Floor Updates

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Dec 11 2012 10:00 AM

The Senate Convened.

Reid, McConnell

Opening Remarks

Dec 11 2012 10:25 AM

  • Today --
    • The Senate is in Morning Business for 1 hour. The time will be equally divided, with the Majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.
    • Following Morning Business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Motion to Proceed to S. 3637, the Transaction Account Guarantee bill, with the time until 12:30 PM equally divided.
    • At 12:30 PM, the Senate will recess until 2:15 PM for the weekly caucus lunches.
    • At 2:15 PM, the Senate will conduct a ROLL CALL VOTE on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3637, the Transaction Account Guarantee bill.
      • If Cloture is Invoked, the Motion to Proceed to S. 3637, the Transaction Account Guarantee bill, will be Agreed to, and Majority Leader Reid will be recognized.

Senator Reid: (10:03 AM)
  • Paid tribute to Senators Webb and Akaka.

Senator McConnell: (10:11 AM)
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "Any solution to our spending and debt problem has to involve cuts to out-of-control Washington spending. I know that might sound obvious to most people but for all the president's talk about the need for a balanced approach, the truth is he and his democratic allies simply refused to be pinned down on any spending cuts. Americans overwhelmingly support some level of cuts to government spending as part of a plan to cut the federal deficit. Yet, the president will not commit to it. He refuses to lead on the issue. The president seems to think if all he talks about are taxes and that's all reporters write about, somehow the rest of us will magically forget that government spending is completely out of control and that he himself has been insisting on balance. A couple of weeks ago we saw his plan. After four straight trillion-dollar deficits and two years of running around calling for a balanced approach to bring those deficits under control, we saw his idea of balance. A $1.6 trillion tax hike, new and totally unprecedented power to raise the federal debt limit at his whim and a $50 billion stimulus for infrastructure. In other words, even more spending. So when it came to offering his idea of a balanced approach, the president was vague about cuts but very specific in his request for more government spending, something no reasonable person had publicly contemplated previously. It raises the question: do Democrats even believe their own rhetoric on spending? Or contrary to the clear wishes of the majority of Americans, do they just want more tax revenue to fund a government without any limits, any limits whatsoever, which just keeps getting bigger and bigger with every passing year. Think about it. The federal government spent $1.8 trillion in 2001 and last year, ten years later, $3.6 trillion. These are nominal dollars, I realize, but by any measure the size of government has grown well beyond its means. Government spending is completely and totally out of control, and we need to start acting like it."
  • Paid tribute to Senator Lugar.

Durbin, Udall-CO, Grassley

Morning Business

Dec 11 2012 11:03 AM

Senator Durbin: (10:25 AM)
  • Paid tribute to Senators Lugar, Akaka, and Webb.
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "I have to answer some of the comments made earlier by the Republican leader as he talked about the state of negotiations between the president and Congress as we face the fiscal cliff. He said at one point that the president is calling for raising taxes $1.6 billion. That's true. But I would call to his attention the fact that the Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested that 40% of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction come from revenue in taxes. What the president is suggesting is entirely consistent with that bipartisan group's call for more revenue in taxes as part of our deficit reduction. The president's made it clear, though, he wants to protect and insulate middle-income families from any income tax increases, and I agree with him. We should not raise the income taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. I voted that way in July. We sent the bill to the house. It sits there. It languishes in the House because the Speaker won't call it. He has his chance this week or the next to call that bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to avoid any tax increase on middle-income families. That's an important thing for us to get done before we leave at the end of this particular session of Congress. Let me say that $1.6 trillion in taxes over a ten-year period is not an unreasonable amount. The tax rate that the president is asking for is the rate that was in place during the expansive period in our economy under President Bill Clinton. So to argue that the president has gone too far in asking for tax in revenue is to ignore the obvious. It's the same percentage asked for by Simpson-Bowles if not less and a tax rate when we had more jobs and business than ever in recent history."
  • Spoke on Durbin amendment #3311 (U.S. exports to Africa).
    • SUMMARY "What I find in Africa today is that China has an increasing presence on that continent. China has a plan when it comes to the future of Africa. America does not. That's why I'm going to offer as an amendment to the TAG bill, which is currently pending before the Senate, the American Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act ... At the heart of this bill is the creation of jobs in America. Exporting more goods to Africa will help create jobs here. Every $1 billion in exports supports over 5,000 jobs. I believe we can increase exports from the United States to Africa by 200% in real dollars over the next ten years, and we can't wait any longer. If there are some who say Africa is so backward and so far behind, what is it in the United States they can afford to buy if they even wanted to, that is old thinking. Let me give you some new reality. In the past ten years six of the world's fastest-growing economies are in sub-Saharan Africa. And in the next five years, sub-Saharan Africa will boast seven of the top fastest-growing economies in the world. The number of Africans with access to the internet has increased over the last ten years fourfold to 27%, from 1998 to today the number of mobile phones on the continent have grown from four million to 500 million. And 78% of Africa's rural population has access to clean water. These are signs of a growing middle class. China sees it. We have to see it. China is insinuating itself into the economy of major African nations. They are offering loans, their contracts, their engineers and their investments in Africa. We are not. We're going to rue the day. Africa is a great opportunity for us, and this bill addresses it This is something we can do to increase jobs in America, increase trade with Africa and really build those countries which share our values. The difference between the United States, China and other countries, we come to the marketplace with values. We have to make certain those values are protected. We can only do it if we are honest traders and actively engaged in expanding the market for our goods and services."

