Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 518; that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on the nomination; that the nomination be subject to a 60-vote threshold, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 839, 840, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, and all the nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Army, Air Force, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to S. 1959.

The Presiding officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1959) entitled

``An Act to require a report on the designation of the

Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization and for

other purposes,'' do pass with the following amendment:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

I make a motion to concur in the House amendment, and I know of no further debate on this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at this point in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1299 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 529, S. Res. 530, and S. Res. 531.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 532, submitted earlier today by Senator Nelson of Florida.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a voice vote on the adoption of the resolution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 90 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 133, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 134 just received from the House, and it is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized; and that at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Robert Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a cloture vote on the Bacharach nomination; further, that if cloture is not invoked on the Bacharach nomination, the Senate then resume legislative session and adopt the motion to proceed to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act; and finally, that if cloture is invoked on the Bacharach nomination, upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and adopt the motion to proceed to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act.

Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will be a cloture vote at 5:30 p.m. on Monday on the Bacharach nomination. On Monday evening, we expect to begin consideration of the cybersecurity bill. We will work on an agreement on amendments to the bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the cogent remarks, sensible remarks of my colleague from Florida. He has fought long and hard for the middle class in terms of taxes, and I very much appreciate his hard work on this issue. The citizens of Florida should be proud of him.

I rise today, of course, also to talk about the upcoming Senate vote on the middle-class tax cuts.

For weeks, Senate Democrats have been asking our friends on the other side of the aisle to allow this debate on taxes to happen. Leader Reid has repeatedly offered to have a simple up-or-down vote on both the Democratic and Republican proposals. Time after time, minority leader Mitch McConnell has declined.

But, fortunately, that has now changed. Senator McConnell has, after weeks of delay, relented and decided he is not going to filibuster our middle-class tax cut bill. That is very good news for the country. The most important thing we can do for the economy right now is to provide certainty to the middle class that their taxes are not going up.

I believe there are two reasons Senator McConnell finally decided to allow this to happen.

First, forcing his entire caucus to filibuster this legislation would have been politically disastrous for them. It would have prevented any debate or amendments on the Democratic tax cut legislation, meaning the Republicans would not have been able to offer their amendments to extend tax cuts for those millionaires and billionaires. In other words, a filibuster would have meant there would have been only a single vote on middle-class tax cuts on the Democratic proposal and that almost all Republicans would then have been on record against them. So it is easy to see why that would have been uncomfortable for them.

Second, I truly believe some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have truly looked at the Democratic proposal and realized that voting for it is the right thing to do. I believe Senator McConnell would have not been able to stop them from voting yes.

Faced with widespread concern in his caucus, I believe Senator McConnell decided an abrupt about face was in his best interest. So the Senate is about to speak. We are going to pass a bill that will ensure taxes do not go up for the 98 percent of Americans who earn less than $250,000 a year. We are going to defeat a proposal that would spend almost $1 trillion providing additional cuts for the richest 2 percent and at the same time allowing tax breaks used by 25 million middle- class families to expire.

Included in that is something very important to me; that is, the $2,500 credit middle-class families get to help defray the cost of tuition. To not allow that to move forward, whether in this bill, the extenders bill or another bill would be very bad policy, hurt the middle class, and hurt the future of America.

We are doing it. I hope everyone will join us in supporting the Democratic bill which has that provision to provide tuition relief, tax relief to help middle-class families defray the cost of tuition.

Once the Democratic proposal passes the Senate, it will be sent to the House. I am sure Speaker Boehner does not appreciate the uncomfortable position Senate Democrats and Republicans have put him in. Make no mistake about it, Senator McConnell, to save his caucus from a disastrous vote against the middle-class tax extension, has had to put the Speaker in a box.

The Speaker knows if he puts this bill on the floor, his Members will have trouble voting against it. So they have decided to put out an argument that they should not bring it up because of a blue-slip issue. While it is true that revenue vehicles have to originate in the House, this is a problem that could be easily remedied. In fact, Senator Reid tried to do it by unanimous consent earlier today, but unfortunately the minority leader blocked it.

When it comes to blue-slip issues, where there is a will, there is a way. House Republicans have passed two landmark revenue bills this Congress after the Senate passed them--the highway bill and the FAA bill. Senate Republicans have joined Democrats in passing legislation in the Senate this Congress despite potential blue-slip issues, the Violence Against Women Act and the ethanol excise tax credit repeal, for example.

But if House Republicans insist on blocking our middle-class tax cuts and using the blue-slip issue as an excuse, that is a debate we are willing to have. That is a debate we welcome. Because, for once, we have broken the vice that Republicans have had on tax issues for 30 years. They have always conflated tax cuts for the middle class and tax cuts for the very wealthy. But this bill breaks that vice and allows us to support middle-class tax cuts without--without--giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest among us who, A, will not bump up the economy because they do not spend a large proportion of that high income, and, B, could go to deficit reduction.

I know lots of very wealthy people who say: I do not mind paying more taxes if the money would go to deficit reduction. Our bill allows exactly that to happen. So Democrats are going to be happy to bring the argument to the American people and ask them whether they think obscure procedural rules which the Republican Party in the House has ignored time and time again are now reason enough to let over 100 million families face a tax hike of $1,600 a year.

The Senate is about to pass the only tax cut bill that has a chance of becoming law. No one thinks it is a good idea to raise taxes on the middle class. No one. We can disagree about whether the very wealthiest in society should also get a tax break, but we all agree the middle class should get one. So why hold one hostage for the other?

