Middle Class Tax Cut Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for nearly 4 years now, Democratic leaders in Washington have claimed to want what is best for the economy but done just about everything you can think of from a policy perspective to actually undermine the economy.

Whether it is overwhelming businesses with redtape, burdening them with costly new health care laws or punting on major economic decisions until after the election, Democrats have done everything you would expect of a party more focused on centralizing power in Washington than reviving a weak economy.

And, of course, we have the results to show for it. As a result of the Democrats' policies, we have fewer jobs today than the day the President took office, more signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs--more people signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs--and the percentage of Americans who actually can work but are not is at the lowest point literally in decades.

This is the sad legacy of this President's economic policies. And later today we will have a chance to cast a vote for more of the same or for a plan that will help us get off of this hamster wheel we have been on for the past 3\1/2\ years.

I am referring, of course, to the very different proposals we will vote on today for dealing with a looming tax hike coming in January: the Republican plan, which gives every American not only the certainty that their income taxes will not go up at the end of the year but that Congress will deliver meaningful tax reform within a year, and the Senate Democratic plan which raises taxes on a million small business owners at a moment when we are counting on them to create jobs, raises taxes on thousands of family farmers and small business owners grieving the loss of a loved one, leaves a middle-class tax hike in place, and reforms absolutely nothing.

We would also like to vote on the President's plan, though it appears our Democratic friends will deny the President his vote.

I will leave it to others to explain the finer points of these plans. But one thing stands out. As I have indicated, the thing that stands out is the Democratic proposal to raise the death tax. This is one of their bright ideas to revive the economy: to raise the death tax. It dramatically lowers the exemption level, so more families actually get hit by it, and dramatically increases the amount of the tax itself. Under their plan, family members who inherit a farm or a ranch would have to write a check for 55 percent--55 percent--of the value of the property and equipment above $1 million, all but guaranteeing that tens of thousands of small and mid-size family businesses across the country will be broken up and handed over to the government instead of passed on to the next generation.

Look, I know some Democrats will try to justify their vote on this stunningly bad proposal by saying they will deal with the assault on family farms later. Wrong. The Democratic bill we will vote on today, by not addressing the problem, makes the tax liability for these families even worse. A vote for the Democratic plan is to vote to put these farms and ranches literally out of business. There will be no stand-alone bill signed into law on the death tax, and anyone who says otherwise is not being straight with the American people.

But there is one big difference between our plan and theirs. The most important difference is this: Only ours is aimed at helping the economy; only ours is aimed at helping the economy; only ours is meant to help struggling Americans in the midst of a historic jobs crisis. Theirs is meant to deflect attention from their continued failure to reverse this economic situation.

Throughout this entire debate, not a single Democrat has come forward to claim that raising taxes on job creators will help the economy. Nobody is claiming that because they cannot. The real motives are based on an ideological agenda, not an economic one.

Ordinarily, Republicans would do everything we can to keep a plan as damaging as the Democrats' plan from passing, and the only reason we will not block it today is we know it does not pass constitutional muster and will not become law because it did not originate in the House. If the Democrats were serious, they would proceed to a House- originated revenue bill, as the Constitution requires.

That said, the potential consequences of inaction on this issue are so grave that the American people deserve to know where their elected representatives really stand--truly stand--on this issue.

That is why I am announcing this morning Republicans will allow a simple majority vote--a simple majority vote--on the two proposals I have described, and that is why we are also calling for a simple majority vote on the President's plan. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. He has been calling for a vote on his plan. I for one think we ought to give the President what he is asking for: a vote on his plan.

So what I am saying here this morning is, we will have a simple majority

vote on the Senate Democratic plan, on the Republican plan, to make sure no one's income taxes go up at the end of the year, and I would also recommend we have a simple majority vote on the President's plan.

The only way to force people to take a stand is to make sure today's votes truly count. By setting these votes at a 50-vote threshold, nobody on the other side can hide behind a procedural vote while leaving their views on the actual bill itself a mystery--a simple mystery--to the people who sent them here. That is what today's votes are all about: about showing the people who sent us here where we stand.

We owe it to the American people to let them know whether we actually think it is a good idea to double down on the failed economic policies of the past few years or whether we support a new approach, whether we think it is a good idea to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to find work or to do no harm and commit to future reform.

Three votes, two visions. Three votes, two visions. The American people should know where we stand, and today they will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified to strike the last paragraph and, further, that it also be in order for a second amendment, the text of which will be at the desk and is the President's small business tax hike; further, that it be considered under the same terms of my amendment, and that after the vote on that amendment the Senate proceed to a vote on the McConnell-Hatch amendment as the original request provided for.

Would the Senator yield for a moment? I am going to use my leader time. But I am happy to defer to the Senator from California first.

Mr. President, I will let the Senator from California go ahead.

Madam President, I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader time.

Madam President, the vote we are about to take on the Democratic plan to raise taxes is interesting for a few reasons. First, it is a revenue measure that didn't originate in the House, so it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law.

Second, it is the perfect example of what you get when you put politics over the people who sent you here. If the Democrats truly believed what the President has been saying out on the stump, they would vote on his plan. But as the vote tally will show, they can barely muster 50 votes on their own plan, let alone his. So for the entire President's talk about supporting a balanced approach to taxes, he evidently can't even get 50 votes for his plan in a Democratic- controlled Senate when we all know he would need 60 votes to get it to his desk.

Instead of voting on the President's plan, our Democratic friends have cobbled together the only thing they could come up with that would muster more than 50 votes--a purely political exercise, and a total waste of time.

But to be honest, I can't imagine why they would want to vote for either one, since both proposals raise taxes on about a million business owners, and both raise taxes on investment, at a time when the economy is in paralysis.

Here is the Democratic plan for the economy: We will get this thing going again--by raising taxes. Let's take more money out of small business and send it to Washington; that is how we will create jobs, they say. Let us create jobs instead of the small business owners out in America. After all, they don't create jobs anyway; of course, Washington creates jobs.

If you are looking for the legislative equivalent of the President's now famous view that ``you didn't build that,'' this is it.

They don't think you deserve to keep what you have earned because you are not responsible for earning it. They don't think you are entitled to keep what you have earned because, after all, you weren't even responsible for earning it; they are.

That is the message Democrats are sending with today's votes, that you are not responsible for your success; Washington is. So give us your money, and we will handle it for you. That is their tax plan. That is their plan for the economy and for jobs.

Fortunately for the American people, there is another approach. Next week, House Republicans will pass a bill that drew broad bipartisan support in this body 19 months ago, and it would draw broad bipartisan support today if Democrats were more concerned about what is best for creating jobs than they were in centralizing power right here in Washington and pleasing their liberal base.

The Republican proposal is to do no harm and to commit to the kind of serious tax reform we all know we need. That is the vote Senate Republicans are proud to take today and House Republicans will take next week. It is the plan Senate Democrats--and the President--would support if they were serious about jobs.

The Democratic plan is to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners and, in a notable departure from the President, threaten tens of thousands of family farms and ranches with a death tax of 55 percent at the end of the year. That is their plan. That is their idea of economic stimulus. That is the bill they would rather vote on than the President's proposal. And it is absolutely the last thing we need right now.

The good news is that this new, convoluted Democratic bill will never make it to the President's desk. It will never make it. The bad news is they will also vote down the one tax plan that should make it to his desk.

We can do better than this. It is time for the Democrats to work with us on rewarding success and not punishing it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to once again urge the majority leader of the Senate to bring to the floor for debate one of the most important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year; that is, the national defense authorization bill.

On several occasions I have approached the majority leader and asked him to consider this legislation which, for the last 50 years, this body has taken up, debated, amended, passed, conferenced with the House of Representatives, and sent to the President for the President's signature.

Last week, the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, stated that Senate consideration of a controversial and flawed bill on cybersecurity--a bill that has not been considered in the regular order--is more important and of a higher national security priority than the Defense authorization bill. I respectfully but vehemently disagree with that statement.

According to the majority leader, ``We're going to have to get to cybersecurity before we get to the defense authorization bill because on the relative merits, cybersecurity is more important.''

Let me repeat this. The majority leader of the Senate is arguing that legislation dealing with cybersecurity--which is a subset of national security, of national defense--is more important than legislation responsible for ensuring that the men and women of the Armed Forces have the resources and authorities necessary to ensure our national security--a bizarre statement.

I have been involved in national security issues for a long time. I have been involved with the bills concerning national defense, and I have never heard a statement that cybersecurity is more important than the overall security of this country. That either was the majority leader misspeaking or the majority leader having a lack of understanding of what national security is all about.

He is arguing that a controversial and flawed bill on cybersecurity-- a bill of such ``significance'' that it has languished for over 5 months at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with no committee markup or normal committee process, no amendments-- should take precedence over a bill which was vetted for over a period of 4 months by the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported to the floor with the unanimous support of all 26 members, which certainly would not have been the case if there had been a vote on cybersecurity legislation as it is presently proposed, because I am a member of that committee and I and others certainly would never have supported this legislation and at least we should have been allowed the amendment process. But that is not the case with ``cybersecurity.''

