Floor Statements

In my remaining remarks, I want to talk about what happened in Connecticut.

First, to the Senators from Connecticut, I send all my strength. I have gone through things like this, although not quite the same. As a mom and grandma, I know all of our hearts are broken. So many people are touched by gun violence.

I want to go back to July of 1993. A gunman with an assault weapon walked into a law office in San Francisco and killed eight people and wounded six. Just as we see in Connecticut, the stories of heroism came forward. One of the people who was killed was a brave young lawyer who threw his body over his wife's body, sacrificing his own life to save hers. That young man was one of my son's best friends. This was so long ago, but it feels like yesterday because time stops when these things happen.

I know without a shadow of a doubt how these horrific and senseless tragedies live on with the survivors and all of us forever. The psyche of the parents, the spouses, the children, the families, and the friends is pierced forever.

Yes, as human beings, after these tragedies we come together. We try to find meaning, we try to find justice, and we try to find love in the midst of the mayhem. Some find solace in their faith and their God, some find solace in their communities, and some never find solace.

The slaughter of the innocent must stop. I say to my colleagues in Connecticut how deeply everyone has been touched by this tragedy. In my communities at home, people are running up to me and saying: Our hearts are breaking. He killed babies. They were barely on this Earth. They trusted us, and we failed them.

Some of the people coming up to me are proud gun owners, and they are saying: Why couldn't we stop a sick person like this from getting a high-capacity clip? The gunman didn't even have to reload his weapon until he fired off 30 shots.

There is the whole issue of protecting our schools, which is something I have cared about. I have a school safety act. I have introduced it so many times, and I will introduce it again.

Instead of having an appointment with a mental health professional, this mentally ill young man had an appointment with death. People say: Don't talk about doing anything about this now; it is not the time. To them I say: When is the time?

If we go back to 2009--that is the last year we have records--31,347 people died from gun violence in our Nation.

That is 87 people every day of the year. Another 73,000-plus were injured. So 87 people a day are killed by gun violence. When is the time to speak out? Because every day there is another tragedy.

Without going into specifics, there are certain things we need to do.

First, we have to take the weapons of war and high-capacity clips off our streets; second, we have to ensure that local law enforcement is involved in concealing carried permits; third, we have to close the gun show loophole so background checks are conducted; fourth, we have to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and get them the help they need; five, we need to keep our schools safe by utilizing all the law enforcement tools at our disposal.

We have failed our children. We have to stop worrying about our political skins because judgments will be made about us. So let's pull together. Let's show our children we love them, not just by telling them we love them--we must do that--but by showing them we will protect them.

I send my love to everyone in Connecticut trying to pull themselves together. I send my love and support to my colleagues whom we will hear from now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the centennial of commercial rice production in California. What began as an experimental crop in the Sacramento Valley has become a more than billion-dollar industry for our State and an exceptional agricultural product enjoyed by consumers worldwide.

Rice was introduced in California during the Gold Rush, when immigrants traveled to the State in search of fortune and a better life. As early as 1870, European and Asian settlers began to experiment with different varieties of rice that they had grown back in their homelands. After attempts to grow long grain rice were unsuccessful, the USDA concluded that California's climate would be more amenable to a Japanese medium-grain variety known as Kiushu. When Kiushu failed to thrive in southern and coastal areas of California, it was discovered that the Sacramento Valley had the most ideal soil and climate conditions for the high-quality Japanese varieties of rice. By 1908, Kiushu rice was successfully being grown in the community of Biggs in Butte County. The California Rice Experiment Station, established in Biggs in 1912, has helped farmers perfect the short- and medium-grain rice crop for the last century. More than 95 percent of the State's rice is grown in the Sacramento Valley region of California.

Rice has become one of the State's top agricultural exports. According to the California Rice Commission, California rice is used in nearly every roll of sushi made in the United States and represents more than 30 percent of the Nation's rice exports to countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. This year's crop is expected to yield 5 billion pounds and represents $1.8 billion in economic value.

In addition to supplying consumers with this fine agricultural product, California rice fields serve as an important habitat for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. After the fields are harvested in the fall, growers flood them to create feeding grounds that yield nearly 60 percent of the food needed by 10 million waterfowl each winter.

I congratulate California's 2,500 family rice farmers on this centennial of successful rice production, and organizations such as the California Rice Commission and Farmers' Rice Cooperative that have worked to promote and export this fine product all over the world.

Mr. President, I am proud to offer my support for the confirmation of Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin to the U.S. district court for the Central District of California.

Judge Olguin was recommended to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great addition to California's Central District.

Judge Olguin will bring to the bench his broad experience as a skilled lawyer and a Federal magistrate. A graduate of Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Judge Olguin worked from 1995 to 2001 as a partner for the law firm of Traber, Voorhees, and Olguin. In 2001, he received an appointment to become a magistrate judge in the Central District of California, where he has served with great distinction.

I urge my colleagues to support the Olguin nomination.

Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Carmen Harvey Warschaw, the great California philanthropist and political leader who died at age 95 on election day, a week after she had made sure to vote by mail. Carmen was a trusted mentor, adviser, and dear friend to me, and I will miss her.

Carmen Harvey was born in Los Angeles in 1917. Her parents had immigrated to America from Lithuania, and her father founded the Harvey Aluminum Company. Carmen grew up in La Canada, graduated from the University of Southern California, and married Louis Warschaw, her high school sweetheart.

From an early age, both Carmen and Lou were active in the California Democratic Party. Throughout the

years, Carmen worked tirelessly to elect Democrats at the local, State, and national level. She attended every Democratic National Convention from 1948 to 2008, many as a delegate. In the mid sixties she served as the party's Southern California chairwoman, was a member of the Democratic National Committee, the first woman to chair the California Fair Employment Practices Commission, and a board member of California's coastal and fair housing commissions.

Carmen's passion for politics was equaled by her compassion and philanthropy. She was an active member of many organizations, including the Los Angeles Music Center, the Truman Library Institute, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, and the Women's Guild and Helping Hand of Los Angeles.