Senator Udall-CO: (10:42 AM)
  • Spoke on the WPTC.
    • SUMMARY "It's going to expire in less than one month from now - December 31 to be specific - if we do not act. That means we're one month away from pulling the rug out from an industry that's currently playing a key role in revitalizing American manufacturing, creating jobs, empowering our nation. We're literally one month away from ending a credit that supports tens of thousands of workers right here in the United States. And each day that we wait to extend the PTC, we risk losing more good-paying American jobs. We also risk doing away with a credit that is a major contributor to the success and development of our nation's wind industry. This credit has helped countries leverage billions of dollars worth of investments and create thousands of made-in-America manufacturing jobs. If history is any guide, allowing this critical tax credit to expire would be disastrous. The expiration of the PTC in 2000, 2002 and 2004 led to massive drops in wind-energy installation."

Senator Grassley: (10:49 AM)
  • Spoke on the WPTC.
    • SUMMARY "After 20 years of investment of taxpayers' money in what we call the tax incentive for wind energy, that with a 20-year investment, with the industry just about becoming a mature industry - and there is different points of view within the industry, but just a few years and starting to phase out very soon, this wind energy tax credit can go away because it would be a mature industry much as the ethanol tax credit has gone away as of the end of last year. So with this tremendous investment, it seems to me it would be a shame not to continue it so we can get to maturity. And then in a sense ratify the decisions of the good investment of taxpayers' money that's already been made Nationally, the wind energy industry supports 75,000 jobs. There are more than 400 manufacturing facilities nationwide, supplying wind components. 35% of all new electricity generation added during the last five years was from wind. And this happens to be more than from coal and nuclear combined. Today, 60% of the wind turbines' value is produced in the United States compared to 25% in the year 2005."

Dec 11 2012 11:51 AM

Senator Johanns: (11:02 AM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "The Majority Leader himself said the filibuster - and I'm quoting here "is a unique privilege that serves to aid small states from being trampled by the desires of larger states." He went on to say - and I'm quoting again - "it's one of the most sacred rules of the Senate." of course that was a few years ago, before he proposed to do the very thing that he has criticized. He now appears ready to undermine the most important rule, not by a two-thirds vote as clearly required by Senate Rule 22, but by a simple majority fiat. This contradicts long-standing practice and disregards the 67-vote threshold that President Lyndon Baines Johnson said "he preserves indisputably the character of the Senate." This is the same so-called nuclear option that Democrats previously decried as breaking the rules to change the rules. For example, the senior senator from New York previously opposed such a blatant power grab, saying - and again I'm quoting - the checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea bipartisan, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a simple majority is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand republic are at stake." That's pretty powerful and unequivocal words, but it doesn't stop there. The senior senator from Illinois called it "attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship." So that reflects a trifecta of the Democrat leadership saying it's a bad idea. Yet, they keep pushing it like it has somehow magically been transformed into a good idea. But it doesn't matter how long you polish the tin cup. It won't magically become the golden challis. You don't have to believe me. One of the Senate's great historians, Democrat Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was very clear on this issue. And he said "our founding fathers intended this Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights." And when faced with the idea of limiting these basic underpinnings of the United States Senate, he concluded "we must never ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excesses of the executive branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.""