The Senate supports middle-class tax breaks. The President supports middle-class tax breaks. The House supports middle-class tax breaks. Democrats support middle-class tax breaks. Republicans support middle- class tax breaks. Instead of fighting over whether the wealthiest in society should also get a tax break, why do we not pass this now, give real relief to the middle class, and have the other debate later?

Middle-class Americans who do not want to see their taxes go up support what we are doing. The House should act immediately so the President can sign this bill into law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to talk about a bill that will reduce taxes for 97 percent of all small business owners. I wish to talk about a bill that will keep $2,200 in the pockets of the middle class next year. I wish to talk about a bill that will extend tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per year. I wish to talk about the Middle Class Tax Cut Act and why it should pass with overwhelming and bipartisan support.

My colleagues across the aisle have said they want to get our country back on its feet. Well, I know our prosperity has always stemmed from and been measured by the success of the middle class. They are the ones who get in early and stay late. They take on a second job to make it just a little bit easier to pay for college. They wait to retire to save more to help their children and grandchildren. Under no circumstances should middle-class people be worried about their taxes going up, particularly at a time when median income, middle-class income is declining in America.

To raise taxes at a time when the middle class is struggling makes no sense whatsoever. Under no circumstances--no circumstances--should the middle class have to worry about their taxes going up.

So we are proposing a 1-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts on all Americans on the first $250,000 of income they make. Let it be known that tax break will go to everybody. A person could be making $10 million and they will get the same tax break on the first $250,000 as someone making $200,000 or $220,000 or someone making $80,000. So it does not discriminate.

By the way, we are lucky in America that we have people who have made a whole lot of money by starting businesses and employing people. We revel in the fact that America does that, and we admire well-to-do people. The difference is we don't think they need a tax break when that money could go to deficit reduction instead. Well, we can't say that for the middle class because the middle class, obviously, has less money and is struggling. So that is why we choose $250,000 as the line.

In addition, there were three more very important tax cuts signed into law by President Obama that working families across America rely on. They are the American opportunity tax credit, the expanded child tax credit, and the earned-income tax credit. Our proposal would extend these tax cuts as well. So under our plan the middle class will be secure in the knowledge that their taxes aren't going to go up over the next 5 months while we all debate the fiscal cliff and all the things we have to do to prevent our deficit from growing. This should be priority No. 1--to secure the middle class while we have this debate.

I wish to focus for a moment on a glaring difference between our plan and the Republican plan. We all know how hard it is to pay for college. We all know how important a college degree is. Study after study after study has shown if a person gets a college degree, they will make more income and a person will have a better life. Some of the recent studies show people even live longer. Having a college degree is so important to American families. Yet, at the same time, the cost of college is rising. Whether a person goes to a private school, a religious school, or a public university, the cost is going up and up and up. So it has been a passion of mine since I have come to the Senate, and even before, that we give middle-class people a tax break to go to college.

We help the poor already with Pell grants and things such as that. That is a very good thing, and I am proud we do it. But a person or a family can be making $50,000, $70,000, $90,000, $110,000, and if a kid is going to college and it costs $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a year, they can't afford it. As a result, we have millions of parents stretching and stretching and stretching to help their kids, and millions more students are taking on huge debt loads because they know college is so important. It is vital for us to help them.

When a young man or a young woman who deserves to go to college doesn't because they can't afford it, they lose, their family loses, and our country loses as well. When a young person goes to the college they shouldn't go to because they can't afford the college they deserve to go to and want to go to, they lose, their family loses, and America loses. So it has been a passion of mine that we give the middle class-- not just the poor but the middle class as well--help in paying for college because it is so expensive but it is also so important.

So we have a law now called the American opportunity tax credit. It is legislation I wrote. It helped 9.1 million families get a tax break on their children's college tuition last year. Because of the American opportunity tax credit, more parents and students now qualify for tax relief to pay for college expenses not just for 2 years but for a whole 4 years of study. It gives a $2,500 tax credit right off a family's taxes to families whose income is up to $180,000 a year. So it goes well into the middle class and even a little higher in many States. But it is needed. It is vital.

If this tax credit expires, families who rejoiced--I have talked to them across my State of New York in every corner of the State. Moms and dads are sitting around the kitchen tables Friday night after dinner, the kids are out, saying: How are we going to pay for college for Mary or Jane or Tom or Bill? They have sleepless nights about it. So why, why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle let this tax break expire? Why does their proposal, which continues tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans, kick these tax incentives to the curb? To let this tax break expire is a dagger to the heart of the middle class, and that is just what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing.

It is more than clear Republicans are going to hold up the middle- class tax cuts, including this needed and significant help to pay for college, to insist that we provide those at the highest income levels-- people who make over $250,000 a year--with a tax cut at the same time. They are holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage.

Now, I will be the first to congratulate people who are very wealthy, as I

mentioned. They have been successful. They are living the American dream. God bless them. They create jobs. They do. But today's debate is not about them or their taxes. We can have a rigorous debate about whether they deserve another tax break or whether that money should go to deficit reduction or maybe for education or infrastructure or scientific research. That is a debate for another day, and I look forward to it.

Today's debate is about the middle class. Letting these tax cuts expire would generate serious problems for our middle-class families and businesses.

It could prevent them from being able to pay for their kids' education or buy a new house or a new car. It could mean they put off retirement a little bit longer or cancel a vacation. That would have repercussions across the entire economy. So extending the tax cuts for the middle class is a no-brainer and the American people are on our side.

I hope, I pray, I beseech our friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the middle class, saying: Look, you guys fight over what you should do for the highest income people but come together on helping us.

That is what we can do. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to get this country back on track, they will join us in supporting this critical legislation, including the tax credit to help pay for college education, to help the families and businesses that are the real job creators and prosperity makers.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.