Carmen long served as a member of the board of directors at Cedars- Sinai, where she endowed medical and research chairs and founded the PROs, which funds the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center. Two years ago, at age 93, Carmen joined me on a tour of the Cedars-Sinai Emergency Room and Operating Room; I remember joking that she was the only person I knew who could get me to put on scrubs.

Carmen was also very generous to her alma mater, USC, where she and Lou helped to establish the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life and the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. In 2003, Carmen endowed a chair in practical politics at the Unruh Institute so that students could learn about the nuts and bolts of politics as part of their political science education.

This world and Carmen's beloved State of California are much better places thanks to her passion, compassion, and commitment. On behalf of the people of California, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to her daughters, Hope and Susan; her sons-in-law, John Law and Carl Robertson; her grandchildren, Jack Law-Warschaw, Cara Robertson, and Chip Robertson; and her great-grandchildren and many friends. We will all miss this dynamic force of nature and extraordinary woman.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a number of matters.

Before Senator Hatch leaves the floor, I really do think it is important that we listen to what he said, but I also think his criticism of the majority leader was really over the top. We just finished a defense bill, I say to my friend, that had over 100 amendments. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a transportation bill that had endless amendments.

I yield to the Senator.

I am glad the Senator cleared that up.

That is fine.

Reclaiming my time.

I was here in the minority, and I was able to exercise the filibuster, and I was able to stop a lot of legislation that came over from Newt Gingrich's House. I believe in the filibuster completely, and I think it is important to protect minority rights. But I do think there is such a thing as the use of the filibuster versus the abuse of the filibuster. So my position has always been clear that I think the abuse of the filibuster is wrong.

When I first came here, I thought, well, we should just do away with the 60-vote rule. I came to understand that I didn't really, at the end of the day, wind up believing that was wise. So I am working with colleagues to figure out a way we can have a talking filibuster but protect the rights of the minority. But I have to say, I don't think there ought to be a filibuster allowed on a motion to proceed to a bill. We have seen that abused and abused and overused. These are the kinds of things we should get together on as colleagues, as friends, across the issues that divide us and not engage in filibusters on a motion to proceed to a bill. There is plenty of time to filibuster the bill itself. There is plenty of time to argue. But it seems to me whoever is the majority leader, be it a Democrat or a Republican, he or she should have the right to take us to a bill. I think that is a power that should lie with the majority, whoever that majority is. So I would certainly approve of fixing that problem.

In addition, how many filibusters do we have to have before we go to conference? I will support one and we will fight it out. But three motions that can be filibustered before going to conference? That is not doing the people's business. Imagine if a bill gets all the way to that conference phase. Remember, it has gone through the committees of the House and Senate, it has gone through the votes of the House and Senate, it has gone through the conference committee to a vote of the conference committee. Why on Earth should we be allowed to filibuster three motions? So I think there are ways we can work together.

I know my friends from Tennessee and New York at one point were working on ways to prevent any President, be it a Democrat or Republican, from facing filibusters on more or less routine nominations. I could support that change too. But I do want to say, as I look at the abuse of the filibuster versus use of the filibuster-- and, again, I believe the rights of the minority must be protected--we have to look at the bold, stark facts. Since Harry Reid became the leader here, he has had to face 388 filibusters. The last time the Democrats were in the minority we forced half as many. I think that is too much, but it is only half as many. So we have our majority leader facing twice as many as Democrats led, and it has gotten out of hand.

Members can stand up here and say it is a horrible thing to try to change the rules, but my test is abuse versus use. I think we can come together and avert any type of showdown at the OK Corral. That is ridiculous. We don't need that. We can talk as friends and figure out some of these commonsense reforms that we can do without having to get angry at one another. I don't think it serves anyone's purpose if we are all angry at one another over this.

The Fiscal Cliff

My last comments have to do with the fiscal cliff. I stand here 21 days before a tax increase on all Americans is going to occur. This tax increase will go up $2,200 for an average middle-class family.

That is the bad news. Taxes are going to rise. Here is the great news. The great news is the Senate already passed legislation to fix the problem. And guess what. We didn't do it yesterday or the day before yesterday. We saw it coming and we passed it on July 25, 2012. We passed the middle-class tax cuts. My understanding is we took care of the AMT.

The fact is all that now has to happen is for the House to take up our bill. If they take up our bill and they pass our bill, we will see everyone in America keep their tax cuts up to $250,000 in income, and after that $250,000 we will go back to the Clinton rates.

But here is the really good news, if we do that: We will raise $1 trillion and reduce our debt by $1 trillion. There is no reason why Speaker Boehner shouldn't bring this bill to a floor vote. He will win the vote because I know Democrats and some Republicans will definitely support him. He needs to be Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the Republicans, just as Tip O'Neill, when I was there, wasn't Speaker of the Democrats, he was Speaker of the House.

As a matter of fact, the way Tip did it is, he would get half the Democrats and half the Republicans--and he didn't care what you were, an Independent, whatever your affiliation, conservative, liberal--and he would go up to you and say: Can you be with me on this? It is good for the country. Ronald Reagan and I agree.

That was Tip O'Neill. And I know what that is like. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. So it ought to be President Obama and John Boehner saying: We should pass this middle-class tax cut.

Here is the thing I don't get. When the Bush tax cuts went into place they were passed overwhelmingly by Republicans. Why wouldn't the same Republicans want to make sure they continue for 98 percent of the people? I don't get it. I did not vote for the Bush tax cuts then. I am going to vote for them now, for the 98 percent, because we are coming out of a tough time. I didn't vote for them then. You know why? I said we would go into huge deficits. And I don't want to say I was right, but we did go into a huge period of deficits. It was that, plus two wars on a credit card, and it was a prescription drug benefit that was not paid for by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices. I voted against that too.

So here we are at a magic moment in time--a magical moment because it is the holiday season--and we know the Senate passed the middle-class tax cuts in July, and we know there are 21 days left before taxes go up on 98 percent of the people. Rhetorically, I ask the Speaker: Why don't you just pass this?

