S5352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

believe that to give a tax break to the 

first $250,000 of everybody’s income is 

fair because then the people above that 

can pay a little more, the same rates 

they paid when Bill Clinton was President. We need to go back to those days 

when we created 23 million jobs and 

when we not only balanced the budget 

but we created surpluses as far as the 

eye could see. 

The question is, who are you fighting 

for? Are you fighting for the people 

who make a billion dollars a year? 

That is who the Republicans fight for. 

They get so emotional about it. Or are 

you fighting for the middle class, the 

heart and soul of America—the people 

who live in my towns, the people who 

live in towns across this Nation, the 

people who get up every day and put 

one foot in front of the other and work 

hard, the people who are trying to raise 

their families, the people who want us 

to be fiscally responsible, not have a 

tax cut that causes huge deficits? We 

have been there. Trickledown doesn’t 

work; giving to the top doesn’t work. It 

has brought us the worst recession 

since the Great Depression. 

Vote for the Democrats’ plan and 

against the Republican plan, and do 

what our President said, which is get 

this country moving forward again. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. KLOBUCHAR). The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

the vote we are about to take on the 

Democratic plan to raise taxes is interesting for a few reasons. First, it is a 

revenue measure that didn’t originate 

in the House, so it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law. 

Second, it is the perfect example of 

what you get when you put politics 

over the people who sent you here. If 

the Democrats truly believed what the 

President has been saying out on the 

stump, they would vote on his plan. 

But as the vote tally will show, they 

can barely muster 50 votes on their 

own plan, let alone his. So for the entire President’s talk about supporting 

a balanced approach to taxes, he evidently can’t even get 50 votes for his 

plan in a Democratic-controlled Senate 

when we all know he would need 60 

votes to get it to his desk. 

Instead of voting on the President’s 

plan, our Democratic friends have cobbled together the only thing they could 

come up with that would muster more 

than 50 votes—a purely political exercise, and a total waste of time. 

But to be honest, I can’t imagine why 

they would want to vote for either one, 

since both proposals raise taxes on 

about a million business owners, and 

both raise taxes on investment, at a 

time when the economy is in paralysis. 

Here is the Democratic plan for the 

economy: We will get this thing going 

again—by raising taxes. Let’s take 

more money out of small business and 

send it to Washington; that is how we 

will create jobs, they say. Let us create 

jobs instead of the small business owners out in America. After all, they 

don’t create jobs anyway; of course, 

Washington creates jobs. 

If you are looking for the legislative 

equivalent of the President’s now famous view that ‘‘you didn’t build 

that,’’ this is it. 

They don’t think you deserve to keep 

what you have earned because you are 

not responsible for earning it. They 

don’t think you are entitled to keep 

what you have earned because, after 

all, you weren’t even responsible for 

earning it; they are. 

That is the message Democrats are 

sending with today’s votes, that you 

are not responsible for your success; 

Washington is. So give us your money, 

and we will handle it for you. That is 

their tax plan. That is their plan for 

the economy and for jobs. 

Fortunately for the American people, 

there is another approach. Next week, 

House Republicans will pass a bill that 

drew broad bipartisan support in this 

body 19 months ago, and it would draw 

broad bipartisan support today if 

Democrats were more concerned about 

what is best for creating jobs than they 

were in centralizing power right here 

in Washington and pleasing their liberal base. 

The Republican proposal is to do no 

harm and to commit to the kind of serious tax reform we all know we need. 

That is the vote Senate Republicans 

are proud to take today and House Republicans will take next week. It is the 

plan Senate Democrats—and the President—would support if they were serious about jobs. 

The Democratic plan is to raise taxes 

on nearly a million business owners 

and, in a notable departure from the 

President, threaten tens of thousands 

of family farms and ranches with a 

death tax of 55 percent at the end of 

the year. That is their plan. That is 

their idea of economic stimulus. That 

is the bill they would rather vote on 

than the President’s proposal. And it is 

absolutely the last thing we need right 

now. 