Senator Udall-NM: (11:15 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "The senator from Nebraska has talked about the rules not being able to be changed because internally in the Senate rules, there is a provision that says you need a supermajority, two-thirds of the Senate to change the rules. So this is the proposition that we are hearing argued by many senators that we're changing the rules to break the rules. Breaking the rules to change the rules. We have heard that repeated several times over and over again on the Senate floor. Now, the other side of the argument, as the senator I think well knows since he worked up here and was around and saw Senator Byrd, is that the constitution is superior to the Senate rules, and the constitution specifically says that Article 1, Section 5, that each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, and statutory production applied to that means simple majority, determine the rules of its proceedings. This is a standard interpretation construction, and we know that supermajorities are only indicated at several places in the constitution, and every place else it's implied that it's by a majority. So here you have a supermajority in the Senate rules and you have the constitution saying at the beginning of a Congress you can change the rules by a majority vote. And so the question to the senator is doesn't he agree that the constitution is superior to the Senate rules?"

Senator Johanns: (11:17 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "The constitution would always trump, but that's a misinterpretation of what we're dealing with here. Let me play this out because I'm pretty confident I know how this is going to work if this is pursued. What will happen in January is that there will be a request for a ruling by the parliamentarian, and the parliamentarian will correctly rule that in order to change the rules, you need two-thirds of the United States Senate, and then they will use the procedure of overruling our parliamentarian with a majority vote, and that will stand as the ruling for the United States Senate. So very, very clearly, what you're doing is you're skirting both the constitution and the rules of the Senate. Now, let me, if I might, take the senator's question and just show the shocking result that we're going to end up with. Do you realize there was a day in this body where judges weren't filibustered? We can look at Supreme Court judges that might be controversial to one side or the other who were approved by a majority vote. So what happened? My friends on the other side of the aisle sat down, they brought in some constitutional scholar, and he said well, why aren't you filibustering judges? And now it is very routine and very common, and both sides will do it. So here is what's going to happen. Every time you have a majority that comes to power - and we all know the pendulum swings. In our lifetime, we will see Republicans return to the majority. That's just how elections go. And once this is cracked open, then they as the majority party can come in and change the rules and basically say it's open season. We'll get a ruling from the parliamentarian just like the Democrats did. We will overrule that ruling of the parliamentarian by a 51-vote majority or 50 if you have the vice president in the chair All laws passed by that majority are now subject to being repealed by majority vote. And if you can do it on the motion to proceed, there isn't any reason why you can't use this very flawed procedure to do it on every other piece and step along the way. And that's what Senator Byrd was warning us about. He was basically saying members of the Senate, once you crack this door open, there is no turning back, and there won't be any turning back."

Senator Sessions: (11:22 AM)
  • Spoke on food stamps.
    • SUMMARY "America is a generous and compassionate nation. We do not want and will not have people hungry in our country. We want to be able to be supportive to people in need, but every program must meet the basic standards of efficiency and productivity and wisdom in management, and this program is resisting that. It's the fastest growing major program in the United States government. In the year 2000, we spent $20 billion on food stamps nationwide per year. This year it's $80 billion. Last year it was $80 billion. It's gone up fourfold in ten years. That's a dramatic increase. It's increasing every year and virtually every month. The most recent report in September had one of the largest increases in history, another 600,000 added to the rolls, totaling now 47.7 million people, one out of every sick Americans receiving food stamps. And oddly when we attempted to confront our debt and our spending and we had huge reductions for the Defense Department and some other departments with big cuts, the food stamp program was set aside. President Obama and I guess the democratic leaders said we won't even talk about it. No money, no savings, no review of food stamps. It can't be changed. It should be left alone. Well, that's not a good plan. I as the ranking member on the Budget Committee have begun to look at the program to see how it is we have had such great increases. Now the agriculture establishment says that every single dollar that's spent is needed for hungry people. I offered an amendment that would have reduced spending over ten years from $800 billion total to $792 billion, reducing spending by $8 billion based on closing a loophole, a categorical eligibility gimmick that should not be there, allowing people to receive benefits that didn't qualify for them. And it was said oh, you want people to be hungry. He was voted down. I thought it was a very modest, reasonable change."