Also, I might add, I understand we will have to have a motion to proceed, which then will drag us into next week, when we could--I emphasize could--finish the Defense authorization bill in 1 week and at most 2.

I remind my colleagues that consideration of the Defense authorization bill is more than a simple right of this body. It is an obligation to our national defense and a fulfillment of our responsibility to the men and women in uniform that the Senate has honored over the past 50 consecutive years.

I would say to my colleagues, today I went out to Bethesda Walter Reed to visit with our wounded. It is always an uplifting and always an incredible experience for me to make that visit. Cannot we--cannot we-- as a body, for the sake of those men and women whose lives are on the line, pass a defense authorization bill that is responsible for their security, their training, their weapons, their equipment, their morale, their welfare? Cannot we pass a defense authorization bill through this body? Are we so parochial? Is the Senate majority leader oblivious to the needs of the men and women who are serving this Nation? They deserve better than what they are getting from the leadership of this Senate.

The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act provides $525 billion for the base budget of the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent.

In the area of pay and compensation, the bill authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request. The bill improves the quality of life of the men and women in the Active and Reserve components of the all-volunteer force. It helps to address the needs of the wounded servicemembers and their families. It also authorizes important military construction and family housing projects that cannot proceed without specific authorization.

All major weapons systems are authorized in this legislation, including those that will benefit by the committee's continuous rigorous oversight of poorly performing programs. Every piece of equipment--large or small--that the Department of Defense needs to develop or procure is authorized in that legislation.

With the planned reductions in Afghanistan, the importance of providing for our deployed troops while training and transitioning responsibilities to the Afghan forces has never been more important. The bill provides our service men and women with the resources, training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. It also enhances the capability of U.S. forces to support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the year 2014.

The bill contains important initiatives intended to ensure proper stewardship by the department of taxpayer dollars by, among other things, codifying the 2014 goal for it to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources, strictly limiting the use of cost- type contracts for the production of major weapons systems, requiring the Department of Defense to review its existing profit guidelines and revise them as necessary to ensure an appropriate link between contractor profits and contractor performance, enhancing protections for contractor employee whistleblowers, and restricting the use of abusive ``passthrough'' contracts.

Another vitally important provision in the bill repeals provisions of last year's National Defense Authorization Act that threaten to upset the delicate balance between the public sector and

the private sector in the maintenance and repair of military systems, and the bill addresses many other important national security policy issues.

With respect to cybersecurity, I am in full agreement that the threat we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant and challenging threats of 21st century warfare. This threat was made even more evident by the recent leaks about Stuxnet coming from this administration. That is why the Defense authorization bill takes great steps to improve our capabilities by consolidating defense networks to improve security and management and allow critical personnel to be reassigned in support of offensive cyber missions which are presently understaffed. It also provides policy guidance to the Department of Defense to address the clear need for retaliatory capabilities to serve both as a deterrence to and to respond in the event of a cyber attack.

Based on the procedures the Senate has been following over the past few years--with little or no opportunity for debate and amendments--the majority leader apparently intends to rush through the Senate a flawed piece of legislation. The cybersecurity bill he intends to call up later this week is greatly in need of improvement, both in the area of information sharing among all Federal agencies and the appropriate approach to ensuring critical infrastructure protection.

Without significant amendment, the current bill the majority leader intends to push through the Senate has zero chance of passing the House of Representatives or ever being signed into law; whereas, the Defense authorization bill, if we would take it up and pass it, clearly, we would have a successful conference with the House, and we would send it--after voting on the conferenced bill--to the President for his signature. There is no chance the cybersecurity bill the majority leader wants to bring to the floor will have a chance of passage in the House of Representatives.

So here is the choice: take up the Defense authorization bill, which has important cybersecurity provisions in it and provides for the overall defense of the Nation, or take up a flawed bill that never went through the committee, was never amended, take it to the floor, use up 1 week while we go through the motion to proceed, and then maybe pass it, maybe not, and not have it even considered by the other body during the month of September, which is the last we will be in session before the election.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the majority leader of the Senate should have so little regard for the needs of the men and women who are serving in the military today, and I hope he will understand better the needs to defend this Nation, as we are still involved in conflict in Afghanistan, we face a major crisis with Iran over their continued development of nuclear weapons--we just saw the Iranian ability to commit acts of terror all over the world, the latest being in Bulgaria--the fact that Syria is now coming apart and in danger of--because of this administration's failure to lead--that there can be chemical weapons not only spread around Syria but also in other places as well. There is a danger of chemical weapons that are presently under Bashar Assad's control flowing to Hezbollah, presenting a grave threat to the security of Israel.

All these things are happening in the world without this body acting on the most important piece of legislation as far as our national security is concerned, and the majority leader of the Senate apparently has decided not to bring it up and wants to bring up cybersecurity instead. It is a grave injustice--a grave injustice--to the men and women who are serving this Nation and sacrificing so much.

I hope the majority leader of the Senate, who by right of his position and in the majority decides the agenda for the Senate, will change his mind and bring up the Defense authorization bill, which I assure him we can have passed by this body, as always, in a near unanimous vote, if not totally unanimous vote, for the benefit of the security of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about two things here briefly and also yield to my colleague for some remarks. First of all, while it is beyond our jurisdiction here, and perhaps it is a little bit out of line for me to talk about this, I am urging the Congress, specifically in this case the House of Representatives, to follow this body in passing the farm bill.

I do so for a number of reasons. Even though I had some problems with the farm bill, and I fully understand the issue, there are those who believe those policies that directly affect agriculture are being subordinated to a bill which incorporates about 80 percent of that bill for Federal food assistance. These are nutrition issues which, of course, are related to agriculture.

By the same token, it is a Federal program that is significantly different than what the farm bill is designed to accomplish. So about 20 percent of that bill affects the farmers in our area, the other 80 percent goes to a Federal welfare type of program for providing food stamps and other nutrition assistance.

I am hoping that the House, particularly in light of the fact we are suffering a significant drought, probably the worst drought since 1950 according to the weather records, and getting worse all the time--the temperatures have been in the low hundreds all across the Midwest, the bread basket of America, where we produce most of our grain and feedstock.

The cornfields and soybean fields and other pastures are burning up with blazing sun in the hundreds of degrees every day and no water falling from the sky. This drought is seriously impacting my State, but also a number of Midwestern States and especially the States that produce the bulk of our agricultural products. This affects not only needed crops to provide feedstock, but also that support our ethanol program and a number of other programs. It is a dire situation.

I am hoping the House can resolve its issues and move forward. There are a number of provisions in this farm bill that provide relief to farmers and ranchers suffering from this drought. Those are expired. So it is important that we pass this bill, that we get it passed by both Houses of Congress and into conference, resolved and signed by the President.

I am urging my colleagues in the House, where I once served, to help with this by moving forward on this farm bill.

The other point I want to make is that we are about to face--we just

learned from our leadership, we are about to enter into a short amount of debate before we vote on a motion to address taxes. This also directly affects our agriculture community and we will explain why. But I wish to yield to my colleague here from Mississippi for some comments in this regard.

I thank my colleagues for joining in on this. They made the point that I think outlines the fact that many of us are stunned with the proposal being brought forward for a vote today to proceed on this bill, which if passed, will put a 55-percent tax, when one dies, on all the work and all the profits and all of the investments they have made throughout their lifetime, which they have paid taxes on over and over and over. The government cannot ever seem to get enough. The Senate Democrats are now proposing to raise the death tax from 35 percent, the current level, to 55 percent.

Let me personalize this for a moment. We have some very close friends who, throughout generations, have been handing the farm down from one generation to another. They have suffered through the hard times, the droughts, the hail storms, the tornadoes, and they have also benefited from the good times when the rains have come and the soil was good and the yield was good. Yet right now they are suffering in a way they have not in more than a half century with this drought that is unrelenting all across the Midwest in this country. It takes in almost the entire Farm Belt of the Midwest and Upper Midwest, where most of our grain and products are grown.

At a time like this, to bring forth a piece of legislation that basically says not only are you being nailed by the weather--and we, obviously, cannot do anything about that except provide some basic form of financial relief to get through this particular time; and that is what I talked about earlier--but we are going to nail you with a tax that, when you die, will basically prevent you from passing on your business or your farm to the next generation.

As I said, to personalize it, we have some dear friends--more than one couple. I have also talked to people throughout Indiana where the pride in holding their ground as part of their extended family, covering more than one and two generations, and the work they have put in, in order to preserve that hand-down to their children and to their grandchildren now goes up in flames because when they die, if their farm is valued at more than $1 million, they are imposed with a 55- percent tax on the value of everything over $1 million.

People say they are millionaires. No, they are not. They are sitting on property that might be valued at that, but they might be losing money. For sure, this year, they are not going to make any money because they have had to plow their corn under because it hasn't gotten the rain and moisture it needs and it will not grow. We don't yet know the extent of this disaster, but to preserve that within the families and hope for better years to come, that will not happen because, as the Senator from South Dakota said, they are going to have to value their land--the IRS will value their land at a price that the only way they can pay for that is to sell their assets.

