This is Alexander Jonathan ``A.J.'' Boik, age 18. A.J. recently 
graduated from Gateway High School. He enjoyed baseball, music, and 
making pottery. A.J. was to start art classes at the Rocky Mountain 
College of Art and Design in the fall. He was described ``as being the 
life of the party. AJ could bring a smile to anybody's face.'' He was a 
young man with a warm and loving heart.
  This is Jesse Childress, age 29. Jesse was an Air Force cyber systems 
operator based at Buckley Air Force Base. He loved to play flag 
football, softball, and bowl. He was a devoted fan of the Denver 
Broncos, for which he secured season tickets. He was described by his 
superior officer as an invaluable part of the 310th family who touched 
everyone with whom he worked.
  This is Gordon Cowden, age 51. Gordon was originally from Texas and 
lived in Aurora with his family. He was ``a quick witted world traveler 
with a keen sense of humor, he will be remembered for his devotion to 
his children and for always trying to do the right thing, no matter the 
obstacle.'' Gordon took his two teenage children to the theater the 
night of the shooting, both of whom, thankfully, made it out unharmed.
  This is Jessica Ghawi, age 24. Jessica was an aspiring journalist, 
most recently interning with Mile High Sports Radio in Denver, and went 
by the nickname ``Redfield.'' She was hard working and ambitious, with 
a generous spirit and kind heart. When numerous homes were recently 
destroyed by Colorado wildfires, Jessica decided to start collecting 
hockey equipment to donate to the kids affected because she wanted to 
help.
  This is John Thomas Larimer, age 27. John was a cryptologic 
technician with the Navy based also at Buckley Air Force Base--a job 
that requires ``exceptionally good character and skills.'' Originally 
from Chicago, he was the youngest of five siblings and had joined the 
service just over a year ago. Like his father and grandfather, John 
chose to serve in the U.S. Navy. John's superior officer called him 
``an outstanding shipmate, a valued member of the Navy and an extremely 
dedicated sailor.'' Colleagues were drawn to his calming

[[Page 11964]]

demeanor and exceptional work ethic. He was also known as an extremely 
competent professional.
  This is Matthew McQuinn, age 27. Matt died while protecting his 
girlfriend Samantha Yowler by jumping in front of her during the 
shooting. Matt and Samantha moved to Colorado from Ohio last fall and 
worked at Target. He and Samantha were very much in love and planning 
their life together. Because of Matt's bravery, Samantha was only 
wounded in the knee and is expected to make a full recovery.
  This is Micayla ``Cayla'' Medek, age 23. Cayla was a graduate of 
William C. Hinkley High School in Aurora and a resident of Westminster. 
She worked at Subway and was a huge Green Bay Packers fan. Cayla would 
plan weekend activities around watching the games with her brother and 
father. She is remembered as a loving and gentle young woman.
  This is Veronica Moser-Sullivan, age 6. Veronica had just learned to 
swim and attended Holly Ridge Elementary School in Denver, CO. She was 
a good student who loved to play dress-up and read. Veronica's mother 
Ashley Moser remains in critical condition at Aurora Medical Center. 
She was shot in the neck and abdomen. We pray for Ashley's recovery and 
strength in working through the passing of her daughter Veronica.
  This is Alex Sullivan, age 27. Alex was at the movie celebrating his 
27th birthday and first wedding anniversary. He loved comic books, the 
New York Mets, and movies. Alex was such a big movie fan that he took 
jobs at theaters just to see the movies. Alex stood 6 feet 4 inches and 
weighed about 280 pounds. He played football and wrestled before 
graduating high school in 2003 and later went to culinary school. Alex 
was known as a gentle giant and loved by many.
  This is Alexander C. Teves, age 24. Alex received an M.A. in 
counseling psychology from the University of Denver in June and was 
planning on becoming a psychiatrist. He also competed in the Tough 
Mudder, an intense endurance challenge, and helped students with 
special needs. Alex was at the theater on the night of the shooting 
with his girlfriend Amanda Lindgren. When the gunman opened fire, Alex 
immediately lunged to block Amanda from the gunfire, held her down, and 
covered her head.
  This is Rebecca Wingo, age 32. Rebecca, originally from Texas and a 
resident of Aurora, joined the Air Force after high school, where she 
became fluent in Mandarin Chinese and served as a translator. She was a 
single mother of two girls and worked as a customer relations 
representative at a mobile medical imaging company. Rebecca was also 
enrolled at the Community College of Aurora since the fall of 2009 and 
had been working toward an associate of arts degree. She was known to 
family and friends as a ``gentle, sweet, beautiful soul.''
  Here is a photo of the gathering we had last Sunday night in Aurora. 
I believe, like you, Mr. President, that the early morning hours of 
July 20, 2012, will not be remembered for the evil that happened.
  Scripture tells us ``not to be overcome by evil, but overcome evil 
with good.'' That is what the people of Aurora and Colorado have been 
doing since the first moment of this tragedy, and that is what we will 
continue to do.
  In time, we will not remember the morning of July 20 for the evil 
that killed 12 innocent and precious people. Instead, we will remember 
the bright lives of those we lost and the families they leave behind. 
We will remember the 58 wounded survivors, whose recovery bears witness 
to humanity's strength and resolve. And tonight, knowing that some are 
still in critical condition, we pray for their recovery. We will 
remember the heroic acts of everyday citizens, our first responders, 
and medical personnel who saved lives that otherwise surely would have 
been lost. We will remember the continuing generosity of those 
Coloradans and Americans who are donating blood in record numbers and 
raising funds to support the families in this trying time. And in time, 
because we are all Aurora, we will draw strength from the example set 
by one great American city and the faith of her people in one another.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________