Senator Udall-NM: (11:37 AM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "There has been much discussion about the need to reform the Senate rules, and I've listened closely to the arguments against these changes by the other side, and today I rise to address some of their concerns. My Republican colleagues have made impassioned statements in opposition to amending our rules at the beginning of the next Congress. They say that the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority. They say that any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is breaking the rules to change the rules. This simply is not true. And repeating it every day on the Senate floor doesn't make it true. The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. constitution. The constitution is very specific about when a supermajority is required. And just as clearly, when it isn't required. Article 1, Section 5, of the constitution states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. When the framers required a supermajority, they explicitly said so. For example, for expelling a member. On all other matters such as determining the chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied. There have been three rulings by vice presidents sitting as president of the Senate, sitting up where you are sitting, three vice presidents is a have sat there and the meaning of Article 1, Section 5 as it applies to the Senate and this is what they were interpreting, in 1957 Vice President Nixon ruled definitively - and I quote from his ruling - "while the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules stemming as it does from the constitution itself cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is in the opinion of the chair unconstitutional. That was Vice President Nixon. Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses."

Nelson-FL, Johnson-SD (The Senate Stands in Recess)

Transaction Account Guarantee bill (S. 3637)

Dec 11 2012 12:22 PM

Senator Nelson-FL: (11:52 AM)
  • Spoke on Jon Hammer and Ian McDonough.
    • SUMMARY "A United States Marine who served honorably, he fought in Fallujah and he was honorably discharged in 2007. And he and another marine, both having suffered under post-traumatic stress syndrome, were taking the avenue of the fact that they were surfers to lessen the stress. And they had surfed up and down the east coast. This is a marine whose family lives in Miami. They've gone to Cocoa beach. They were going to others. And they wanted to go to Costa Rica to get the big waves in the pacific. And bought a camper and entered Mexico at Matamoras. Now, as he crossed the border, he checked with United States Customs because he had a shotgun that was an antique that had been owned by his great-grandfather. And he registered with U.S. customs the weapon so that when he returned, customs would have a record of it. But when he went from the side of the U.S. line to the Mexico line and openly showed his great-grandfather's antique shotgun, the Mexican authorities arrested him. His companion, another marine, after interrogation they released and they put Corporal Johnny Hammer, who is now age 27, in the general prison population in Matamoros, Mexico. This case came to my attention last August and I immediately responded. And as a result of me contacting the Mexican government, they moved him from the general population of the jail into an individual jail cell. As they have gone in to interrogate him, they manacle him, shackle him. At one point they had him chained to the bed. Now, this has gone on long enough. And so, naturally, I decided since finding out that he's still in jail in Mexico - I mean, the Mexican authorities, if it is against the law to take a gun in, even though he was openly - he had already declared it at U.S. customs, the Mexican authorities could have when they released his fellow marine to go back into the United States, they could have sent him back into the United States and told him, don't bring your great-grandfather's shotgun into Mexico. If that's against Mexican law. But they didn't. They have put a United States Marine who has honorably served his country and he has been in a Mexican jail since last August. Now, enough is enough. So I called my friend, Arturo, the great and well-respected Mexican ambassador, yesterday and I can't get a return call from the Mexican ambassador. So, I'm bringing this to the attention of the Senate so that we can further get through to the Mexican government, you have made a bureaucratic mistake. Obviously if it's against Mexican law to take a weapon in, then under these circumstances this young United States Marine does not deserve the treatment that you're giving him being in a Mexican jail at the border of the United States for the past five months. And I hope cooler heads will prevail."