Why in the world would they do that at a time of economic turmoil and cause a drift back essentially into recession? This country is not in good economic shape. Compared to Europe, we are in better shape, but if you look at the numbers, they are not trending the right way. Why at a time like this would you walk onto the floor of the United States Senate and put up a bill that will raise taxes on people who are already suffering from 35 percent to 55 percent? How high does it have to go? How many taxes have to be imposed on

the American people before they say that is enough? They are saying: Clean up your spending process in Washington so we don't have to pay so much in taxes to cover all you are doing there.

My colleagues would like to continue to respond. I want to turn to my colleague

Mr. President, I now turn to my colleague from Kansas, and I tell him about one of the families very close to us--my wife grew up with her lifetime friend, who married a farm boy from Kansas. They ran a farm near Norton, KS. We speak with them regularly. Even though we are city people, we have learned from them the sacrifice that goes into maintaining a farm, the suffering that occurs from the whims of the weather, the prices of the crops. We see them struggle and struggle, and this obviously will not be a good year. But this is a farm that has been passed down to the third generation now. They own a lot of land.

As the Senator knows, Kansas has a lot of land. And they didn't get the rainfall we did. I know this is a situation that ends the dream that has been passed down from generation to generation because on the death of the current owners of the farm, the tax on that would force them to sell their land.

Mr. President, whether it is the family my wife grew up with and knew or the one in Posey County, IN, who brought their neighbors together for a meeting a few months ago or whether it is a family or business owner or small businesses across the State of Indiana that I have talked to repeatedly, they basically say: I resent being called rich by the President, who said they need to pay more in taxes. We have been working our tails off for generations, and we have been paying our taxes faithfully for the profits we made--the years we have made profits. Yet we are being classified as some type of an elite group that is not paying their fair share. We can look back and we read statistics, such as 47 percent of Americans aren't paying any income taxes, while we are out there creating jobs, building a business--with sometimes good years, sometimes bad years--over a lifetime. There is value added to that business, but that value is in machines, it is in buildings and land, in terms of farmers. Yet that gets evaluated when we die at a level which means we can't pass it on. We can't afford to pass it on to other generations and we have to sell it. The Federal Government, having taxed us all our life on the profits we have made-- the income taxes, the Social Security contributions, the Medicare contributions, the sales taxes, the personal property taxes, the car taxes, the boat taxes, if one has a boat, the excise taxes, the liquor taxes, the beer tax, the sales tax and on and on and on it goes--it is not just the income tax we are being taxed on. There is not a tax that government doesn't like or want to impose on the American people.

Why would anyone, of either party, at a time of economic distress-- when the United States is the only country struggling to stay ahead and perhaps lead the world back into economic growth, at a time when we are seeing signs of a potential double-dip recession facing us, and the news in the last few days has been dramatically bad--want to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that says you are not paying enough if you own a small business or if you own a farm. You are not paying enough, so we think 55 percent is a fair rate--55 percent if you die, after you have paid taxes all your life to a Federal Government which is bloated and duplicative.

The bureaucracy here is out of control. Congress hasn't lived up to its responsibility to take any kind of sensible fiscal measures that will get us back on track in terms of battling our

budget and not spending more than we take in. Throughout all the efforts that have taken place throughout 2011, and some in 2012, we still have not come up with a program, with a budget arrangement which will put us on the path to fiscal health. Yet what is the response from the other side? The response is: Let's impose another tax. So at 4 o'clock today, Members are going to come down and vote in terms of whether they want to impose a 55-percent death tax on people who are already being taxed to death.

I will yield the floor, but then I am sure my colleagues will want to ask for their own recognition.

Mr. President, I would like to take some time at this point to talk about some events in Asia. I think we all need to be paying very close attention to them. Before I do that, I would like to clarify my position on the vote we are going to be taking this afternoon.

First, I wish to emphasize that I agree with all those comments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues about needing to keep these tax cuts in place for our lower income workers, our middle class; I just happen to believe we need to keep them in place for everyone who is making their income through what we call ordinary earned income.

Earned income, ordinary earned income, is the strongest indicator that a person in this country is actually accumulating wealth, which is the American dream, and it is not necessarily that you have wealth-- whatever the amount may happen to be. Passive income, which is income from capital gains, such as investment in stocks or dividends, is one of the best indicators that you actually have accumulated a certain amount of wealth--you have enough money to set aside and invest it.

So my long belief has been that if we are going to raise taxes on income, in addition to these other things we have been talking about with respect to tax loopholes and subsidies and those sorts of things, we really ought to be doing so in the fairest place, and the fairest place is from passive income, not ordinary earned income. I have said since the day I announced for the U.S. Senate years ago that I will not vote to raise taxes on ordinary income of any amount. I gave a rather detailed set of floor remarks several months ago about this issue.

I would like to share this particular chart with my colleagues today before I begin speaking on the situation in the South China Sea. This shows sources of income for the top 0.1 percent. We keep talking about these people at the top who are not paying their fair share. Well, two- thirds of the money that is being made by the top 0.1 percent in this country--that is 140,000 taxpayers--is being made from passive income. It is being made from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income--right now, 15 percent.

So in addition to fixing the larger Tax Code, I would like to say again to my colleagues that this is the area where we really should have the courage to make some decisions.

I was reading an article in the Economist--this week's edition-- pointing out that American profits, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, are actually higher now than they were at the high point before our economic crisis. In other words, corporate profits have gone up to a point where they are now about 15 percent of our GDP at the same time our wages have stagnated and gone down. They made one point in here where they said there is an irony that a high share of GDP for profits automatically results in a low share for wages. Why? Because the people who are making the money by running these companies--the executives-- are selling their stocks, their stock options, taking the lower percentage on capital gains in order to make their money.

So I am not going to vote for raising taxes on ordinary earned income. But, again, I will renew my suggestion to this body that we take a good, hard look at this because this situation is creating the greatest disparity among our people.

South China Sea

Mr. President, for many years, since well before I came to the Senate, I have had the pleasure to work and travel inside East Asia in many different capacities--as a marine in Okinawa and Vietnam, as a journalist, as a government official, as a guest of different governments, as a filmmaker, as a business consultant.

What we have been able to do, I think, in the last 5 or 6 years in order to refocus our country's interest on this vital part of the world is one of the great success stories of our foreign policy. But at the same time, we have to always be mindful that the presence of the United States in Southeast Asia is the guarantor of stability in this region.

If you look up here at the Korean Peninsula, you will see that for centuries there has been a cycle where the power centers have shifted among Japan, Russia, and China. This is the only place in the world where the geographical and power interests of those three countries intersect, and they intersect, with the Korean Peninsula being right in the middle of it.

We saw earlier, actually in the middle of last century, what happened when Japan became too aggressive in this part of the world. The Japanese fought Russia in the early 1900s. They defeated them. This is when they moved into Korea, occupied Korea, moved into China.

This resulted in our involvement in the Second World War. And since the Second World War, our presence has been the guarantor of stability. We have seen blowups, the Korean war when we fought China in addition to North Korea, the Vietnam war, in which I fought. But generally the long-term observers of this region, people such as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, will say that the presence of the United States in this region has allowed economic systems to grow and governmental systems to modernize. We have been the great guarantor of stability.

The difficulty we have been facing in the past 10 to 12 years has been how to deal with the economic and international growth of China in this region. Before China's expansion, when I was in the Pentagon in the 1980s, we had seen the reemergence of the Soviet Union. When I was in the Pentagon at that time, on any given day Russia's dream of having warm-water ports in the Pacific had been realized, to where they would have about 20 to 25 ships in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, at the end of the Vietnam war. But for the past 10 to 12 years, the challenge has been for us to develop the right sort of relationship with China so we can acknowledge their growth as a nation but maintain the stability that is so vital in this part of the world.

The last few years have been very troublesome. There have been a number of issues out here in the South China Sea that for a long time our military leaders assumed were simply tactical engagements where Chinese naval vessels and fishing vessels would be involved in spats with the Philippines off the coast of Vietnam. But it became very clear--and also in the Senkaku Islands near Japan.

It became very clear after a while, though, that what we are seeing are sovereignty issues. People were talking for many years about solving the situation in Taiwan, the sovereignty issue in Taiwan. It was clear--I was speaking about this for many years--that there are many other sovereignty issues once Taiwan is resolved: the Senkaku Islands, which Japan and China both claim, the Paracels, which China and Vietnam both claim, the Spratlys, which are claimed by five different countries, including China, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

So we started seeing a resurgence of incidents that became military confrontations over the past couple of years. Our Secretary of State and this administration were very clear 2 years ago, almost to the day, that these situations were not simply Asian situations, that they were in the vital interests of the United States to be resolved peacefully and multilaterally.

We have been struggling on the Foreign Relations Committee to try to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty where these sorts of incidents--which, by the way, are more than security incidents, they involve potentially an enormous amount of wealth in this part of the world. We have had a very difficult time getting a Law of the Sea Treaty passed where most of the countries around the world recognize the basic principles of how to resolve these international issues through multilateral involvement.

