Floor Statements

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will be in morning business until 11 a.m. Following that morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense Department authorization bill. This will be postcloture debate. We expect to complete action on the Defense bill today. We will give everyone as much notice as we can when we have votes coming.

Additionally, yesterday I filed cloture on a motion to proceed to S. 1917, a middle-class tax cut. If no agreement is reached, this vote will be tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, there are six measures at the desk due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings in regard to these matters.

Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor my friend the Republican leader said he supports an extension of the payroll tax cut that had been enacted last year. There has been an extreme change of heart here. On the Sunday shows the assistant leader, my friend, the junior Senator from Arizona, said Sunday: Not a chance they would work to extend this payroll tax cut. Then, as late as Tuesday, my friend the Republican leader said it would not ``do a thing to help the economy.'' Obviously there has been a change of heart since then by the leaders of the Senate Republicans.

But I noted yesterday that my friend was very careful to say only that he supports existing cuts, not that he supports our plan to cut taxes for 160 million workers in every business in the country.

Last night I found out why. I was disappointed to see the Republicans' alternate proposal was actually a backdoor route to protect the very rich while shortchanging the middle class and small businesses. Should we be surprised at this? That is what has been going on this past year. Our proposal would provide relief for American families and extend existing tax cuts to benefit businesses. The Republican proposal rejects this new tax relief and

doesn't provide a penny of additional tax cuts for working families and it does nothing for small businesses--the job creators the Republicans claim to care so much about.

They seem to think our plan to put $1,500 back into the pocket of every American, with rare exception, and give small businesses the boost they need to hire new employees goes too far. They are willing to fight for ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, but when it comes to the middle class, Republicans here in the Senate--not Republicans generally, but Republicans here in the Senate--believe the status quo is good enough for struggling families. The Republican plan goes directly against the budget agreement we reached in the summer, the so- called Budget Deficit Reduction Act, where we raised the debt ceiling and those things we worked on. It took 3 months. Their plan goes directly against that plan that we made, which is now the law of this country. While Democrats have been working tirelessly to create new jobs, the Republican plan goes in precisely the opposite direction. Instead of creating jobs, it would cost jobs. The report is out today that during the month of October there were 206,000 private sector jobs created. Under their plan, the Republicans' plan, many more middle- class families around the country would lose their jobs. That includes Americans dedicated to public service, hard-working people committed to keeping our streets safe--for example, an FBI agent, Drug Enforcement officer, food safety workers, highway construction workers. They want to devastate those folks. That is how they want to pay for this tax cut. It is not anything that is going to help the economy. It hurts the economy.

They are going after jobs that we need so desperately. Do the Republicans believe--I guess so, because that is what their legislation is all about--that the way to revive the economy is to lay off more FBI agents or fire more Border Patrol officers? These cuts will not revive the economy, they will only slow it down and cost more jobs. But, remember, the role of the Republicans here in the Senate is to defeat Barack Obama. It doesn't matter what it does to middle-class families, obviously.

While targeting the middle class, Republicans propose to do nothing to cut back on excessive subsidies for many large corporations that benefit from government contracts. This is almost hard to comprehend. The Republicans started it, and it caught fire during the Republican control of the Presidency. There are more than 5 million government contractors. The Republicans propose to do nothing to cut back on excessive subsidies for many of these large corporations that benefit from government contracts. Employees at some of these taxpayer- supported corporations are being paid more than $700,000 a year while many public servants struggle to make ends meet. The Republicans want to whack these people who work to keep us safe in many different ways while they let these people go untouched.

The Republicans are uninterested in going after these high-income earners. As usual, the only real target of this Republican meat axe is the middle class. It is wrong. Americans believe, across the country, that the middle class is hurting. I have said--I will say it again--the only people in America who believe that the richest of the rich should not contribute a little bit to help our economy are the Senate Republicans. The Republicans outside this body do not feel that way. America's middle class has been hurting for a long time. They are the people who are struggling. They are the ones who need help, not these multimillionaires, and not large, profitable government contractors.

The Republican proposal is unacceptable. It will not pass the Senate. We can do better and we must do better.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day?

I ask unanimous consent that all votes relating to the Defense authorization bill be 10 minutes in duration, including final passage.

