Floor Statements

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.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 3414.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion which has been filed at the desk and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I rise with great pleasure to honor my colleagues, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Dick Lugar of Indiana, as they reach a milestone in their careers. They each cast a momentous vote just a short time ago. For Senator Leahy, the vote just cast is his 14,000th rollcall vote. For Senator Lugar--it is interesting that it is the same day and 1,000 votes apart--it is his 13,000th. These two fine men and dedicated Senators share the milestone purely by coincidence.

I applaud Pat Leahy, my dear friend, who has always possessed a great drive to serve. Maybe it was growing up across from the State House in Montpelier that put the idea in his head from such a young age.

After graduating from Georgetown University Law School, Pat served 8 years as State's attorney for Vermont before coming to the Senate. He continues to exercise his fine legal mind as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy has also led the fight against landmines, as well as numerous landmark pieces of legislation on which he has been the leader.

Pat is loved by the people of Vermont. His intellect and his oratorical skills, his boldness, and his persuasiveness are all overshadowed by one thing--by his teammate Marcelle. Marcelle is clearly his greatest asset.

I also commend my colleague Senator Lugar on reaching his milestone of his 13,000th vote. Senator Lugar is a fifth-generation Hoosier, a proud Navy veteran, and the longest serving Member of Congress in Indiana history. He is also a bit of an overachiever, graduating first in both his high school and college classes, and going on to become a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

As ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and past chairman of the committee, having served with the Presiding Officer for decades, he has dedicated his time in the Senate to reducing the threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

It has been my distinct pleasure to watch both of these fine Senators work tirelessly on behalf of the United States. I congratulate both of them on their service and on reaching this impressive milestone.

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 move to proceed to Calendar No. 467.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now observe a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting in Colorado.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate pauses to remember those killed in last week's horrific shooting in Colorado.

Among the dead was 26-year-old Jonathan Blunk--a graduate of Hug High School in Reno, NV, a Navy veteran and father of two. My heart goes out to his loved ones and to all the victims and their families as they struggle to make sense of the senseless. How can you make sense of something that is so senseless? We may never know the motivations behind this terrible crime or understand why anyone would target so many innocent people.

Friday's events were a reminder that nothing in this world is certain and that life is precious and short. Today we pause to mourn the dead but also to honor how they lived. We pledge our support to the people of Aurora, CO, both as they grieve and as they begin to heal from this terrible tragedy.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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, are we now on the motion to proceed to S. 3412?

I have a cloture motion at the desk I wish to have reported.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 442.

Mr. President, the first hour today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Republicans will control the first half and the majority the final half. At 2:15 p.m. there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act I just moved to.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3401

Mr. President, I am fairly confident that S. 3401 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with regard to this bill.

Mr. President, over the last decade, American companies outsourced about 2\1/2\ million jobs, often to countries where they can hire workers for half the price. And 21 million Americans, including nearly 7 million manufacturing workers, live with the fear their jobs could be shipped overseas tomorrow. More than 130,000 of those at-risk workers live in Nevada. In the Presiding Officer's home State of New Mexico, more than 100,000 jobs in manufacturing, sales, management, the financial sector, and other industries are in jeopardy. And more than 300,000 jobs in the State of Kentucky, the State of my Republican counterpart, are also at risk. So I was surprised yesterday when the minority leader dismissed efforts to end taxpayer incentives for companies that outsource jobs overseas. To quote the minority leader, he said:

Why aren't we doing anything? It's time to bring up serious

legislation that affects the future of the country.

At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, I am not sure what could be more serious than protecting good-paying, middle- class jobs. The Bring Jobs Home Act, the measure before this body, would end tax incentives for corporations that ship jobs overseas. Every time an American company closes a factory or a call center in America and moves operations to another country, taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill. Hard to comprehend, but it is true. The legislation before this body would end that senseless series of tax breaks for outsourcers. It would offer a 20-percent tax credit to help with the cost of moving production back to the United States.

In the last few years, major manufacturers such as Caterpillar have brought jobs back to the United States from Japan, Mexico, and China. Smaller manufacturers such as Master Lock have moved facilities home as well. Congress must do everything in its power to encourage this trend.