In the absence of a Law of the Sea Treaty, and, I think, with the resurgence of the Chinese--a certain faction of the Chinese tied to their military, China has become more and more aggressive. This past month has been very troublesome. On June 21, China's State Council approved the establishment of what they call the Sansha City

Prefectural Zone. This is literally the creation from nowhere of a governmental body in an area that is claimed also by Vietnam.

Unilaterally on Friday, July 13, because of disagreements over how to characterize the South China Sea situation, ASEAN--the Association of East Asian Nations, a 10-nation body, which has been very forthcoming in trying to solve these problems--failed to issue a communique about the South China Sea issues, a multilateral solution of the South China Sea issues.

On July 22, the Central Military Commission of China announced the deployment of a garrison of soldiers to the islands in this area. The garrison will likely be placed in the Paracel Islands right here, as I said, claimed by Vietnam, within the exclusive economic zone of Vietnam.

July 23, China officially began implementing this decision. It announced that 45 legislators are now to govern the approximately 1,000 people who are occupying these islands. They have elected a mayor and a vice mayor. They have announced that a 15-member standing committee will be running the prefecture. They have announced that this city they are creating will administer more than 200 islands, sandbanks, reefs, covering 2 million square kilometers of water.

In other words, they have created a governmental system out of nothing. They have populated with a garrison an island that is in contest in terms of sovereignty, and they have announced that this governing body will administer this entire area in the South China Sea.

China has refused to resolve these issues in a multilateral forum. They claim these issues will only be resolved bilaterally, one nation to another. Why? Because they can dominate any nation in this region. This is a violation, quite arguably, of international law. It is contrary to China's own statements about their willingness to work with ASEAN, to try to develop some sort of code of conduct. This is very troubling. I would urge the State Department to clarify this situation with China and also with our body immediately.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 467, S. 3412, which is the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.

Mr. President, the first hour this morning will be divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans the final half. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. today for weekly caucus meetings. At 3:40 this afternoon, there will be a moment of silence in memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson of the U.S. Capitol Police, who were killed 14 years ago today in the line of duty defending this Capitol, the people who worked here, and the visitors against an armed intruder.

Yesterday, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Middle Class Tax Act. If no agreement is reached, that vote will be tomorrow.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3420

Mr. President, I understand that S. 3420 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation at this time.

Mr. President, Republicans claim to share Democrats' commitment to keeping taxes low for the middle class, so it is very strange that, if that is what they believe, they have repeatedly blocked votes on our proposal to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families. Two weeks ago Republicans seemed eager to have those votes. That is what the Republican leader talked about here on the floor: They wanted to vote on our proposal to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year or 98 percent of Americans, and they wanted to vote on their competing proposal, which would actually raise taxes for 25 million families while handing out more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. Democrats have tried to give the Republicans what they wanted. We have offered to skip their usual procedural delays and hold up-or-down majority votes on both proposals. So far they have refused, but the offer still stands. If they want to vote on theirs and vote on ours, we will do it with a simple majority. So I hope the Republicans don't insist on doing this the hard way.

Why are Republicans delaying votes they asked for in the first place? They know a majority of Senators and a majority of Americans support our plan to help middle-class families. Our plan gives 114 million taxpayers--again, 98 percent of American families--certainty that their taxes won't go up, and it reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion by ending wasteful tax breaks for the rich.

The Senate Republican proposal takes a very different approach--and that is an understatement--to extend tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans, but it fails to extend tax cuts to help middle-class families. Their plan would hike taxes by another $1,000 for middle- class families while handing out an extra $160,000 tax break to every millionaire. Democrats will simply never agree that we should hand out more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans while our economy is in its current situation, but that shouldn't stop us from protecting the other 98 percent of Americans--and do it today.

Cybersecurity

Mr. President, I have had a number of briefings lately from people in the administration held in the classified facility here in the Capitol about cybersecurity.

Over the last few days, some of my Republican colleagues have suggested that the Senate should delay action on what national security experts have called the most pressing threat facing this country. Instead of considering bipartisan cybersecurity legislation, they say we should first consider the annual Defense authorization bill. I argue that we need to move rapidly to address the gaping hole in our defenses against cyber attack.

The Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, said that cyber threats will soon overtake terrorism as the most significant threat to our national security. And in the minds of some, it is difficult to separate cybersecurity from what people are trying to do and have tried to do every day. It is the same as terrorism, it is just a different form.

A bipartisan group of national security experts led by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a Republican, and former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who was appointed during the Republican administration, said cyber threat ``represents one of the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age.''

The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, said:

We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive

legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control

system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems

and much more from a cyber attack.

And he is right--we need to protect our electric grid.

The Presiding Officer participated in a demonstration in our classified room of how cybersecurity would work, taking down the Presiding Officer's State in the northeast part of this country. It could be done relatively easily, and it would take weeks and weeks to get it back up. We all watched that.

What John McCain said is really true. We must pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks, defense systems, and much more. Any one of these things would be devastating to our country if a cyber attack is successful. John McCain suggested this almost a year ago.

The threat has only grown worse in that time, and failing to act on cybersecurity legislation not only puts our national security at risk, it recklessly endangers members of our Armed Forces and our missions around the world. Servicemembers themselves have been repeatedly targeted by cyber attackers. In one hack last year, more than 90,000 military e-mail addresses and passwords were stolen. In another hack of the TRICARE system, 4.9 million medical records from our military were stolen. If we are serious about protecting our troops, we must protect them against cyber attacks.

But acting to secure our critical networks doesn't mean we won't do other things to help the defense, of course. There are some specific concerns about the Defense authorization bill, and I have talked about them. We can't allow the Defense bill to become an end run around the bipartisan Budget Control Act, which has been so important to this country.

If we are going to debate the Defense bill, House and Senate Republicans need to make it clear that they are willing to abide by the budget levels set by the law that they all voted for, with rare exception, and we must also ensure that the Defense bill is not used as a platform to advance irrelevant partisan agendas.

Remembering Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut

Mr. President, I wish to take a minute to talk about Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut.

It was 14 years ago, and it is really hard to comprehend that it has been that long. Officer Chestnut I knew by saying hello. But we had an event in Virginia where my wife became ill. I will never forget Agent Gibson running from the Capitol Police headquarters and administering aid to my wife. That was Agent Gibson, and I remember that so clearly. He was a wonderful guy. I felt I knew him so well because of his helping my wife.

Last week, this Nation was reminded how fragile life is with what happened in Colorado and how quickly it can be taken away, at random, with senseless acts of violence.

Fourteen years ago, the Capitol community was similarly reminded that we must never take life for granted. On this day in 1998, two dedicated U.S. Capitol Police officers--Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut--gave their lives while protecting this building and the people in it. But their lives were not spent in vain. As a result of their sacrifice, we now have a Capitol that is much safer than it ever was. It was a result of their having been killed that we were able to finally get the Visitor Center done. We were able to speed that up, and we got it done. Now people who come to this Capitol are safe in the building, and their security is as good as anyplace in the world. It is a much more pleasant visit now to the Capitol. So their lives were not given in vain.

While guarding the Capitol, Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut were shot to death by, really, a madman. With the facilities we have now, that would not have happened. While nothing can erase the pain of losing a loved one, I hope their families take some measure of comfort from knowing that Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut are not forgotten.

As a sidenote, I take special pride in the fact that I was a Capitol policeman. I worked in this building and carried a pistol. I worked swing shift, as we called it, from about 3:00 to 11:00 when I was going to law school. So every year when we give special recognition to this occurrence having happened, I think of my days here and what a different place it was. Of course there were things we had to look out for, but, as I have said before, the most dangerous thing I had to do was direct traffic. But that isn't the way it is now for the men and women who take care of us here in the Capitol--not just the Senators, not just the staff, but all the millions of people who visit this facility every year. So I honor their service and their sacrifice. And I reflect back on the days of my youth, for someone who came from where I came, walking around this facility, mostly at nighttime, a lot of times quite lonely.

So we are grateful for the brave men and women who safeguard the people's house. They do it today. They do it every day. We take them for granted, and we shouldn't. They are really gallant in the work they do. The Capitol Police is a wonderful organization, and I am proud of them, and every Member of the Senate is proud of them. Everyone in the country should be aware of the work they do to make this building safe.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I rise to share my concerns over the proposed changes in the estate and gift tax provisions of the current Tax Code that will be considered within hours on the floor.

Similar to much of the Tax Code, the estate and gift tax provisions are terribly complex, costly to comply with, and have very serious negative consequences. These negative consequences disproportionately harm farmers and ranchers and worry their lenders.

Visiting with farmers and stockmen today--livestock producers--one had better stand back. They are upset, they are frustrated, they are angry, they are concerned, and they are worried.

All across farm country, we are suffering from a severe drought-- which is a real emergency, historic in scope and damage, particularly for our livestock industry. Congress should respond. At the same time, they are facing a farm bill that is in limbo, regulations that defy any commonsense cost-benefit yardstick, and no farmer or their lender can plan in this environment. In farm country, there is no certainty.