Today I read the Speaker of the House said: Well, I don't want to do this until I see what programs Barack Obama is going to cut. That is his latest thing. To which I respond: Here is the deal. In the debt ceiling fight we cut $1 trillion of spending. It is shown in those caps that we vote on. Very tough, $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. That equals what we will get from the tax hikes on those over $250,000. Plus, as part of health care reform, we found savings in Medicare of $700 billion.

By the way, the Republicans ran ads against our people saying the Democrats cut Medicare, and we explained they were savings, because what we did is we told providers: Cut down on fraud and abuse--you are overcharging. Be that as it may, the Republicans were just wiping their brow and crying for the Medicare recipients and saying we cut Medicare. Now they want more Medicare cuts. They have come up with a plan which would raise the age of Medicare, which I think is completely disastrous, and I will tell you why.

If we were to raise the age of Medicare recipients, we would leave 300,000 seniors uninsured. Just what we want. Happy New Year, Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah all in one. We would increase the cost to businesses by $4.5 billion because people would stay longer on the business payroll--their medical payroll--at an age when they are getting older. We would increase out-of-pocket health care costs for those age 65 and 66 by over $3 billion. We would increase costs to the States by $700 million. We would cost millions of seniors age 65 and 66 $2,200 more for health care. And we would increase premiums for all other seniors enrolled in Medicare by 3 percent because the population enrolled in Medicare would be older and less healthy.

In other words, we would be pulling the healthiest seniors out of Medicare so that those who are left are sicker, and premiums would go up on everybody else.

The source for these statistics is the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Congressional Budget Office. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these facts regarding the raising of the Medicare eligibility age.

I want to say this rhetorically to Speaker Boehner, and I will quote Senator Stabenow, who is quite eloquent on this point. You have a three-legged stool here: You have reductions in spending, which we did in the debt ceiling argument of $1 trillion. It is done. You have cuts in the so-called entitlements of $700 billion, which was done under Obamacare--that is Medicare. The only thing we haven't taken care of is the third leg, which is revenues, and we are suggesting for that $1.7 trillion that we get $1 trillion in revenues.

There have been no revenues put on the table. The Republicans in the House are defending the billionaires, the millionaires--the Koch brothers and all the rest--from having to pay their fair share.

In closing, I would say the American people are very smart. I believe they understand this. They understand what it means to raise the age of Medicare, which we are not going to do. They understand what it means if we do not make sure they get that renewed tax cut. They understand what it means when they see millionaires and billionaires who not only have made even more millions and billions, but the disparity between the middle class and the millionaires and billionaires has grown wildly.

This last election was a lot about that. In this election that was not a side issue--that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their fair share. It was not a side issue that we should have a budget issue that is fair. It is not a side issue.

It is very easy to resolve this. It is not a good idea for us to fall off that cliff. It is not a necessary thing. So I say to the Republicans, you want a tax cut for everyone, including billionaires. How about taking it for 98 percent of the people? I think that is a deal you should grab and leave Medicare alone. Let's do this now, and when we come back we can get a budget deal that is fair all around.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think we are trying to make the case here today that there is a very easy way for us to climb down from this fiscal cliff. The Senate already passed a bill that would extend tax cuts to 98 percent of the American people and the House will not take it up. This will mean, over 10 years, about $1 trillion in savings, and it won't hurt the millionaires and billionaires. They have told us that over and over.

This is when the Senate passed the middle-class tax cuts, July 25, 2012. The Republicans over in the House have been sitting on it. They didn't do anything in July, August, September, October, November, and December. Here we are 6 months later and they refuse to allow a vote on this for reasons that go to their internal disputes.

It is time for them to put country over party. It is time for them to put country over their ideological battles. That was a mouthful. I am going to try it again. It is time for them to put country over their ideological battles. It is time for them to make a decision that favors the American people.

I served in the House for 10 proud years. It was wonderful, fascinating, interesting. I served there when Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House. Tip O'Neill understood the magic of 218.

What do I mean by that? The magic of 218 was finding 218 votes to get something done. Tip didn't care if he got it from a liberal, from a conservative, from a moderate, from an independent, from a whacko. It didn't matter. He didn't care who you were, what you were, if you thought you were great or bright or not. He had to put together 218 for the good of the country, and he did it when Ronald Reagan was President. He did it when there was a President who had different views from his own, and they worked together for the good of the country.

I look over at the House, and I don't know what I see. There are a few brave voices there speaking out and saying let us do this, let us extend the middle-class tax cuts. But let me tell you, we have 27 days left to do this before people start facing higher taxes. On average, it is $2,200 a family, and that is a lot of money for a middle-class family.

I want to be completely honest here and bring up an issue, which is that I never voted for the Bush-era tax cuts--I was one of the few in the minority--because I worried that it would destroy our fiscal responsibility. I hate to say it now: I was right. I was right.

There were surpluses that Bill Clinton left us. But because George W. Bush went in front of the microphone and said, I have political capital, I am going to cut everybody's taxes, he then put two wars on the credit card, and that was the end of surpluses. We went into deficits, deficits as far as the eye could see, deeper and deeper in debt. So you might ask then, Senator Boxer, why are you now supporting those tax cuts being renewed for 98 percent of the people? The answer is it is a different time and a different place. We are getting out of a recession. We can make

up the monies we need to balance this budget by going just to the top rate, going to the people over $250,000.

Remember, this plan that we passed in July gives a tax break on the first $250,000 of income, in essence giving everybody a break on that first $250,000. It is only after that that the taxes go back to the Clinton era. Because this is a different time and place, I support giving a tax break, continuing it, for 98 percent, but asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share for the greatest country on the face of this Earth.

My father was born into dire poverty. He was the only one of nine children born in America. He was the only one of nine children to go to college at night in your great State, City College, at night, while he supported a family by day. He became a CPA. After he got his bachelor's, he went at night to a place called Brooklyn Law School, where he got his law degree in 5 years. I was about 10. This is America. He was able to do that.