The good news is that this new, convoluted Democratic bill will never 

make it to the President’s desk. It will 

never make it. The bad news is they 

will also vote down the one tax plan 

that should make it to his desk. 

We can do better than this. It is time 

for the Democrats to work with us on 

rewarding success and not punishing it. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the cloture motion 

is withdrawn and the motion to proceed to S. 3412 is agreed to. 

f 

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will state the bill by title. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3412) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief to 

middle-class families. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2573

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I call 

up amendment No. 2573 and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

himself and Mr. MCCONNELL, proposes an 

amendment numbered 2573. 

The amendment is as follows: 

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute) 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Hike 

Prevention Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX RELIEF. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2001 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this section shall take effect as if 

included in the enactment of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001. 

SEC. 3. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX RELIEF. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this section shall take effect as if 

included in the enactment of the Jobs and 

Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003. 

SEC. 4. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF. 

(a) TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION

AMOUNT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

55(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘$72,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (A) and 

inserting ‘‘$78,750 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012 and $79,850 in the case of 

taxable years beginning in 2013’’, and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$47,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (B) and 

inserting ‘‘$50,600 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012 and $51,150 in the case of 

taxable years beginning in 2013’’. 

(b) TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE

MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE

PERSONAL CREDITS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

26(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or 2011’’ and inserting 

‘‘2011, 2012, or 2013’’, and 

(B) by striking ‘‘2011’’ in the heading thereof and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING 

LIMITATIONS AND TREATMENT OF 

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS SECTION 179 PROPERTY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Section 179(b)(1) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘2010 or 2011,’’ in subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘2010, 2011, 2012, or 

2013, and’’, 

(B) by striking subparagraph (C), 

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (C), and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5353 

(D) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(2) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Section 

179(b)(2) of such Code is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘2010 or 2011,’’ in subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘2010, 2011, 2012, or 

2013, and’’, 

(B) by striking subparagraph (C), 

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (C), and 

(D) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection 

(b) of section 179 of such Code is amended by 

striking paragraph (6). 

(b) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Section 

179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(c) ELECTION.—Section 179(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 

striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(d) SPECIAL RULES FOR TREATMENT OF

QUALIFIED REAL PROPERTY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 179(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 

striking ‘‘2010 or 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2010, 

2011, 2012, or 2013’’. 

(2) CARRYOVER LIMITATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 179(f)(4) of such 

Code is amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ each 

place it appears and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading 

for subparagraph (C) of section 179(f)(4) of 

such Code is amended by striking ‘‘2010’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2010, 2011 AND 2012’’. 

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

SEC. 6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TAX REFORM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Senate Committee 

on Finance shall report legislation not later 

than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act that consists of changes in 

laws within its jurisdiction which meet the 

requirements of subsection (b). 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Legislation meets the 

requirements of this subsection if the legislation— 

(1) simplifies the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 by reducing the number of tax preferences and reducing individual tax rates 

proportionally, with the highest individual 

tax rate significantly below 35 percent; 

(2) permanently repeals the alternative 

minimum tax; 

(3) is projected, when compared to the current tax policy baseline, to be revenue neutral or result in revenue losses; 

(4) has a dynamic effect which is projected 

to stimulate economic growth and lead to increased revenue; 

(5) applies any increased revenue from 

stimulated economic growth to additional 

rate reductions and does not permit any such 

increased revenue to be used for additional 

Federal spending; 

(6) retains a progressive tax code; and 

(7) provides for revenue-neutral reform of 

the taxation of corporations and businesses 

by— 

(A) providing a top tax rate on corporations of no more than 25 percent; and 

(B) implementing a competitive territorial 

tax system. 

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask 

for the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Illinois (Mr. KIRK). 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 45, 

nays 54, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.] 

YEAS—45 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Barrasso 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Burr 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Enzi 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hatch 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kyl 

Lee 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moran 

Murkowski 

Paul 

Portman 

Pryor 

Risch 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Thune 

Toomey 

Vitter 

Wicker 

NAYS—54 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Collins 

Conrad 

Coons 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Inouye 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Manchin 

McCaskill 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wyden 

NOT VOTING—1 

Kirk 

The amendment (No. 2573) was rejected. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority 

leader. 