But just to split the shingle, now we have proposed changes to the current estate tax--the infamous death tax--all based on a select few in Washington deciding who is wealthy, what is a fair share people should pay in a tax and how they should pay that tax, playing again with the politics of envy and class warfare. I think we ought to quit this business. The classic example is that under current law, the Federal estate tax is set at 35 percent on estates over $5 million.

If nothing is changed, on January 1, 2013--or if Senators vote for a particular version of the two tax bills we are going to be considering in just about 1\1/2\ hours--if nothing is changed, the estate tax exemption will drop from $5 million to $1 million and the estate tax rate will jump from 35 percent to 55 percent.

If we do not act to extend the current death tax structure--I would like to eliminate it; I would like to repeal it but at least extend it--the Joint Committee on Taxation reports that over 10 years, the number of small businesses subject to the death tax will increase from about 1,800 folks to 23,700, and the number of farming estates subject to the death tax would increase from about 900 farmers and ranchers to 25,200. That is more than 20 times additional farming estates that would be hit with this massive death tax hike, a 2,000-percent increase.

It is not just farmers and ranchers who would be affected. Nine times more small businesses would be hit with this massive death tax--a 900- percent increase. Twelve times more taxable estates would be hit--a 1,200-percent increase. While I support permanently repealing the death tax, if we cannot achieve that goal, how we structure this tax in particular has immediate real-world implications for folks in Kansas and across the country.

The looming 2013 change to the estate tax law would be a huge disservice to agriculture because it is a land-based, capital-intensive industry with few options for paying estate taxes when they come due.

The current state of our economy, coupled with the uncertain nature of estate tax liabilities, makes it tremendously difficult for family- owned farms and ranches to make any sound business decisions. They are on the sidelines of our economy. They are not on the economic playing field. Again, there is no certainty.

Obviously, raising the estate tax burden will strike a blow to farm and ranch operations trying to transition from one generation to the next. A $1 million exemption sounds like a lot. To some people in this Chamber--and obviously to some people within this administration--at $1 million a person is rich, they are wealthy, with no consideration as to what the personal situation is for that individual, but somebody just determining what a fair share is and then taking from that individual and redistributing to those whom they think deserve it.

But a $1 million exemption is not high enough to protect a typical farm or ranch able to support a family. When coupled with a top rate of 55 percent, that is going to be especially difficult, if not impossible, for farms and ranches and businesses to pass on their wherewithal to the next generation.

Yet our Nation's estate tax policy is in direct conflict with the desire to preserve and protect our Nation's family-owned farms and ranches. Individuals, family partnerships, and family corporations own 98 percent of our Nation's 2 million farms and ranches. When estate taxes on an agriculture business exceed cash or other liquid assets, many surviving family partners will be forced to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to keep their businesses operating.

With 85 percent of farm and ranch assets illiquid, producers have few options when it comes to generating cash to pay the estate tax. Recent increases in agricultural land values--on average, 25 percent from 2010 to 2011--have greatly expanded the number of farms and ranches that now top the estate tax exemption. How on Earth can farmers, ranchers, and small businesses even plan for this?

In order to keep farm or ranch businesses operating after the death of the owner, families must plan for the estate tax. But under the majority party bill we will vote on shortly, many more farmers and ranchers will face increased filing, paperwork, and other hassles in planning for succession, not to mention lawyers, CPAs, and estate planners. In fact, if we don't extend the current estate tax, estates required to file paperwork with the IRS rise from about 8,600 to 107,500. That is a lot of time and cost that could be avoided.

The planning costs associated with this tax are not only a drain on business resources but also take money away from the day-to-day operations and investing in the business. Even with planning, uncertain tax law combined with changing land values and family situations make it impossible to guarantee that an estate plan will protect the family farm or ranch. This not only can cripple a farm or ranch operation, but it hurts all throughout our rural communities, up and down Main Street, every business that agriculture supports.

The death tax is one of the worst offenders in bringing real complexity to the Tax Code, and I believe it is one of the most distortive provisions in our system.

Some believe and will point out that the estate tax is an instrument of social justice; that it is designed to limit wealth accumulation and to spread that wealth around, something I think that is contrary to what this country is all about.

Why do you work? You work hard to make a difference, and you work hard because you enjoy the work and hopefully you get paid for it--and, hopefully you get paid for it enough that you can at least have enough wherewithal so your kids and their kids can continue that kind of endeavor if they so choose. But some people say we want to spread that wealth around.

Even if someone holds what I consider a socialistic view--a tough word; it is a pejorative, I know, but I think that applies here--the estate tax, which distorts no end of economic decisions, isn't the most efficient method to redistribute wealth. If you are a wealth redistributor, if you will, in this body, clearly taxpayers facing the death tax respond to the tax by cutting back on investments, consuming more of the capital and other assets that could be passed on to build businesses.

So the disincentives the death tax creates in the end lead to lower growth, fewer jobs, and less savings. How do we redistribute that? There is nothing to redistribute. In a troubled economy, this forced outcome does not make sense.

Being able to plan for the future is critical. The current uncertainty leads to the repeated provisions of wills and trusts, which burdens taxpayers and advisers alike. I don't care what farm organization I am talking to, what commodity group, what small business group, wherever I go in my State of Kansas--and I think it is the same in regard to other States that Members are privileged to represent-- over and over, I have been asked again what Congress will do with these provisions: What should a rancher do? How can they pass farms on to their children?

I have even been asked, for planning purposes--I am not making this up--if this is a good year to die. That is astounding, if not outrageous. It may be a good year to die because this egregious change is going nowhere.

These two bills we are considering in just a few moments are not going anywhere. We will vote in a little while, but they are both subject to a point of order--not having originated in the House, they will be blue-slipped. That is a fancy word, a parliamentary word, saying they are going nowhere because bills on taxes have to originate in the House. Talk about a real income redistribution--a nothing burger. That is what we are considering. But it is indicative of what is being considered in this Chamber and indicative of what we have to take care of in true tax reform.

Folks in Kansas should not have to make such important decisions on a tax law that is changing all the time. We need to repeal or permanently reset the death tax. If this tax cannot be repealed, it needs to be set in stone--hopefully, not a gravestone--and at a rate and in a manner that provides certainty.

While it is important to permanently eliminate this very punitive tax, until this can be accomplished, Congress should at least extend the current $5 million exemption, indexing it to reflect land values and continuing the spousal transfer and maintaining the top 35-percent tax rate.

We pay taxes all of our lives. It just doesn't make sense to be taxed again when we die.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, although I note that my colleague from Illinois is perhaps ready to speak. I will be happy to yield back any time I have.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, for his courtesy of allowing me to speak now so that I may take the Chair and listen to his speech.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support our economic recovery, endorse fiscal responsibility, and bolster the middle class by voting to extend tax cuts on income up to $250,000.

Minnesotans are still struggling, and we need to act now so people making under $250,000 can keep their tax cuts. Middle-class families need every bit of help they can get. At the same time, we need to make sure the richest 2 percent of Americans are paying their fair share so we can pay down the deficit. It would be irresponsible not to.

Thanks to the policies of the Recovery Act, we emerged from one of the worst recessions in generations and actually stopped it from becoming the second Great Depression. That being said, too many working families are still struggling to find work, pay their rents or their mortgages, find affordable childcare, and send their kids to college. By extending tax cuts to these families, we will be putting money in their pockets and, in turn, they will likely go out and spend that money in their communities, at their local small businesses, and further bolster recovery.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at this a bit differently. They have put forward a proposal that would extend tax cuts on income over $250,000 for a year as well, which would cost us over $800 billion in revenue over 10 years. They argue if we let taxes go up on the richest 2 percent of Americans, we are inviting another recession and we are stifling growth. They can make that claim over and over, but there is no evidence of this. It would be more helpful to examine the facts and what recent history has taught us.

First, it is essential to clarify who exactly would get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal. Luckily, the answer is easy: essentially everyone. If we pass the bill proposed by the majority leader and extend the tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income, everyone who currently pays income taxes will get a tax cut extension.

If a person makes $50,000, our bill preserves that person's entire tax cut. If a person makes $100,000, this bill preserves their entire tax cut. If a person makes $250,000, it preserves the person's entire tax cut, and their tax cut is also a lot bigger than the guy making $50,000 or $100,000. That might not be clear from some of the rhetoric we have been hearing lately, but it is true.

People making over $250,000 would still get a tax cut worth thousands of dollars, and it would be larger than anybody else's tax cut. The only portion of their taxes that would increase--or it would stay the same as under the law we have now, which is to not extend the Bush tax cuts--would be on any additional income above $250,000. If a person makes $250,000 plus $1, that person pays 39.6 percent on that extra $1. That is a difference of 4.6 cents, a little less than a nickel. So for those people under this plan, they get the benefit of thousands and thousands of dollars in tax cuts, minus a nickel.

Secondly, claims that not extending the extra tax breaks for the richest 2 percent will cause harm to the economy are not supported by history. Let's take a look at President Clinton. When he proposed his deficit reduction plan in 1993, every Republican in the House and every Republican in the Senate opposed it. And what was their claim? Their claim was that it would hurt businesses and cause a recession. Every Republican voted against it.