Mr. President, if we have this consent agreement that I am going to ask in just a second, we will have four votes remaining for the evening, and that would be all. We will be in session tomorrow. We have some things we need to do procedurally, but there shouldn't be any votes tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of S. 1867, the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to vote on the Reid of Nevada motion to proceed to Calendar No. 238, S. 1917; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the Reid motion to proceed, it be in order for the Republican leader or his designee to move to proceed to Calendar No. 244, S. 1931; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the vote; that both motions to proceed be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold; finally, that the cloture motion relative to the motion to proceed to S. 1917 be vitiated.

Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will be the 9,000th vote cast by Senator Frank Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg, the senior Senator from New Jersey, has always been a fighter for his State, for progressive causes.

Before coming to the Senate, Senator Lautenberg served his country admirably in World War II, graduated from Colombia Business School, and became--and this is an understatement--a successful businessman.

The determination that made him successful in the private sector served him well in the Senate, where he worked tirelessly on behalf of the State of New Jersey. Frank tried to retire once--in 2000--but he just couldn't stay away from serving the State and the Nation and returned to the Senate a little over a year after he had retired.

As the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg negotiated the balanced budget amendment of 1997, which restored fiscal discipline while cutting taxes for students and families with children.

He has been at the cutting edge of environmental issues in this country since he came to the Senate. He has worked as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, doing a good job with highways, railways, and runways in New Jersey, and has done that in conjunction with being a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee but also the Appropriations Committee.

During his time in the Senate, he has done things that will be a lasting mark on his career, his legacy, forever. Our Nation's roads are safer because he was responsible for our passing the 21-year-old drinking age. He established a national drunk driving standard, a standard throughout the country. He banned triple-trailer trucks--so- called killer trucks--from the roads of New Jersey and many other States. He dedicated his time in the Senate to holding terrorists accountable and protecting New Jersey's ports, which are important to all of us, not only to New Jersey.

Senator Lautenberg has done many things. He authored the domestic violence gun ban--the only significant gun legislation to become law since the Brady bill--which prevents convicted abusers from buying guns.

The thing I recognize as very important--one of my boys couldn't stand the cigarette smoke in airplanes. Even though the airlines tried to set up a standard for smoking, you know that if there was smoking in the airplane, the fact that you were someplace else in the airplane didn't matter; everybody got the secondhand smoke. He fought this and banned smoking on airplanes, which I will always remember, and certainly my boy Key will always remember that.

For three decades, Frank Lautenberg has left a mark that is very impressive, and his 9,000 votes will be something people will look back on and determine that Frank Lautenberg is one of the most productive Senators in the history of our country.

Congratulations, Frank.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote overwhelmingly to support our men and women in uniform, including the more than 1,100 Nevadans serving overseas, as they continue to put their lives on the line. I congratulate Senators Levin and McCain for their stewardship of this bill and for working through several difficult issues.

There is still work to be done in conference to perfect parts of this bill, including the provisions dealing with military detainees and efforts to improve key elements of TRICARE.

I am pleased that today an overwhelming, bipartisan majority agreed that protecting our national security is more important than partisan politics. Today we came together to support our troops, and ensured that this Nation does everything in its power to keep America safe from those who would do us harm.

As the order that is now before the Senate indicates, I have the ability to designate who will be the speakers. We have 1 minute on one and 1 minute on the other. Those 2 minutes will be used by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 43; that there be 1 hour for debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to the cloture vote; further, that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tiffany Griffin, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Roger Yang, a member of the staff of Senator Merkley, be granted the privilege of the floor today.

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1867. The filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the Defense bill is 10:30 a.m. today. At about 11 o'clock, there will be a cloture vote on S. 1867.

It is my understanding the vote will be at 11 o'clock. Is that right, Madam President? It is not about 11, it will be at 11.

We will continue working through the pending amendments. Senators Levin and McCain are managers of this bill, and Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. There was a little void here from 10:30 until the vote. That will be debate time on the motion to invoke cloture on the Defense bill.

Madam President, Republicans love to talk about taxes. They like them low, we like them high--or so they would have you believe. By that logic, Republicans ought to be lining up to support our payroll tax legislation. Democrats propose we cut taxes for 160 million Americans and every single business in our country. The average American family would save about $1,500. Yet Republicans appeared out of the woodwork to oppose our plan. They do not like these particular tax cuts because they are paid for with a small, 3.25-percent surtax on people making more than $1 million a year. But we have learned that Republicans only care about keeping taxes low for a very small group of people. This small group is the richest of the rich.