Mr. REID. 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 middleclass 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. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, 

first let me welcome the Vice President here today, our good friend who 

served for so many years in the Senate. 

It reminds me of the negotiation he 

and I conducted in December of 2010. I 

got a call from the Vice President one 

day, and he said: The President 

thought we ought to talk about the 

possibility of extending the current tax 

rates for everyone because the economy is not doing very well, and the 

worst thing we could do would be to 

raise taxes on anyone in the middle of 

this economic situation. 

I said: Mr. Vice President, I think 

that is something we would be interested in. 

So the Vice President and I negotiated for a period of time and agreed 

that because the economy was not 

doing well in December 2010, we ought 

to extend the current tax rates for everyone. 

I can remember the signing ceremony. I was there. The majority leader 

was not. The Speaker of the House was 

not. The President made a speech in 

signing an extension of the current tax 

rates for everyone that I could have 

made myself. Forty Members of the 

Senate on the Democratic side voted 

for it. 

Today, my colleagues, the economy 

is growing slower than it was in December of 2010. So we know this is not 

about the economy; we know this is 

about the election. We all know there 

is an election going on. There is politics from time to time practiced here 

in the Senate. I am not offended by 

that. But I think what the American 

people would like to hear from us is a 

response to the economic situation. 

This proposal guarantees that taxes 

will go up on roughly 1 million of our 

most successful small businesses. Over 

50 percent of small business income—25 

percent of the workforce—will be affected by it. It guarantees that taxes 

will go up on capital gains, on dividends, which provide the income for a 

huge number of our senior citizens. 

This is a uniquely bad idea. It may poll 

well, as my friend the majority leader 

indicated, but, of course, the fact that 

he needed to mention that illustrates 

the point that this is more about the 

election than it is about the economy. 

So I would predict there will probably be bipartisan opposition to this 

proposal. I am sure a few arms have 

been twisted in order to get the result. 

The Vice President is at a disadvantage: he can’t speak, being an occupant 

of the chair. But in this particular instance, he is actually better not to because he would have the dilemma of 

trying to explain the difference between the economic situation the country confronts today and the condition 

the country confronted in December of 

2010 when the economy was doing better. So be grateful, I say to my friend 

the Vice President. This is a debate I 

don’t think you would want to lead. 

With that, my colleagues and friends, 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this very, very 

bad idea for the U.S. economy. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority 

leader. 

Mr. REID. 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. 

Mr. REID. Remember, I always get 

the last word. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me briefly add 

that I listened carefully to what my 

friend the majority leader said. He 

once again was making it clear this is 

about the campaign. It is about the 

campaign and not about the economy. 

But if you listen carefully to the 

rhetoric, what he is saying here is that 

these million businesses didn’t create 

this success; that we somehow need to 

take this money because we will spend 

it better on their behalf. 

Now, I know my colleague is going to 

get the last word, and that is fine. I am 

happy for him to have it. But the fact 

is this: The economy is in worse shape 

today than it was in December of 2010— 

worse shape today. The growth rate is 

slower. The President signed this bill, 

advocated its passage back then because the economy didn’t need to get 

hit with a big tax increase. The growth 

rate is slower today. The economic situation remains largely the same. The 

worst we could do in the middle of this 

economic condition is to pass this tax 

increase. 

Now my friend the majority leader 

can have the last word, and then we 

will be happy to go to a vote. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority 

leader. 

Mr. REID. 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 BowlesSimpson, 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. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

heard my good friend the majority 

leader say this is about the deficit. 

This will produce enough revenue to 

operate the government for about 1 

week. This would produce about 

enough revenue to operate the government for about 1 week. 

This is not about the deficit or the 

debt, this is about the campaign. We 

all know there is a campaign going on, 

but why don’t we do serious legislating 

here? No budget, no appropriation bills, 

no DOD authorization bill. When are 

we going to actually pass things in the 

Senate? 