When he was a CPA, he would oversee everybody's taxes in the family. I was a kid and I got my first job working for a long time when I was a telephone operator for Hilton Hotels one summer. I will never forget it. I was not good at it. I kept putting those wires into the wrong places, but I managed to get through. When I got my first paycheck, I went to my dad, as I was earning minimum wage--I think it was 75 cents an hour, I don't know. I know I am dating myself here. It is okay. I said, ``Dad, why is it I have to pay a whole bunch of money somewhere else, to the government?'' He said, ``Well, we all, when we earn money, pay taxes. If at the end of the year we pay too much, we get a refund.''

But he said, ``Honey, I want to tell you something. You are so fortunate and blessed to be a citizen of the United States of America. I know people will laugh at you when you say this, but people who live here, who work here and have the privilege of that freedom and the privilege to grab the dream, they should kiss the ground of this country every time they pay taxes.''

I once said that on the campaign trail, and I got booed. They said, She is telling us to kiss the ground of America when we pay taxes? That was how my father felt.

Clearly, he also believed in a progressive tax system. He was a smart man, and he believed that those at the bottom end shouldn't pay anything at all and, as you go up, you pay a little more.

That is what President Obama ran on. We had a huge election for the Senate where the Democrats picked up seats. A race for the Presidency that was supposed to be Governor Romney's, according to his people, was President Obama's. This was mainly because President Obama stood up for the middle class and said, When it comes to taxes, we all have to pay our fair share, no more, no less.

When you tell your friends the President wants to give a tax cut, tell them also it is being held up by the Republicans in Congress who are sitting on a bill that passed the Senate on July 25, 2012, where 98 percent of the American people will get their tax break continued and only income over $250,000 will be taxed at the same rate when Bill Clinton was President.

Let's take a look back at those days. Were they harsh for people? No. We had more millionaires created, I remember in those days, than we had in generations. You know why? Because the middle class is strong--and President Clinton invested in the middle class; he invested in our people--they get good jobs, they pay enough taxes, they go to the mall, they take a trip across the country to see all the great landmarks, and people across this country who have businesses do well also. That is why we see so many businesspeople, including small businesspeople, standing at President Obama's side saying it is good for business to give the middle class their tax breaks.

What are these Republicans thinking over there? If we are having an argument, and I tell you I will give you 98 percent of what you want and you walk away from me, I say you are unreasonable. Who gets 98 percent of what they want? No one. In an argument, usually we meet each other halfway--50-50. We are giving the Republicans 98 percent of what they want on the tax cuts, but they are holding the 98 percent hostage for their friends, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson--the billionaires. That is wrong, and we had an election about it.

This is a country of, by, and for the people, not of, by, and for the billionaires. I am going to say to my Republican friends--and they are my friends; I have served with them for a long time, I have worked with them--what are you thinking? What are you doing?

Let me talk about one of the things they offered in their package. This is outrageous. They want to raise the eligibility age of Medicare by 2 years. I cannot tell you how many people come up to me--and it shocks me when I hear it--and say: I am praying for my 65th birthday so I can get on Medicare because I have no insurance. There is a huge number of people uninsured between the ages of 55 and 65. So this is their Christmas present? This is the happy holiday gift from Speaker Boehner?

In the Speaker's tax package, not only is he giving the tax break to the wealthiest, he is even cutting their taxes further but paying for it by raising the Medicare age. What does that do? It is surprising just how bad it is. When we raise the age of Medicare from 65 to 67, ipso facto, 300,000 senior citizens go uninsured. Merry Christmas to all. It would increase the cost to businesses by $4.5 billion because they have to keep people on their plans. Merry Christmas to you, too, businesspeople. It will increase the out-of-pocket costs for those between 65 and 66 by $3.7 billion. It would increase costs to the States by $700 million, and millions--millions--would pay an average of $2,200 more for their health care.

I will use every tool at my disposal to prevent the destruction of Medicare. What kind of counterproposal is that? It takes my breath away the pain that would be felt if this went through. I can't help remembering--and I am sure the Chair remembers as well--the attack leveled by Representative Paul Ryan, who was the Republican nominee for Vice President--he is chairman of the House Budget Committee--against President Obama for ``cutting'' $700 billion out of Medicare, when, in fact, the President got savings from people who were cheaters--the providers who were ripping off Medicare--and then put it back into Medicare and extended the life of the program by 8 years.

These are the same people who ran ads against Democrats--maybe they did it to the Chair as well, I don't know--all across the country saying Democrats voted to cut Medicare. These same people who were crying these bitter tears are now suggesting destroying Medicare as we know it. I can't believe it. I truly can't believe it. I wonder whom they fight for? That is the basic question. Why are they here? Whom do they fight for? Do they fight for the middle class? I believe we do on our side of the aisle. I believe President Obama does.

I believe, if we look at the tax package that came over from Speaker Boehner and all the cuts to Medicare--and by the way, the Presiding Officer is a leader in protecting children--we will see there are cuts to child nutrition in there, major cuts. I have to say: Why do they have to cut food to poor kids? Why do they have to kick people out of Medicare? Their answer is, if they were honest, to protect the billionaires and the millionaires. Because that is what it is about. We know it. It is a fact in evidence.

I believe we owe more to the American people. We need to find a way back to the fiscal responsibility and the economic growth we had when Bill Clinton was President. I have served with five Presidents already--it is amazing--in my time in this Congress, and I have seen people come together in moments of crisis, such as when Social Security needed to be strengthened, when Medicare needed to be strengthened, when we had deficits as far as the eye could see and we had to resolve that. I have seen all that happen. We have 27 days left to see something good happen about this fiscal cliff.

When people say, oh, it is very complicated, don't believe it. Don't believe it. It is not complicated. There are several parts to this fiscal cliff. The biggest one is the Bush-era tax cuts that are expiring on 100 percent of the people, and if they expire, it means people will have to pay more in taxes at a time when we don't want them to have

to struggle. We want them to have disposable income because it is good for their families, it is good for the economy, it is good for business, and it is good for economic growth. The Bush-era tax cuts are expiring on December 31. Why don't we find the common ground, get rid of that issue, get those tax cuts to 98 percent of the middle class who need them and fight about the millionaires and the billionaires later? They are OK. They are fine.