Here is the contrast. One side has Democrats fighting to cut taxes for 160 million Americans who make an average of less than $30,000 a year. On the other side, we have Republicans fighting to keep taxes low for fewer than 350,000 people who take home more than $3 million every year. The contrast: 160 million Americans who make an average of less than $30,000 a year; on the other side, Republicans are fighting to keep taxes low for the richest of the rich--350,000 people who make more than $3 million a year.

What is worse, if Republicans get their way, if they are able to give the richest of the rich a pay increase, in effect, taxes will actually increase by about $1,000 a year for 120 million American families. Every American family will have $1,000 less to spend on food, clothing, and diapers next year--except those 350,000 people.

Republicans can continue to try to protect people who earn an average of $3 million apiece. We are not going to do that, not in today's economy. In other words, Republicans are increasing taxes on nearly every American family to protect people who make an average of $37,500 a week--far more than most Americans make in a year. You can take Nevada, you can take Kentucky--take Kentucky, the home of my friend the Republican leader. There, 2.1 million middle-class workers will be hit with a tax increase if the Republicans block our proposal. In Nevada, we have fewer people than Kentucky, but the same basically applies

in Nevada. But in Kentucky specifically, 1,345 Kentuckians earn an average of $3.5 million each, each year, and that will be protected thanks to the efforts of Senate Republicans.

Why would Republicans throw 92 percent of American families under the bus, whacking them with a tax increase beginning January 1, to protect the richest of the rich? Why would they do that? It certainly sounds like political suicide, not to mention shockingly callous policy. One might assume there is a compelling reason for Republicans to stake out this seemingly indefensible ground, to take the side of the top two- tenths of 1 percent of American earners while raising taxes on 160 million others.

Here is their reason. They say they want to protect job creators. Of course that claim is laughable on its face. Our bill would cut taxes for literally every business in America, and for 98 percent of these companies, these firms, including virtually every small business, it would cut payroll taxes in half, from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent.

I could quote virtually every member of the Republican caucus, all 47 of them, singing the praises of small businesses that create jobs because they have come at various times during this year and previous years to talk about small businesses, what good they do for America. And I agree with that. You will not get disagreement from Democrats. That is why our bill cuts taxes for every small business in America, including 50,000 firms in Nevada. Yet legislation that will cut taxes for 92 percent of American families and every single business in the Nation without adding a penny to the deficit may not get a single Republican vote because it would cost a few incredibly prosperous, rich Americans about 2 weeks of pay.

To top it all off, Republicans know the tax increase they are foisting on middle-class families would be devastating for our economy. The Economic Policy Institute has stated that this Republican tax hike will reduce GDP by $128 billion and cost almost 1 million jobs--972,000 to be exact. That would send our economy back into a tailspin, and it is impossible to tell how long would be our recovery.

Republicans often say we cannot afford to raise taxes on the top two- tenths of 1 percent of American taxpayers, so I ask, how can we afford a tax increase on 92 percent of American families?

Will the Chair announce the business for the day.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 238,

Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

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

I now withdraw my motion to proceed.

Madam President, on one of the Sunday shows, the assistant leader, the Republican whip, my friend, the junior Senator from Arizona, indicated that Republicans would not support the withholding tax proposal we had made. On Monday, that was what the Senate leadership said. So I am very happy there has been a conversion and now they agree to support it but be careful. Remember, they are very clever and unclear on how they want this paid for. One Republican Senator said he didn't want it paid for, and that, in fact, has been the standard mantra of the Republicans: Tax cuts should not have to be paid for. The Bush tax cuts, amounting to trillions of dollars, were not paid for. That is, of course, one reason we have this huge problem with the deficit.

I think we also have to recognize that one thing our country lacks is confidence. There are a lot of reasons, but one reason the country lacks confidence is people out here are talking about how bad the economy is doing. It is doing very poorly, and I recognize that. But we have had growth over the last many months. Is it as significant and as robust as we want? Of course not, but we have a growing economy; that is to say about my friend, the prior President, President Bush, we had no growth there. That was downhill. When he came into office, there was a surplus of trillions of dollars. That was taken away with not paying for all these tax cuts, the unpaid war in Iraq, the unpaid war in Afghanistan, and at least 8 million jobs were lost. We are trying to work our way out of that, and we have worked very hard.