What really happened in the ensuing years? Not only did we have an unprecedented expansion of our economy for 8 years, creating more than 22 million new net jobs at the very tax rate we are talking about now for people over $250,000, but, at the same time, we turned the biggest deficit in history into the biggest surplus in history. President Clinton handed President George W. Bush a record surplus. So the only time in the last 30 years in which we actually had the budget in balance was after we raised taxes on those at the top--the very level we are talking about now.

Between 1993 and 2001, this country created an unprecedented number of jobs--22.7 million net--and did so while benefiting everyone up and down the economic ladder. Not every individual but every quartile. There was economic growth in every quartile. We witnessed a decrease in the number of Americans in poverty, and we saw the creation of more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. President Clinton's deficit reduction plan not only reduced the deficit as planned, it eliminated it entirely. So not only did we create all that prosperity, President Clinton then handed off a record surplus. I think this needs to be said. He handed off a record surplus to incoming President George W. Bush.

In fact, when President Bush took office, we were on track to completely pay off our national debt with $5 trillion of surpluses projected over the next 10 years. In other words, we would have zeroed out our national debt last year--zero, no debt. But he cut taxes in 2001, and he cut taxes in 2003, after we went to war--unprecedented in our Nation's history.

The decision before us today is a fundamental one: Should we extend these tax cuts on income up to $250,000, preserving tax cuts for everyone, with the largest tax cuts going to those with incomes of $250,000 or more--they would get the largest tax cuts--or should we ask the richest 2 percent to pay their fair share, to pay 4.6 percent extra on income over $250,000, which has been shown historically to create jobs? It poses a question about choices: We can choose to do the economically responsible thing or we can choose to provide additional tax cuts for people who least need them.

When everyone pays their fair share, our Nation can get back on a path to fiscal responsibility and, at the same time, invest in quality education, in infrastructure, in R&D for high-tech industries. These are the things which create prosperity. We can create good jobs in our manufacturing sector and other emerging industries.

In fact, investing in the middle class is a win for everyone. The buying power of the middle class is what sustains our economy, makes it grow. Our economy doesn't grow from the top down. If our experience over the last 30 years teaches us anything, it is that. It grows from the middle class out. President Clinton understood that and so does President Obama.

I have friends who have been very successful in the business world. I have enormous respect for them and what they have accomplished, and I do for almost every American who has been successful in building their businesses. There are some people who have taken some shortcuts and maybe don't deserve our approval, but they are a very small fraction. We honor, we celebrate people who have been successful.

This is what my friends who have been successful tell me. They say when the middle class is strong--when they have customers--they grow their businesses and can make more money. Believe me--I have had friends tell me exactly this--they would rather pay a 39.6-percent marginal rate on $2 million of income than pay 35 percent on $1 million of income. That is the difference between a booming economy and a stagnant one. How many times have we heard that the deficit is what is hurting our economy? We are talking about a difference of almost $900 billion to get our deficit under control. All this is just common sense. It is common sense and taking a little bit of a look at history over the last 30 years. Policies that support and grow the middle class benefit everyone and increase prosperity all along the economic spectrum.

So, in the end, we have a big decision to make today. Do we stand for our

economic recovery and for middle-class families and for addressing the budget deficit with the Democratic proposal or do we continue to give extra tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans instead of extending improvements in the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit affecting more than 13 million working families while adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit?

Let's be clear. The Republican plan would raise taxes on 13 million middle-class and working-class families and get rid of the expanded earned-income tax credit to people who are working so we can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I hope we can show the American people that common sense still prevails in the Senate by acting in unison across the aisle to do what is responsible.

I urge all of my colleagues to extend the middle-class tax cuts and to vote for the majority leader's bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Republicans' tax hike on the middle class has just been defeated. Their plan would have raised taxes by about $1,000 for 25 million middle-class families while giving millionaires an average of a $160,000 tax break. So let's look at that. Their bill would have raised taxes on 25 million middle-class families by about $1,000 a year, and it would have given millionaires a $160,000 tax break. Those numbers are staggering. Their bill would have raised taxes on parents trying to pay for college, on families--especially large families--with children. So it is no wonder a majority of Senators opposed that legislation.

In just a short time there will be a bill that will pass cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans, including every middle-class taxpayer and more than 97 percent of small businesses. This plan, proposed by President Obama, would cut taxes for 114 million American families. Theirs raises taxes for 25 million middle-class families. This is the only bill that has a chance of becoming law, so it is the only plan that would actually give a middle-class family the security of avoiding their fiscal cliff. The House should take up this legislation and pass it.

President Obama believes we must keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans. Democrats agree. So do the majority of Americans. A majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, around this country believe taxes should remain low for the middle class but the top 2 percent should pay their fair share to reduce the debt. The bill the Senate is about to pass respects the will of the American people, including a majority of Republicans in America outside the Halls of this Congress. Republican Members of Congress disagree with a majority of Republicans.

The President, of course, has said he will sign the bill immediately. But now Republicans are threatening to hide behind yet another arcane procedural maneuver to stall this crucial legislation, and this will get the attention of the American people. They are threatening to do something called blue slip this because revenue-raising resolutions must be originated in the House of Representatives. But my Republican colleagues have very short memories. Senate Republicans are all too happy to bypass the procedural hoop when it suits their purposes. They are willing to go around it when it is time to reauthorize the FAA. They were willing to sidestep it when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. We did that here in the Senate. They were willing to dodge it when we passed the Transportation bill that was so important to this country. But now their excuse for stalling a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people is an old procedural trick that the American people do not understand, and rightfully so.

If Republicans in the House fail to act on this bill, taxes will rise by $2,200 for the typical middle-class family of four. That is $2,200 less to spend on gas, groceries, rent, and life in general for these people. This tax hike on ordinary families couldn't come at a worse time--just as our economy is doing its utmost to get back on its feet.

Republicans should not force middle-class families off their fiscal cliff to protect more wasteful giveaways to millionaires and billionaires--an average of $160,000 a year per millionaire. Democrats believe this country can't afford more budget-busting giveaways for the top 2 percent of earners. Again, Republicans in America agree with us. It is only here in the Senate that the Republicans don't agree. But that is a debate we are willing to have, and the House Republicans need not hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage in order to have that debate. They can and should pass our middle-class tax cuts immediately.

Once we give middle-class families security, we can spend the next 5 months debating whether wealthy families need more tax breaks. We know how the American people feel--just like we do.

Mr. President, in 2010 the country was staring at what had taken place the prior 8 years--8 million jobs lost. What has happened in the years since 2010 that my friend the Republican leader talks about? This administration has created 4.5 million jobs. We haven't filled the hole we lost during the 8 years of the prior President, but we have made some progress. We all acknowledge we need to do more, but don't ever compare today with 2010.

First of all, everyone understands, all you folks who love to give tax cuts to the millionaires, our bill does that also. The first $250,000 they make is treated just like a middle-class family.

I would also point everyone to this. I have talked about the Republicans around the country supporting this legislation. Of course they do. They know the deficit needs to be handled, and they know that about $1 trillion is what our legislation will do to fill the hole of the debt.

But also, people who are in this great country of ours who have done so well understand that they are supposed to contribute more. They know that. My friend doesn't like to hear polls, but let me give him another one. Sixty-five percent of these really rich people are willing to pay more taxes. Again, the people who are unwilling to do this are people who signed a pledge for this person, Grover Norquist. And remember, there was a little vacillating about a month ago, so he came up here and had somebody renew their vows with him.

So we are on the side of the angels; we are on the side of the American people because this legislation that is going to pass is what is good for the American people. And I ask that we have that vote now.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Remember, I always get the last word.

Mr. President, they may have different newspapers in Kentucky than I read. I get my Nevada clips every day. I try to read some papers from back home. We have now 28 months of job growth in the private sector, 20 months in a row. That is pretty good.

This legislation is about the debt. It is about the debt. We have to do something about the debt, and we have tried mightily to do that. We have tried mightily.

We had the Conrad-Judd Gregg legislation. Seven people who are Republican Senators who cosponsored that wouldn't vote for it and allow me to get it on the floor because they had adopted the Republican leader's philosophy that the most important thing we can do is defeat President Obama for reelection. Then we went to Bowles-Simpson, which was a program we put together when we couldn't get that legislation. That was so good, by two of our best financial minds in the Senate, Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad. And Bowles-Simpson didn't make it. Then we had a series of talks with the President and the Speaker. Always, we could never quite get it done. Why? Even though my friend and I care about him, John Boehner said, I want to do big things, not little things. One of the little things he couldn't do is get his caucus to agree to just a little bit of revenue so we could have a deal, the grand bargain. Then we tried the Biden talks. The majority leader in the House of Representatives walked out on those talks. Then we had the supercommittee, and about 1 week before, by statute, Patty Murray and her troops were supposed to offer the legislation, I got a letter signed by virtually every Republican Senator saying: No thanks. Grover wins again. No revenues.