We need to do that simple step. The House must pass the Senate's bill which we passed on July 25. We did it. It is done. We don't have to worry about it. We did our job over here. We got the votes. So the House needs to pick it up and pass it over there.

I understand that Democratic Leader Pelosi has done something very interesting. She has taken this bill, the same exact bill, and put it at the desk in the House and started what they call a discharge petition. What that means is, since Speaker Boehner will not bring up this bill, if 218 people sign the discharge petition, there will be an immediate vote on the floor. I wish to urge Republicans and Democrats and Independents over in the House to sign the discharge petition to have a vote. We have a few days left until the end of the year--27--to get this done.

Then we can talk about the automatic spending cuts, and there are ways to stop those. People are upset about those. Personally, I think we have to make spending cuts, but I think we can soften the blow of those spending cuts by bringing home the money from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to this country. That would soften the blow of those cuts. We also need to be making some more investments in infrastructure, which we desperately need after superstorm Sandy hit New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland. We now see our infrastructure has to be what we call hardened, made stronger. We can do that if we invest in our people.

The President has offered a very clear plan that is fair that takes us off the fiscal cliff. We have 27 days to do the right thing. The Senate already passed the tax cuts for 98 percent of the people. All we are asking is for the House to do that, to match us, and then we can get back to the table and figure out a way to soften the blow of the automatic spending cuts. We can look at tax reform.

Let me just say this about tax reform. When our colleagues complain about tax rates and say: We would rather close loopholes, watch out. In order to raise the kind of funds needed to lower this deficit, we would be looking at the two of the biggest ``deductions.'' One is for your mortgage and one is for charitable contributions. I would ask rhetorically: What billionaire do you know who has a mortgage? I don't, frankly, know any. They own their own homes. They are not hurt by that. But who does get hurt? The middle class.

So let's do the right thing. We passed the right thing on July 25, 2012. We have 27 days left before taxes on the middle class go up. I know we have the wherewithal to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Hagman, who passed away

last week in Dallas at the age of 81. Like most Americans and millions around the world, I knew Larry Hagman as J.R. Ewing, the best loved villain in television history. But I was also fortunate to know Larry as a passionate advocate and friend, and I will miss him.

J.R. was larger than life, but Larry Hagman's life was much more than his most famous character. He was a devoted family man, a true friend, and an active citizen who worked with me to ensure that our families are protected from pollution and toxins. He also worked for years to fight lung cancer and promote alternative energy. His tireless commitment to improving his community and country continued until the very end of his extraordinary life. Just last month he launched the Larry Hagman Foundation to promote the educational benefits of theater, visual arts, music and dance and to fund organizations providing these instructional programs for low-income children.

Born in Fort Worth, Larry was brought up by his maternal grandmother in Los Angeles. After attending a series of boarding schools, he moved back to Texas to live with his father, attorney Benjamin Hagman, whose clients later helped shape the character of J.R. Ewing. In 1951, Larry's mother--the great stage actress Mary Martin--got him a small role in the London production of South Pacific. A year later, Larry joined the Air Force and stayed in Europe as a director of USO theatrical shows.

After working in New York theater and television, Larry Hagman became a TV star in the 1960s as Major Tony Nelson in the popular comedy series ``I Dream of Jeannie.'' In the 1970s, he appeared in numerous movies and television shows before landing the role of a lifetime on the primetime soap opera ``Dallas.''

As the charming and conniving businessman J.R. Ewing, Larry Hagman was the best-known television actor on earth. In 1980, between two seasons of ``Dallas,'' hundreds of millions of fans in 57 countries anxiously awaited the answer to the most famous question in TV history: ``Who Shot J.R.?'' Last year, Larry returned to television to begin a new series of ``Dallas,'' which became a hit on the TNT network; he was at work on the new season when he died.

On behalf of the people of California and Larry's millions of fans and admirers, I send my appreciation and condolences to his wife, Maj; his children, Preston and Kristina; and his five granddaughters. I know that they--and all of us--will miss this marvelous man.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Stockton Gurdwara, the first Sikh temple in the United States.

In the 1890s, the first Sikh immigrants, mostly from Punjab in northwestern India, arrived at Angel Island Immigration Station. These pioneering immigrants had crossed the vast Pacific and came to the shores of California in hopes of a better and freer life.

The San Joaquin Valley of California, with its Mediterranean climate and abundance of fertile soil and arable land reminded the new immigrants of their native Punjab, and became a place where many of them settled to raise crops that were native to Punjab.

A tight-knit community, the Sikh residents of the San Joaquin Valley formed a committee to raise money for a temple. In September 1912, a plot of land was purchased on South Grant Street in Stockton to build the first Sikh temple in the United States. When the temple was consecrated on November 22, 1915, the Stockton Record reported that it was celebrated with impressive ceremonies. The Stockton Gurdwara became the birthplace of Sikhism in America.

Over the past century, the Stockton Gurdwara has been a site of both religious and historical significance. It was home to America's first Punjabi-language newspaper and to the Ghadar Party, which supported Indian independence for decades before it was achieved. Bhagat Singh Thind, a civil rights advocate and the first Sikh to serve in the United States Army during World War I, and Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian American elected to Congress, were members of the Stockton Gurdwara.

Today, the Stockton Gurdwara remains the spiritual home to generations of Sikh Americans in the San Joaquin Valley. It also stands as a testament to the rich history, invaluable contributions, and progress of the Sikh community in America.

I congratulate the Stockton Gurdwara on its 100th anniversary and wish its members continued success.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, just in the lull here--and if there is any legislative business to take place, I will immediately give up the floor--I wish to make the point that I am so proud to be in this Senate, so proud to have been here for a long time now. I came here in 1993. There were 2 women, then we went to 6 women, and now we are going to 20 women. I have seen changes, I have seen good things, and I have seen rough things.