My friend talks about the stimulus bill, the Economic Recovery Act. Let's just talk about something I know a lot about, the State of Nevada. But for that bill, in the State of Nevada, which is very hard hit with the economic recovery, a State that for two decades had been the No. 1 place in America to come to start a business, to get a job, to buy property, that is no longer the case. That is no longer the case. But the stimulus bill has kept the schools open, has allowed people on Medicaid to continue getting some help, and we have had-- because of that bill--thousands and thousands of jobs created with solar projects, geothermal projects all over the State of Nevada. Is it enough? Of course not. But let's start building some confidence and allowing people with these companies that have trillions of dollars, let's have them start spending some of it and creating jobs.

We are for tax reform. I agree with my friend the Republican leader, we should have tax reform. It is important because the Tax Code is not working. It is helping the wrong people, and we look forward to doing what we can to work that out. I was hoping in the supercommittee that one of the things they would have given was instructions to the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee to come up with some tax reform that would be meaningful and build the economy even more than we could have ever dreamed, and a lot of that can be done with tax reform. So I acknowledge that.

We look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle. They say they are in favor of now extending withholding and we know that has created lots of jobs and we are glad they are going to do that. But, I repeat, let's be very careful of how it is paid for. The American people believe we should pay for it the way we have suggested. The only people in the world who don't think it should be paid for in the way we suggested are the Republicans in the Senate. All the polls show

the vast majority of Americans believe the richest of the rich should contribute a little bit to bringing this country out of the economic problems we have.

So I would hope we can move forward. We are going to have a cloture vote on this matter soon. We have to get through this very important Defense bill, which is to take care of our troops. One of the managers of that, of course, is someone we look to for guidance with military matters. That is John McCain, who, as we know, is a certified war hero. When that is finished, we will work this out on the payroll tax.

I hope that prior to the cloture vote having taken place and being necessary, we will have some agreement on how to move forward because there are a lot of other things to do before the end of this year. There are other tax issues that are extremely important that traditionally have been completed before the end of a year such as we are in right now.

I agree with virtually everything the Republican leader said. I do think the Presidential election will be based on what took place in the Bush administration and how we have tried to recover from that, and how things have been exacerbated because of the tsunami and because of the European debt crisis.

I also agree wholeheartedly with my friend that we need to work together the rest of this Congress. It is difficult to do, but we need to set aside Presidential politics and work in our sphere as legislative leaders to try to move this country along. So I look forward to that, and I appreciate the constructive remarks of my friend.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, could I ask my friend from New Hampshire to allow me to propose a unanimous consent request?

The reason I ask is that Senator Levin and I have a classified briefing that starts at 5:30.

May I ask the Senator how much longer she wishes to speak? It doesn't matter, but just so I have an idea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of Senator Ayotte of approximately 10 minutes--she has been here long enough that she has learned to keep Senators' time, and 5 minutes really isn't 5 minutes--does the Senator from Connecticut wish to speak?

So following their colloquy of 10 minutes, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour; that following that we go back to the Defense authorization bill.

There will be no more votes this evening, though, Mr. President.

I appreciate the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Helen J. Stewart, a brave and extraordinary Nevadan who lived during the early days of Las Vegas. On December 3, 2011, there will be a dedication of the statue erected in her honor at the Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort State Historic Park.

In 1882, Helen arrived in the Las Vegas Valley with her husband Archibald and their three young children. After her husband died of a gunshot wound in 1884, she managed their isolated ranch while caring for five young children. A business-savvy woman, Helen sold 1,832 acres of the ranch to the railroad in 1902 for $55,000. This land became the area from which the City of Las Vegas developed.

Helen had a pioneering spirit, and she is considered to be the ``First Lady of Las Vegas.'' Among her numerous accomplishments in the community, she was the first Postmaster, the first woman to serve on a School District Board, and the first woman to serve on a jury. In addition, she was an advocate of women's rights, a charter member of the Mesquite Club, one of the founders of the Christ Episcopal Church, and the president of the Las Vegas chapter of the Nevada Historical Society.

Helen also developed strong friendships with the Southern Paiutes. They were her neighbors and some were workers on her ranch. In 1911, she deeded 10 acres of her land to the Federal Government for use as an Indian school. That land established what is now known as the Las Vegas Indian Colony for the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.

I am pleased to stand today to recognize Helen's outstanding achievements. She was a remarkable mother, rancher, businesswoman, and community leader, and she serves as an inspiration to us all.

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

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