Senator Johnson-SD: (12:14 PM)
  • Spoke on the Transaction Account Guarantee bill.
    • SUMMARY "The TAG program, which is administered by the FDIC for insured depository institution and the NCUA for credit unions provides unlimited insurance for noninterest-bearing accounts at banks and credit unions. These transaction accounts are used by businesses, local governments, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations for payroll and other recurrent expenses. And this program provides certainty to businesses in uncertain times. These accounts are also important to our nation's smallest financial institutions. In fact, 90% of community banks with assets under $10 billion have tag deposits. This program allows these institutions to serve the banking needs of the small businesses in their communities, keeping deposits local . I believe a clean two-year extension makes the most sense. It provides the most certainty for business and financial institutions. It also provides time to prepare for the end of the program in two years. I want to note that this legislation has a cost recovery provision that ensures that no taxpayer is on the hook for this insurance, financial institutions pay for the coverage. This is not and never will be a bailout. This is simply additional insurance paid for by the banks to ensure that these accounts remain stable."
The Senate stands in recess until 2:15 PM for the weekly caucus lunches.

Vote Results (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed)

Transaction Account Guarantee bill (S. 3637)

Dec 11 2012 2:46 PM

Agreed to, 76-20:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3637, the Transaction Account Guarantee bill.
The vote results will be posted here within one hour.

Reid (UC), Hatch

Transaction Account Guarantee bill (S. 3637)

Dec 11 2012 3:13 PM

Senator Reid: (2:26 PM)
  • Cloture has been filed on S. 3637, the Transaction Account Guarantee bill. The amendment tree has been filled.
  • Unanimous Consent --
    • At 4:00 PM, the Senate will begin consideration of Executive Calendar #762, John E. Dowdell, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; and Executive Calendar #829, Jesus G. Bernal, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, for 30 minutes of debate, equally divided.
    • At 4:30 PM, the Senate will conduct up to 2 ROLL CALL VOTES on:
      1. Executive Calendar #762, John E. Dowdell, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; and
      2. Executive Calendar #829, Jesus G. Bernal, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California (the nomination is expected to be confirmed by voice vote).

Senator Hatch: (2:49 PM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "There is no debate crisis here on the Senate floor, none whatsoever. In fact, it is easier to end debate today than during most of American history. For more than a century since we had no cloture rule at all, ending debate required unanimous consent. A single senator could filibuster merely by objecting. From 1917-1975, ending debate required a supermajority of two-thirds, higher than the 3/5 required today. As I said a minute ago, extended debate has always annoyed the majority. Today is no different. Yet we hear the majority claiming that there have been hundreds of filibusters, that the rules are being abused, that obstruction is at an all-time high. Well, the American people likely do not know the particulars of our debate rules and practices, but senators making such claims certainly should. The majority pumps up the filibuster numbers by claiming that every cloture motion is evidence of a filibuster. They know that is not true. The Congressional Research Service says that "the Senate leadership had increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. In many instances, cloture motions may be filed, not to overcome filibusters in progress but to preempt ones that are only anticipated." That is what is going on today. The Majority Leader often files a cloture motion as soon as a motion or a bill becomes pending. He does that to prevent debate from starting, not to end debate that is under way. In the last three Congresses under this majority, a much higher percentage of cloture motions get withdrawn without any cloture vote at all than under the last three Congresses under a Republican majority. The last three Congresses. The Majority Leader appears to think that debate itself is simply dilatory. While extended debate has long been annoying to the majority, whichever party is in the majority, this Majority Leader apparently believes that any debate is annoying. Neither filing a cloture motion nor taking a cloture vote is evidence of a filibuster. A filibuster occurs when an attempt to end debate such as a cloture vote fails. That is why some on the other side of the aisle want to address what they claim is a filibuster problem by changing the cloture rule. Let's use some common sense and stop misleading our fellow citizens about how this body operates. A filibuster is a debate that cannot be stopped, and guess what? During this 112th Congress, a much smaller percentage of cloture votes have failed than in the past. That's right. Cloture votes today are more successful in preventing filibusters than in the past."