This is about our country, about doing something about a debt. It will contribute about $1 trillion to the debt. That is not bad.

Mr. President, required reading for decades now has been George Orwell. College students read it now just like I did when I was in college. George Orwell came to the conclusion that we have arrived at a time where up is down and down is up, and that is what my friend, the Republican leader, has done. If there were ever a statement Orwellian, it is his.

We haven't done the appropriations bill. Stop and think just 1 minute. Does the minority leader think 85 filibusters had anything to do with that? Eighty-five filibusters. We haven't done a budget. That is poppycock. We have one. We did it, and my Republican friends--I appreciate it--voted with us. We have our numbers right now. We could have done every appropriations bill. Chairman Inouye marked them up. We can't do them because we have to overcome 85 filibusters.

For my friend to say, let's do something important, please--is this bill we are going to pass important? You bet it is. He said it would only pay for the government for 1 week or whatever the number was. Over 10 years, it is $1 trillion. Over 1 year, it is $100 billion. Even in Las Vegas that is not chump change.

I wish we would vote now.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 467, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.

Madam President, we are now in the midst of another Republican filibuster. So the time until 2:15 today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the second 30 minutes. At 2:15, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Middle Class Tax Cut Act that was just outlined by the clerk.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3429

Madam President, I understand that S. 3429 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Madam President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation.

Madam President, for the third time in as many weeks, Republicans are poised to kill a tax cut without ever debating it on the Senate floor.

Two weeks ago, Republicans filibustered legislation to cut taxes for small businesses. Last week, they filibustered a bill to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas and cut taxes for companies that move jobs back to America. Now they are filibustering our plan to cut taxes for 114 million middle-class families. Not one of these bills has gotten a debate on the Senate floor. So let's look at what led to this latest Republican filibuster.

Two weeks ago, Senator McConnell came to the Senate floor to ask for two votes, one on the Democratic plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families and reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion. The other vote he wanted was on the Republican plan to raise taxes by $1,000 each for 25 million middle-class families while handing out tax breaks to millionaires of $160,000 each.

That afternoon, I told the minority leader that Democrats were willing to give Republicans what they said they wanted--those two votes. But although it had been only a few short hours since Senator McConnell asked for those two votes, my offer was refused. He said he had to see our proposal first.

It seemed like a thin excuse at the time. He hadn't seen our proposal when he asked for the votes in the first place, but others within his caucus had seen it, and the staff had seen it, of course. But I took the minority leader at his word.

So Democrats produced legislation in legislative form, and we offered once again to vote on our bill and on the Republicans' plan to hike middle-class taxes. Again, they refused the up-or-down votes they had asked for. This time they wanted a third vote now, on a different plan, we are told.

We have President Obama's tax plan before us. I am not going to make up some tax plan of the President that they said they are going to do. We have President Obama's tax plan. We have worked hand in glove with him now for months to come to the body with what we have today. So this third vote is again a charade.

The Presiding Officer has a couple of small children. My children aren't so small anymore. But small children being small children, it is very often they have a bedtime tactic that has been used forever. I am sure the Presiding Officer's children--and I know my kids--when they needed to get to sleep always wanted one more story. They would ask for one more story and then one more story. But parents learned and saw this bedtime story for what it is, a delaying tactic to stave off bedtime.

Americans see the Republicans' hollow request for one more vote, a made-up vote, for what it is, an excuse to put off a simple majority vote on the Democrats' plan to cut taxes for the middle class. Of course, we know why Republicans are filibustering our plan to protect the middle class: They know it would pass if we held an up-or-down majority vote on that today.

Our bill has the support of President Obama, it has the support of the Democratic caucus, and it has the support of the American people. A majority of Americans--including a significant majority of Republicans--agree taxes should remain low for the middle class and that the top 2 percent should pay their fair share to reduce the deficit. As I said, the majority of Republicans agree. The only place there is no agreement is with the Republicans in Congress. They once again have decided to obstruct rather than to legislate. So the Senate may not even get to debate the merits of our plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

There is still time for Republicans to reverse course and drop their filibuster. They owe the American people a serious debate on this proposal.

Cybersecurity

Madam President, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us to debate a crucial cybersecurity bill before the end of this month. We hope to have a vote on this as early as tomorrow or the next day.

Cybersecurity--a new word, but there is nothing more important to national security than doing something about cybersecurity. If we do not pass this legislation that is now before the Senate, if we don't do something about this, we are told by the experts it is not a question of if; it is a question of when. This legislation is extremely important.

National security experts from the left, the right, and center say weaknesses in our cyber defenses are among the greatest threats facing our Nation--and some say it is the greatest threat facing our Nation. So Congress must act rapidly to address this issue.

The House and Senate must also act before Congress leaves for the August recess to pass the final version of legislation initiating new Iran sanctions.

This past year, the Senate conference has been hard at work to complete this agreement. I have been clear that I expect the negotiations to conclude soon so we can further tighten these sanctions against Iran. Sanctions are critical. It is a critical tool to help stop Iran's nuclear weapons program and ensuring the security of our ally, the State of Israel.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 3412 be withdrawn; the Senate adopt the motion to proceed to S. 3412, a bill extending the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 90 percent of all small businesses; that the only amendment in order to the bill be a substitute amendment offered by Senators McConnell and Hatch, which is identical to the text of S. 3413; that the amendment not be divisible; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the McConnell-Hatch amendment; that upon disposition of the McConnell- Hatch amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; that there be no motions, points of order, or amendments in order to the amendment or the bill; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; finally, that when the Senate receives a companion bill from the House providing for the extension of tax cuts, as designated by the majority leader, it be in order for the majority leader to proceed to its immediate consideration; strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of S. 3412 as passed by the Senate in lieu thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read a third time, a statutory pay-go statement be read, if needed, and the bill, as amended, be passed with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the President's bill is the one that is before this body that I asked unanimous consent on. We have a Statement of Administration Policy. It is the President's bill. So I respectfully object to my friend's suggested modifications.

Mr. President, my friend is objecting to the last paragraph in my request. He has asked consent to add a third provision. I have objected to the third provision. He has objected to the last paragraph. I would be willing to renew my consent minus the last paragraph which begins ``finally'' and ends with the word ``debate.''

Mr. President, the vote will occur at 4 o'clock today on these two amendments. I appreciate very much the Republican leader allowing us to arrive at the point where we are. I would tell everyone that the time until 4 o'clock is evenly divided, approximately an hour for each side.

I ask unanimous consent that if there are quorum calls between now and 4 o'clock the time be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am still trying to wrap my head around President Obama's recent remarks that small business job creators somehow owe their success to the Federal Government. His comment wasn't just wrong, it was actually kind of embarrassing. It showed that the President does not understand the enormous challenges and financial risks entrepreneurs and job creators deal with every day. It also affirmed that the President is going to continue pushing the same misguided big-government economic policies that have helped keep our unemployment rate well above 8 percent for some 41 consecutive months.

I wish to highlight a few of the success stories from my home State of Texas that epitomize what the American dream is all about and to reassure my listeners that the American dream is still alive and well and thriving in the great State of Texas. But first I would like to make a brief point about tax policy because as mundane and boring as tax policy may seem to a lot of people, it actually has a very real impact on the people I am talking about.

There is now an emerging bipartisan consensus that tax reform should involve lowering rates and broadening the base so that our tax system becomes simpler, fairer, and more conducive to strong economic growth. Don't just take my word for it. Look at the President's own bipartisan fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which reached that same conclusion.

Unfortunately, the President's own fiscal commission's report is inconsistent with the President's current demand that we have to raise taxes. That would mean a large tax increase for many people who are the people we are depending upon to create those jobs. The reason is that many small businesses pay their business income on individual tax returns. They are not major Forbes 500, multinational corporations; they are the mom-and-pop operations that are sole proprietorships, they are partnerships, and they are even sometimes subchapter S corporations. That is just a reference to the Tax Code that means you don't pay corporate taxes, you pay flowthrough business income on your individual tax return. So many people who are small businesses who may reach that threshold of $250,000 or above are businesspeople paying on an individual tax return. If this is an effort to soak the rich, well, the middle class and small businesses are part of the collateral damage.

I would like to remind the President that Americans will spend about $350 billion this year alone just to comply with the Tax Code. That means hiring accountants and that means hiring lawyers just to try to figure out what they owe to the Federal Government. Small business owners face a particularly heavy burden because they can't afford the army of lawyers and accountants to help them figure out what their tax obligations are. Yet these are the folks we are depending upon to get America back to work and to get our economy growing again. But we effectively have a tax system that punishes them for their success. We can and we should do better.

When it comes to dealing with the IRS, small businesses don't enjoy the same resources that large multinational corporations do. According to the World Bank, it is now more difficult to pay business taxes in the United States than in many Western European countries. When heavily taxed, heavily bureaucratic countries such as France make it easier to comply with their tax code than America does, we know we have a problem.