I have to say one of the things that keeps coming up continually here is folks trying to use these debates on bills to add irrelevant amendments, amendments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I think we all agree that defending our Nation is our No. 1 priority, and therefore having a defense authorization bill is very important. I am sure we don't agree with every single sentence of this bill, but in general we all want to make sure that our military is prepared, that they are paid well, that they get good benefits. We must ensure we have a strong military that can meet every threat. Again, we are going to disagree on what all that means, but at least when we legislate, we ought to make sure that when we offer amendments, they are either noncontroversial and committee chairs have signed off if they are in their jurisdiction or we shouldn't offer them.

The reason I rise today is that we may be facing two environmental riders on this bill, and I want to go on record as saying I am not going to let that happen. Now, if colleagues want to override and stay here through the night and the weekend, that is fine, but I am going to be staying right here because one of these amendments would say that the EPA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, could never regulate the ingredients in ammunition. This means they could never regulate lead and they could never regulate perchlorate. Lead and perchlorate kill, they harm, they do damage to the thyroid, to brain development, and to the behavior of children. Pregnant women are harmed.

So I am not going to allow an environmental rider to get onto this floor and pass this Senate when we are doing a defense bill which is meant to protect our people. I can tell you right now, you don't put a harmful environmental rider in the Defense bill when you are trying to pass a bill to protect our people, not make it easier for them to be exposed to dangerous lead, dangerous perchlorate, and other chemicals. There is a place and a time to do those amendments, and that would be on a relevant bill, a bill that comes out of the Environment Committee. That is fine. We can debate it then and have a vote when everyone understands the ramifications.

Now there is threat here to have another environmental rider that deals with coal ash, the regulation of coal ash. What does that have to do with the military bill? Zero. The components of coal ash are a huge danger to people. We have seen the coal ash pile up and get loose. In the East, it just goes down in a rainstorm and destroys whole communities. There is an environmental rider waiting to be offered that would weaken the EPA's ability to go to that threat and get rid of it.

I am very distressed, and I am sure you can hear it in my voice. I know there are differences around here, but I take my job seriously. As chairman of the Environment Committee, my job is to protect the public health from toxins such as lead, perchlorate, and the amazing collection of chemicals in coal ash that kill and harm and maim.

I know people want to get this bill done, and, believe me, I want to get this bill done. I have several amendments in this bill that are so important, and I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senator Cornyn and Senator Snowe, who helped me with an amendment that would say that if someone has been convicted of a sexual assault, they can no longer join the military. That is in this bill. That is very important.

We have other amendments we have worked on, and I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain. They have reached out to the committee chairs, and they have said: Look, we are trying to protect your jurisdiction. They have now said they have no agreement that our jurisdiction will be protected.

As much as I don't want to sit here and stand guard, I am going to do it because I think that is my role and that is my job.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this moment to express the reason I have been on the floor all afternoon and will continue to be on floor until we adjourn this evening.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Ohio and I want to be heard because he is talking about the fiscal cliff and how upset he is at the thought that the wealthiest people in America might go back to the tax rates we had under Bill Clinton when we had the greatest prosperity, we had 23 million new jobs, and we balanced the budget to the point where we even had a surplus. My friend comes down here and complains that the proposal on the table would give 98 percent of the people a tax cut and he is upset that 2 percent of the people might have to go back to the rates under Bill Clinton.

I want to say something. We just had an election. We had a big election. We had a tough election. We had an expensive election. One of the major parts of that election revolved around what do we do about the deficits, what do we do about economic growth, what do we do about spending. We discussed it in the Senate races, we discussed it in the House races, and, of course, President Obama and candidate Governor Romney discussed it again and again.

My friend talks about consensus. Let me tell my colleagues the consensus. More than 60 percent of the people agree with President Obama and the Democrats that we ought to climb down off this fiscal cliff in the next 5 minutes and pass what the Senate passed, which is to renew all the Bush tax cuts and go back to those over $250,000 to the rates of Bill Clinton. That is what we passed here. That

would bring us almost $1 trillion over 10 years. That will get us to climb down that cliff.

Then we have other parts of the cliff, there is no question about it, including the automatic sequester. I think it is easy to deal with that by bringing home some of the overseas account money and applying it to the sequester and getting rid of at least half of that sequester, and maybe all of the sequester. But, no, people are going to listen to these speeches every day about how we are obsessed with taxes.

What are people talking about when they say obsessed with taxes? I will tell my colleagues what I am obsessed about. I am obsessed with the fact that we passed a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people and our friends are so worried about the millionaires and the billionaires that they will not allow that bill to be voted on in the House. So people can stand up here morning, noon, and night, and I want them to and I respect their views, believe me, but I do not agree with them.

It is no wonder that the American people are confused. We know we have the fiscal cliff. We know we don't want to see tax rates go up for the middle class. Yet the Republicans say they are going to hold up all those tax breaks for 98 percent of our people because they want to hold on to the tax breaks for billionaires and for millionaires. We had an election about that.

People agreed with us. I suppose we are going to have to hear these speeches every day about how we are going to grow our way out of the deficit. We are going to grow our way out of the deficit? Really? Look what happened under George W. Bush. He inherited surpluses. He turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see, with huge tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires--huge--the very tax cuts our friends are defending right now. He did two wars on the credit card and we wound up in a mess.

So we have to come together with the best ideas that we can have. I know we can reach agreement. But let's do the first step, which is to take care of 98 percent of the people. The Republicans want to have tax breaks for 100 percent of the people. We are saying: Can you take 98 percent?

If I stopped you on the street and said: I am willing to give you 98 percent of what you say you want, and you walk away from me, and you attack me, and you say I am not ready to do anything, I honestly think people would scratch their heads.

So I think it is clear. The Senate passed a bill to renew the tax breaks for 98 percent of the people. We are saying up to $250,000 in income, we go right back to those Bush tax cut rates. But over $250,000, we go to the Clinton years, pay a little bit more, so we can attack this deficit, so we can make the investments we need to make in this great country of ours.