Boxer, Alexander, Sanders

Transaction Account Guarantee bill (S. 3637)

Dec 11 2012 4:07 PM

Senator Boxer: (2:13 PM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "I was here in the minority, and I was able to exercise the filibuster, and if was able to stop a lot of legislation that came over from Newt Gingrich's House and if believe in the filibuster completely and I think it's important to protect minority rights. But I do think there's 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 and I came to understand that I didn't really at the end of the day wind up believing that was wise. So I'm 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. And we've seen that abused and abused and overused. And these are the kinds of things I think we should get together as colleagues, as friends across the parties that divide us and not engage in filibusters on a motion to proceed to a bill. There's plenty of time to filibuster the bill itself. There's plenty of time to argue. But it seems to me whoever is the Majority Leader, be that a Democrat or a Republican, they should have the right to take us to a bill. I think that's 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 you have to have before you go to conference?... Three motions? That can be filibustered before you go to a conference? That is not doing the people's business. And imagine, if a bill gets all the way to that conference phase, remember, it's gone through the committees of the House and Senate, it's gone through the votes of the House and Senate, it's gone to the Conference Committee to a vote of the Conference Committee. And why on earth should we allow three motions to filibuster - filibuster three motions? So I think there are ways we can work together."
  • Spoke on the Bernal nomination.
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "Here's 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 that they continue for 98% of the people? I don't get it. I did not vote for the Bush tax cuts then. I'm going to vote for them now, for the 98%, because we're coming out of a tough time. I didn't vote for them. Do you know why? I said that we would go into huge deficits. And I don't want to say that I was right. But we did go into a huge period of deficits. It was that. It was two wars on a credit card. 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's the holiday season - and we know the Senate passed the middle class tax cuts in July and we know there's 21 days left before taxes go up on 98% of the people. Rhetorically, I ask the Speaker, why don't you just pass this now? Today I read, he says, well, I don't want to do this until I see what programs Barack Obama's going to cut. That's his latest thing. To which I respond, here's the deal. In the debt ceiling fight, we cut a trillion dollars of spending. It's shown in those caps that we voted on. Very tough, a trillion dollars spending cuts over ten years. That equals what we'll get from the tax hikes on those over $250,000. Plus, we found savings in Medicare of $700 billion, cuts, which, by the way, the Republicans an ads against our people saying that the Democrats cut Medicare."

Senator Alexander: (3:31 PM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "It's been historically the responsibility of the majority to decide what comes to the floor. And historically the minority, whomever that happens to be, has the opportunity to have amendments. A couple of things have happened. The minority has blocked bills coming to the floor. That didn't happen. It happened 25 years ago. Something else happened over the last 25 years. A procedure called filling the tree was invented by a Republican majority leader. Senator Bob Dole was the first one to use the first so-called filling the tree. Used it seven times. Senator Byrd, who never used it, that gag rule to stop the minority from offering amendments, I guess, was disappointed he hadn't thought of it so he found a way to use it three times as he was the majority leader. Senator Mitchell used it three times, Senator Lott 11, Senator Daschle only once this gag rule, Senator Frist 15. All of those leaders used it 40 times. Our Majority Leader, Senator Reid has used it 68. So we can all come up with statistics on both sides, but shouldn't we just resolve that what we would like to do, show the country that we're grown-up, responsible adults and we can sit down and say, yes, we can agree on ways to make sure that most bills come to the floor and senators get to offer most of the amendments that they want to offer on the bill? I think we can do that. I think there's a spirit on both sides of the aisle to do that, and I'm working toward that goal, and I know a number of Democrats and Republicans are doing that. And I appreciate the spirit of the senator's remarks on the rules."
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "It was said the other day, in the history of the United States, every great crisis has been solved by presidential leadership or not at all. Every great crisis has been solved by presidential leadership or not at all. A number of us have made our suggestions about what to do about the fact that our debt is too big. We're spending money we don't have, and one way or the other we have to fix it. It's that simple. We shouldn't be borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. We have to fix it. A number of us on the Republican side have said, we'll hold our nose and do some things we normally wouldn't do. If the president will come forward with a president on restraining entitlement spending, we'll help raise revenues and put together and that makes a budget agreement that the new Foreign Minister of Australia has said, the United States of America is one budget agreement from reasserting its global preeminence."
  • Spoke on right-to-work legislation.
    • SUMMARY "I believe in states' rights. I believe states have the right to be wrong as well as the right to be right. And with all these Midwestern states having the right to be wrong and not having right-to-work laws, we benefited enormously in our state by the arrival of the auto industries and other manufacturers. But for our country as we exist over the next 20 or 30 years in a very competitive world where jobs can be anywhere, where things can be manufactured anywhere, we want at least those things that are going to be sold here to be made here. And having a right to work law which permits the UAW and General Motors to have a partnership at one plant in Tennessee and Nissan and Volkswagen to have a nonunion plant at another place in Tennessee by vote of the employees, I would submit will make us a stronger competitive country. It has everything to do with economics. And I wish that the president yesterday had spent his time on the fiscal cliff instead of going to Michigan and arguing in favor of denying workers their right not to pay union dues in order to get their right to not pay union dues in order to get a job and efforts to keep our American automobile industry from being as competitive as it needs to be in order to compete in the world marketplace."