If the President doesn't believe me, perhaps he should spend some time chatting with some of my constituents, people such as Steve Mayo, the owner of Mayo Furniture in Texarkana, TX. Steve's company is a family business that was established about a half century ago. It now employs 130 full-time workers and sells furniture in 25 different States. When I visited with Steve and his employees last year, they were worried about how in the world they were going to comply with the financial burdens of the new health care law, along with other taxes and regulations. They told me it would affect their business and their ability to create jobs and stay competitive. These are the same concerns I have heard about from countless constituents and small business owners all across my State.

We are one of the lucky States. About half the jobs in America have been created in my State in the last 5 years or so. We are fortunate because when it comes to small businesses we are depending upon to create jobs, we asked this very simple question: How can we make it easier for them to create jobs? How can we make it easier for them to start a business? Unfortunately, the message emanating from Washington seems to be--in so many words--how can we make it harder? How can we increase the unpredictability of their investment?

After talking to Steve Mayo, maybe President Obama would like to talk to Diane LaBleu. Diane is a breast cancer survivor in Austin, TX. Diane was creative enough to invent a clothing accessory to help women recovering from a mastectomy. The accessory is known as a Pink Pocket, and it is now being used by women around the world from Austin to Australia.

The story of Pink Pockets demonstrates the power of a great idea. Diane identified a problem facing breast cancer survivors. She came up with a brilliant solution, something nobody else had thought of before. The remarkable success of her invention is a testament to her creativity and her hard work.

The government was not responsible for the success of Pink Pockets or Mayo Furniture. Far from it. Many times all these small businesses want is for government to get out of their way, off their back, and out of their

pocket so they can do what they do best.

The government was also not responsible for the success of STS Coatings, a construction company based in the San Antonio area. The founder of STS Coatings, Cayce Kovacs, reports that she and her husband cashed in their savings to launch their business, which now has annual sales totaling more than $3 million. As Ms. Kovacs recently said:

We were the ones sweating bullets over processing orders

and paying our bills, making payroll--not the government. The

government did nothing to help my business.

You know who else can say that? Another extraordinary Texan named Frank Scantlin, who founded Sunbelt Machine Works in Stafford, TX, near Houston, some 34 years ago. Frank tells a story that as a child he was so poor he sometimes couldn't even afford to buy shoes, and he had to quit school in the ninth grade in order to support his family. This is a quintessential American success story. Frank persevered and went on to create a business that now has almost 60,000 square feet of workspace and employs 90 people.

All these stories epitomize the American dream that has enticed immigrants from around the world to take a risk, leave everything they had behind, and come and make America their home. We were the one place in the world where they knew if they were willing to work hard and save, that hard work could be rewarded by success.

In the meantime, those of us who depend on those small businesses to create those jobs and prosperity could benefit as well. The owners of Sunbelt, STS Coatings, Pink Pockets, and Mayo Furniture understand their success was not inevitable, and it sure was not guaranteed by the Federal Government. They had to take the hard risks, they had to work overtime, and they had to overcome challenges that many times the government put in their way. In the end, as in so many great American success stories, their hard work and ingenuity paid off. They can, not government, declare with confidence that ``I built this.''

My office has received more than 250 of these stories since President Obama gave his speech in Roanoke. They are the type of stories that have made our country the beacon of prosperity and entrepreneurial energy for so many years. As one Texas business owner put it: ``Rugged individualism is alive and well in the United States.'' I hope we remember that, and I hope the President of the United States remembers that as well.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is a terrible time in our country. The entire country is in mourning for the 12 innocent people who were gunned down in Aurora, CO, last week. Our thoughts and our prayers are with dozens more still recovering from their wounds. We are mourning with people we never knew, with unfamiliar names, but we have seen pictures of grief-stricken parents, friends, neighbors, and our hearts break with them. We wish we could reach across the country and offer them some comfort while we mourn.

We know our mourning alone will not be enough to prevent a future tragedy unless we do something. We in Congress have an obligation to turn grief into action, as we have often done when faced with tragedy. So I come to the floor today to ask a question: When will we wake up? How many of our sons and daughters have to die before we go to work? It is time to sound the alarm on gun violence in our country. It is time for us to gather to talk about commonsense solutions. And I am talking about all of us--all 100. It should not matter which side of the aisle we are on. All of us who serve here have someone we love, someone we know, someone with whom we are in contact, whether it is our child, our sister, our brother, our father, or our mother. The lives of our loved ones depend on us and we should not let them down.

Right now, our Nation's lax gun laws make it far too easy for murderers to commit incomprehensible acts of violence and terror. Very early last Friday morning, we witnessed a massacre, and it has become something we have seen far too often. A tragedy with even less deaths, with less wounded, with less hurt is a tragedy of enormous proportion when something like this happens in this great country of ours. There is so much to live for, so much to enjoy, but here innocent people died.

This guy arrived at a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and he had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine, a shotgun, and two handguns. He unleashed a barrage of bullets murdering 12 innocent people and injuring 58 more in a matter of minutes. In the theater at the time there was a total population of 200 people, and 70 of them were wounded or killed in a matter of minutes. Even though the police responded rapidly--within 90 seconds--with his high-capacity magazine, the gunman had more than enough time to carry out his reign of terror.

Among those who lost their lives were parents, mothers, fathers, servicemen, a veteran, a recent high school graduate, a college student, and a 6-year-old-girl named Veronica Moser Sullivan. She was the youngest to be murdered in Colorado that night and someone whose tragic death reminds us all too well of the time 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green was murdered in Tucson last year because she wanted to know more about her government. She was part of a group who greeted Representative Giffords.

The victims of these horrible tragedies deserve more than words of solidarity and mourning. They deserve our attention, our action. What we do to prevent these tragedies in the future will be the real test of character of this body. The best way to prove we are concerned is to take the action necessary to protect young lives because on that score now we lose.

I have been in the Senate a long time, and I have seen too many Americans murdered by guns, too many lives cut short because of the easy availability of guns, and too many times Congress has sat back, cowered before the gun lobby and done nothing to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future. We can't wait any longer, Mr. President, without the public at large challenging our effectiveness, wanting to know what it is we are doing to protect the next group of children and parents and loved ones.

The murderers in Colorado and Arizona both had something that enabled them to bring about the mayhem they did. They had a mega-magazine capable of shooting dozens of rounds without having to reload. They bought them legally. Here we see a picture of what this man had--a semiautomatic rifle and a 100-round drum magazine.

These magazines were originally designed for law enforcement and military people. These magazines were banned from 1994 to 2004, a period of 10 years, but under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress let that ban expire in 2004. It wasn't an accident. It didn't happen without complicity.

Just think about it. The Colorado shooter carried a 100-round magazine, and if he hadn't had that magazine, maybe the shooting toll would have been substantially lower. Maybe more lives would have been saved. Maybe more loved ones--husbands, wives, and children--would be alive today. Maybe there would be fewer people suffering from bullet wounds.

In the Arizona shooting, the shooter was only subdued when he paused to change his 30-round magazine, and if he had to stop sooner, obviously precious lives could have been saved.

These magazines are the tools of mass murderers. No matter what the gun lobby would have you believe, nobody needs a mega-magazine to go duck hunting. These high-capacity magazines put all of our families in danger, and they endanger our law enforcement officers as well. We send them into the line of fire to defend us against mass murderers such as the Colorado shooter, who legally bought 6,000 bullets and a gun magazine that holds 100 bullets over the Internet. The safety of our families is too important to let this continue. There are too many bullets, too many deaths, and too many funerals. But not enough people are saying: Stop it. Do your job. Protect my family. Protect my kids. Protect my parents.

Here are the facts. Guns have murdered more Americans here at home in recent years than have died on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. More

have been murdered on the grounds of the United States than have died in far-off battlefields. It is shocking. More than 6,500 American soldiers have died in the service of our country in support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the same period, guns here were used to murder about 100,000 people.

Americans deserve a Congress that makes the safety of our families a priority. That is why I urge my colleagues today to help our people. Bring back the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines such as the one used in Colorado on Friday and the one used in Arizona last year. That was the law from 1994 to 2004. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested that it may be appropriate to reinstate this ban. It is time to work together, all of us, to ban high-capacity magazines. Don't do it for me. Do it for your family. Do it for your constituents. Stand and say: I don't want your family hurt. I don't want your children to fall prey to a gunman.

It is time to begin a national conversation once more about taking commonsense measures to prevent gun violence in America. And to those who are fearful about the power of the NRA, understand that we bested them before and we will do it again. We beat them in 1996 when an effort that I began to ban the sale of guns to domestic abusers passed, we have stopped over 200,000 of those people from getting gun permits since that time, and a lot of lives could have been saved in there. We stood up to them again in 1999 when the Senate came together after Columbine and passed legislation to close the gun show loophole. Unfortunately, after passing in the Senate, the House refused to do anything about it. If we show resolve and if we stand with courage, I know we can do the right thing once more. There are no more excuses for inaction.

I say to my colleagues, look at your children. Look at the pictures that may be on your mantelpiece. Think about the happy days with your kids, think about the enjoyment you share together, and think about what we want to do to be able to continue those lives we enjoy so much. The stakes are just too high. We have to intervene while the memory, unfortunately, is still fresh.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.