I will tell you, if the Republicans can do this, we are going to see smiles on the faces of the people. I was very happy to see that Tom Cole over in the House, who was the head of the RCC, the Republican Congressional Committee over there, says it is time to come to an agreement on that proposal.

So I say to the Republicans: We are giving you 98 percent. Take it. Then let's sit down and debate the rest of it. There are a lot of other things we have to do. There is the AMT. We have to do a doc fix. We have to do a lot of other things. I am willing to compromise on those things. But let's at least get those tax cuts in place right now before this holiday season so that the middle class knows they are not going to face a tax increase. I can say honestly that the American people would think we were doing the right thing if we were to see the House take up the Senate bill and pass it.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right----

Reserving the right to object and I will not object, I want to speak for 20 seconds. This is what I want to say.

There are amendments and there are amendments. We all know that. I think we have shown that we can work together. But when you try to repeal a

law that protects the lives of people--you talk about protecting rights, I am with you. I also want to protect the lives of people. Coming from a State where we have had many mass shootings it may take a little longer. Maybe we ought to have a hearing or two before you repeal a law that is so important to the safety of the people.

I will not object. I will see you all tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shannon Beebe, a legal fellow in Senator Blumenthal's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leigh Hasson, a fellow in Senator Begich's office be granted floor privileges for the consideration of S. 3254, DOD authorization bill.

Mr. President, I am going to be very proud to support amendment No. 2985. I think it has to do with our military readiness; I think it has to do with our national security; and I think that the fact that we have this opportunity is commendable. I thank Senator Udall for it.

Striking section 313 is important because that section harms DOD's ability to diversify its fuel supplies by developing and using effective alternative fuels.

Now, lots of colleagues can come down here and proclaim this isn't important or it is important. You know what. I want to listen to the DOD themselves and what they say. There was an Armed Forces press service news report in July 2012, and this is what they said:

Smart investing and less reliance on petroleum-based fuels

will help ensure an agile, lethal, and adaptable combat

force, and, ultimately, national security.

So, Mr. President, I was distraught when I heard that the Armed Services Committee, by one vote, put in the section that would stop the ability of the DOD to invest in these very important fuels so they can have an ``agile, lethal, and adaptable combat force and, ultimately, national security.''

Now this is coming from the DOD. Why on Earth would anyone support something that the DOD tried to take away, the ability of the DOD to have an agile force?

I don't understand it. I can't understand it. The report also quotes Assistant Secretary of Defense Sharon Burke who said:

The department is going to have ships, planes and vehicles

that were designed to use petroleum fuels for a very long

time to come. . . . [Alternative fuels] investment ensures

our equipment can operate on a wide range of fuels, and

that's important for our readiness over the long term.

How many wars do we have to have over oil?

How many wars do we have over oil? I can tell you a story from a colleague of mine who said he went up to the White House when George W. Bush was President before the Iraq war, and George W. Bush had pictures of all the oil wells in Iraq.

If anyone says there was no connection to oil and that war, I would say they are wrong. I have met with many veterans who say the same thing. They don't want to go and fight and die for oil.

So this is of critical importance, this vote. There is no more important mission for the Department of Defense than to fight and win battles needed to defend our Nation and return our troops home safely to their families.

Section 313 could undercut the ability of the Department of Defense to achieve these goals.

In a letter to Senator Udall, Vice Admiral Cullom said:

Section 313--

That's the section we are trying to strike--

Section 313 is overly broad and has the potential to

restrict investments that would address tactical and

operational needs for our Navy. . . . As fuel technologies

advance, the Navy may wish to test and satisfy multiple types

of alternative fuel, including some that might be 100 percent

alternative fuel, not a blend.

Why would anyone in this Senate want to stop us from developing alternative fuels? I don't get it. We are trying so hard to become energy independent. We have made great success under President Obama with fuel economy in place and investment in alternative energy.

The military says it is important for them to ``ensure an agile, lethal and adaptable combat force, and ultimately, national security.'' Their words. In addition to everything else, this is a need that the military has definitely outlined for us.

A Statement of Administration Policy on the House Defense authorization bill, which contains a nearly identical provision, says that affecting DOD's ability to procure alternative fuels in this way would ``further increase America's reliance on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to geopolitical instability and endangering our interests abroad.''

Some of the same people who called for boycotts on Iran, which I support, somehow believe it is not important for us to be free from reliance on those kinds of countries for our oil. It makes no sense. We can't make these compartments. We are going after countries that have oil, and we are right to do it because they are dangerous, many of them. We are embargoing. We have embargoes on many of them. We have sanctions on many of them. At the same time, with the other hand we are saying to the DOD: Forget about alternative fuels. It makes no sense from a national security perspective.

In addition to harming the military's ability to achieve its goals that I have outlined here, that were written very clearly by the Defense Department itself, section 313 precludes research into fuels such as hydrogen, which has the potential to power some military vehicles over much longer missions.

I have been around a while. Something tells me Big Oil is calling the shots. I would hope not, but I don't understand why this section, which Senator Udall is trying to strike, is in this bill when the military says it is critical for them to continue this program.

The section could also prevent DOD from purchasing fuels that are sold today in the United States, such as E-85, which is 85 percent ethanol. The Department of Defense has flex-fuel vehicles in its suite that can run on E-85.

Can you imagine going after that as well? It would restrict DOD's efforts to develop technologies to generate fuel at tactical locations, including waste to energy. These are precisely the types of technologies in which the Nation should be investing.

I thank Senator Udall for bringing this to our attention. This is a very important amendment, perhaps one of the most important I have voted on in a long time.

I will close by saying this: If you believe this country should be energy independent, then vote with Senator Udall. If you believe it is dangerous for us to rely on oil from countries who want to cause us harm, then you

should support the Udall amendment. If you believe it is good for our health, our environment, to invest in alternative energy, then vote for the Udall amendment. It is a win-win-win and, most of all, the military tells us we should continue this program. It is important so that we have an agile, adaptable force, and it is important for our national security.

I will be proud to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring LT Bobby Price, who died this month in Chula Vista, CA. For many years, I had the pleasure and honor of working with this great champion of America's veterans.