But let me remind the entire Senate that we must break a Republican filibuster--a record-breaking filibuster--before we can even begin debating the Bring Jobs Home Act. This obstruction is unfortunate, but it is not surprising. After all, the Republicans' nominee for President made a fortune working for a company that shipped jobs overseas.

Yesterday, my friend Senator McConnell said he wants to debate serious legislation. If that is the case, he should urge his Republican colleagues to drop their filibuster. The Bring Jobs Home Act is a commonsense strategy to protect American workers. To 21 million Americans whose jobs could be the next sent to China or India, it is a very serious proposal. To the 2\1/2\ million Americans whose jobs have already been shipped offshore, it doesn't get any more serious than that. The only ones who aren't taking this measure seriously are the Republicans in Congress.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The only amendments I have seen are three in number that the Republicans have suggested--to do away with the Affordable Care Act, to reestablish the Bush tax cuts, and then the Hatch tax measure. As has been the tradition with Republicans, those have absolutely nothing to do with outsourcing. So unless the Republicans get serious about legislating on the legislation we have, the answer would be: Very doubtful.

Mr. President, I am not in a position now to announce no more votes today. I hope we can be there in just a little bit, but we are trying to work through some procedural matters now, and hopefully we can do that within the next half hour or so.

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

Mr. President, we have been able to work things out. We are not going to have to be in session--we thought we had it all worked out but now we do not.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, there will be no further rollcall votes today. The next vote will be Monday at 5:30 p.m. on the nomination of Michael A. Shipp to be a U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I had a long conversation yesterday with the chairman of the committee and with his ranking member, Senator McCain. I understand the importance of the legislation. I know Senator McCain is trying to work to narrow the focus of what we do when we get on that bill. We will get on that; it is only a question of when.

Mr. President, I sent a cloture motion to the desk with respect to the Shipp nomination. In fact, it may already be there.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business and that Senators be allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I recognize and honor Kathryn E. Landreth for her distinguished service from 2005 to 2012 as the State Director of the Nevada Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

Under Kathryn's leadership, The Nature Conservancy--Nevada Chapter has maintained its focus on its core mission to conserve lands and waters on which all life depends. Kathryn was first drawn to The Nature Conservancy for its commitment to science-based information to reach collaborative outcomes for conservation. She was instrumental in working with important partners to establish the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and protect the desert tortoise habitat. Kathryn's vision and leadership also helped the Chapter acquire Independence Lake--one of the most pristine alpine lakes--complete the Whit Hall Interpretive Center and complete restoration work at the McCarran Ranch and Lower Truckee River. In Western Nevada, the Chapter completed the restoration of the Carson and Truckee Rivers to improve wildlife habitats and water quality.

I have had the good fortune of working with Kathryn and The Nature Conservancy in Nevada and nationally on legislation that impacts our Federal wild lands heritage. She and The Nature Conservancy have been important partners in successful efforts to protect Nevada's unique landscapes; their advocacy has led to the protection of over 1 million acres across the Silver State.

Prior to her work with The Nature Conservancy, she was appointed by President Clinton in October of 1993 to serve as United States Attorney for the District of Nevada. Kathryn served as a tough and effective prosecutor and established a fine legal reputation.

Due to her impressive and dedicated work, her efforts have not gone unacknowledged. The Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers previously recognized her as Public Advocate of the Year, the State Bar of Nevada named her Public Lawyer of the Year, and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce recognized her as a Woman of Distinction in Government.

I am tremendously proud of the legacy that she has imprinted on the State of Nevada. Thank you, Kathryn, for your extraordinary service as a leader and advocate for conservation and justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 3412 and S. 3413, which are both at the desk, be considered as having been read twice and placed on the calendar.

Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading on both these matters but object to my own request.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 23; 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, and at that time I be recognized; that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 663, the nomination of Michael A. Shipp to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey, with 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; further, that the cloture vote on the Shipp nomination be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday on the motion to invoke cloture on the Shipp nomination.