Senator Sanders: (3:49 PM)
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "Just think about some woman who is 66 years of age, not feeling well. She goes in to the doctor's office. She is diagnosed with a serious health care problem. There is no Medicare there for her. What does she do? She goes over to a private insurance company. What do you think the private insurance company is going to charge this person who is already ill? Outrageous rates that she can't afford. And what happens to that senior, that person who is 65 or 66? Do they die? Do they go bankrupt? Do they go to their kids who don't have the money to help them stay alive? It is a disastrous idea. Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would leave at least 435,000 seniors uninsured every year. Imagine being 66 and not having health insurance. Easy for folks around here to laugh in the congress. Easy for wealthy people to laugh about it. It ain't so funny if you're living on $15,000, $20,000 a year and you have no health insurance. It would increase costs to businesses by $4.5 billion. It would of course increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors. And the estimate is by about $3.7 billion. For the individual senior, the estimate is that for two-thirds of seniors age 65 to 66, they would pay an average of $2,200 a year more for health care. So you're trying to live on $20,000, $25,000 a year, $30,000 a year, suddenly you're hit. On average. It could more, could be less. $25,000 a year. And on and on it goes. It would increase premiums by about 3% for those enrolled in the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act because many 65 and 66-year olds would be enrolled in the exchanges instead of Medicare. It would save the federal government $5.7 billion in 2014 but it would cost seniors, businesses and states and local governments $11.4 billion. Double that. Double what the federal government would save. So, I would hope that all of those folks who before the election, Republicans and Democrats, running around the country and in their own states, we're for the middle class. We're going to protect Medicare. I hope they go back and read their pre-election speeches and stick to what they said before the election. That's one of the issues that are out there in terms of the so-called fiscal cliff or deficit reduction."

Leahy, Inhofe

Executive Session (Dowdell and Bernal nominations)

Dec 11 2012 4:33 PM

Senator Leahy: (4:06 PM)
  • Spoke on the Farm bill.
    • SUMMARY "For months, House leaders have blocked a vote on a bipartisan Farm bill. We passed one in this body. Across the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats alike, a bill that saved tens of billions of dollars, but they won't allow it to come to a vote. The Republican leadership won't in the House of Representatives. Now, a lot is at stake from rural communities to farmers who need the certainty that a Farm bill extension would mean ... We passed a bipartisan bill that renews the plan for basic agriculture, nutrition and conservation programs but also saves taxpayers $23 billion. Now, what I have been told privately, if the House leaders would permit a vote, this bill would pass in the House. Just as Republicans and Democrats came together in this body, they would in the other body Now it's being held hostage by House Republicans who are demanding draconian cuts in the food assistance program just as we are coming out of the worst recession in generations."

Senator Inhofe: (4:16 PM)
  • Spoke on the Dowdell nomination.