In fact, just 2 months ago, despite his grave illness, Bobby traveled to Washington, DC as the representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to meet with me regarding veterans' healthcare, homelessness, and job opportunities for our returning troops. As always, I was impressed by Bobby's knowledge and understanding of issues affecting our veterans and by his passionate commitment to work on their behalf.

During more than 24 years on active duty in the U.S. Navy, Bobby was known for his diligence and determination to carry out any task. Later, he brought this same zeal and perseverance to his work as an advocate for veterans.

No matter how hard Bobby worked, he always made time for his family. As his wife, Julia, wrote, ``Day after day he showed me, our children and grandchildren how much he cared for us by giving his time, compassion and generous spirit.''

Bobby Price received many awards recognizing his remarkable dedication to veterans including the San Diego County Veteran of the Year award. He served as commander of all California Veterans of Foreign Wars posts and was active in other veterans organizations at the local, State, and national level. At the time of his death, he was president of the nonprofit Chula Vista Veterans Home Support Foundation and had served on the charity's board for 6 years.

On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Bobby's life and work, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his wife, Julia; his sons, Paul Hoch, Russ Price, Marcus Bush, and Adam Price; his daughter, Adriana Bush; and his five grandchildren. Bobby Price will be truly missed by all who were touched by his energy, passion for service, and devotion to his fellow veterans.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the renowned attorney Duane Beeson, who is being honored this year with the Peggy Browning Fund Award in recognition of his tireless efforts and outstanding achievements on behalf of working men and women in the San Francisco Bay area.

As senior partner in the law firm of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, Duane Beeson is one of the Nation's leading practitioners of public and private sector labor law, including representation of employee benefit plans. He is a member of the California State Bar, the Supreme Court of the United States Bar, and several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeal Bars.

Duane Beeson was born in Berkeley, CA in 1922 and graduated from Berkeley High School, where he met his future wife, Coni. After serving in the U.S. Army in the European theater in World War II, Duane graduated summa cum laude from Lafayette College and earned his LL.B. at Harvard Law School in 1948.

Following law school, Mr. Beeson served as clerk for Judge William E. Orr at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was an instructor at the University of San Francisco Law School. As a leading expert on labor law, he has also taught at Hastings College of the Law, George Washington Law School, the University of California Extension, and the University of San Francisco Labor Management School.

In 1950, Mr. Beeson moved to Washington, DC, where he worked for 11 years as an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, handling appellate and Supreme Court litigation. In 1961, the Beesons had the opportunity to return to their beloved California when Duane was hired by Joseph Grodin, the great labor lawyer and later California Supreme Court Justice, to represent teachers unions in the Bay area. Mr. Beeson became a partner in the firm, which was then known as Brundage Neyhart Grodin & Beeson and is now Beeson, Tayer & Bodine.

In the 1970s and 80s, Joe Grodin and Duane Beeson led their firm into the areas of employment benefits covered by ERISA and related fields in which labor organizations are involved. More recently, the firm has become active in employment law of all kinds--including mediation and negotiation-facilitation services along with representation of individual employees in wage and hour, discrimination, harassment, and other types of cases--and has also developed a specialty in education law as an outgrowth of representing teacher unions.

I have known and respected Duane Beeson for many years, since my husband Stewart went to work at Duane's firm as a young attorney. As Duane turns 90 and is honored with the Peggy Browning Fund Award, it is my pleasure to salute and celebrate his long and distinguished career representing the working people of California. He is truly one of a kind.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary service of Dr. Knox Mellon who is retiring from the California Missions Foundation after 8 years as its executive director. Though he will be missed, his contributions to the field of historic preservation will benefit generations to come.

Dr. Mellon has had a long and distinguished career in the field of historic preservation. In 1977, he was appointed as California's first professional State Historic Preservation Officer by Governor Jerry Brown. He served in that position until 1983 and then branched out on his own, starting Knox Mellon and Associates, a consulting firm specializing in historic preservation, oral history, historic research, and strategic planning. Dr. Mellon's firm worked on a number of historic buildings in Southern California, including the Downtown Central Library in Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Hall, the Beverly Hills Hotel, and the L.A. Coliseum. During the same time, Dr. Mellon also found time in his busy schedule to serve as an Adjunct Professor of History at the University of California, Riverside, as well as the Director of the Mission Inn Foundation. In 2000, Dr. Mellon was appointed to a second term as California's State Historic Preservation Officer, this time by Governor Gray Davis. In 2004, he retired from State service and became the executive director of the nonprofit California Missions Foundation.

Founded in 1998, the California Missions Foundation is the only organization dedicated solely to the long-term preservation and restoration of California's 21 missions. Early in Dr. Mellon's tenure as executive director, we worked together with Congressman Sam Farr and Senator Dianne Feinstein to pass the California Missions Preservation Act. At a 2005 event to celebrate this new law, Dr. Mellon eloquently discussed the historic value of California's missions, which are the most visited historic attractions in the State:

The missions are California's Pyramids. They are a part of

our past. They help symbolize the nation's western

beginnings. Of all the institutions that define California's

heritage, none has the historic significance and emotional

impact of the chain of Spanish missions that stretch from San

Diego to Sonoma. The missions are an important part of the

state's cultural fabric and must be preserved as priceless

historic monuments.

During Dr. Mellon's tenure as executive director, the California Missions Foundation received a number of grants to preserve and restore California's missions, including four grants from the Department of Interior totaling $2.28 million. With those funds, the California Missions Foundation was able to repair some of the extensive earthquake damage at Mission San Miguel; complete a seismic retrofit at Mission San Luis Rey; and stabilize buildings and preserve artwork and artifacts at the Carmel and Santa Barbara missions.

California's residents and visitors alike benefit from Dr. Mellon's hard work, expertise, and vision each time they visit one of California's beautiful and historic missions.

I thank Dr. Mellon for his service to the State of California, and wish him and his wife Carlotta the very best as they embark on the next exciting phase of their lives.