This is a uniquely bad idea for the 

economy. The good news that I can say 

to the American people is that it isn’t 

going to happen today. It ought not to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5355 

happen anytime. This is part of the fiscal cliff we are facing at the end of the 

year. The Chairman of the Fed is concerned about it, the Congressional 

Budget Office, which Republicans certainly don’t run, is concerned about it. 

We have heard talk on the other side 

that we should have Thelma and Louise economics and just drive the country right off the cliff. We all get in the 

car and go right off the cliff together 

and see what it is like. 

The American people know a campaign is going on, but why don’t we in 

here try to do something important for 

the country now. The campaign will 

take care of itself. This is not a serious 

piece of legislation because it is not 

going anywhere, and thank goodness it 

is not going anywhere because it would 

be bad for the economy and the single 

worst thing we could do to the country. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority 

leader. 

Mr. REID. 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? Eightyfive 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. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 

is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

for a third reading and was read the 

third time. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 

is on the passage of S. 3412. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Illinois (Mr. KIRK). 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 51, 

nays 48, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.] 

YEAS—51 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Boxer 

Brown (OH) 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Conrad 

Coons 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Inouye 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Manchin 

McCaskill 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Whitehouse 

Wyden 

NAYS—48 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Barrasso 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Brown (MA) 

Burr 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Enzi 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hatch 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kyl 

Lee 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moran 

Murkowski 

Paul 

Portman 

Risch 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Thune 

Toomey 

Vitter 

Webb 

Wicker 

NOT VOTING—1 

Kirk 

The bill (S. 3412) was passed, as follows: 

S. 3412 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Middle Class Tax Cut Act’’. 

(b) AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.—Except as 

otherwise expressly provided, whenever in 

this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 

section or other provision of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986. 

(c) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; etc. 

TITLE I—TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 

TAX RELIEF 

Sec. 101. Temporary extension of 2001 tax relief. 

Sec. 102. Temporary extension of 2003 tax relief. 

Sec. 103. Temporary extension of 2010 tax relief. 

Sec. 104. Temporary extension of election to 

expense certain depreciable 

business assets. 

TITLE II—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 

RELIEF 

Sec. 201. Temporary extension of increased 

alternative minimum tax exemption amount. 

Sec. 202. Temporary extension of alternative 

minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits. 

TITLE III—BUDGETARY EFFECTS 

Sec. 301. Budgetary effects. 

TITLE I—TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX 

RELIEF 

SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) TEMPORARY EXTENSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 901(a)(1) of the 

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this subsection shall take effect as 

if included in the enactment of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001. 

(b) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN HIGH-INCOME

TAXPAYERS.— 

(1) INCOME TAX RATES.— 

(A) TREATMENT OF 25- AND 28-PERCENT RATE

BRACKETS.—Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) 25- AND 28-PERCENT RATE BRACKETS.— 

The tables under subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (e) shall be applied— 

‘‘(A) by substituting ‘25%’ for ‘28%’ each 

place it appears (before the application of 

subparagraph (B)), and 

‘‘(B) by substituting ‘28%’ for ‘31%’ each 

place it appears.’’. 

(B) 33-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.—Subsection 

(i) of section 1 is amended by redesignating 

paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(3) 33-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012— 

‘‘(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), 

(b), (c), and (d) on a taxpayer’s taxable income in the fourth rate bracket shall be 33 

percent to the extent such income does not 

exceed an amount equal to the excess of— 

‘‘(I) the applicable amount, over 

‘‘(II) the dollar amount at which such 

bracket begins, and 

‘‘(ii) the 36 percent rate of tax under such 

subsections shall apply only to the taxpayer’s taxable income in such bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies. 

‘‘(B) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of 

this paragraph, the term ‘applicable amount’ 

means the excess of— 

‘‘(i) the applicable threshold, over 

‘‘(ii) the sum of the following amounts in 

effect for the taxable year: 

‘‘(I) the basic standard deduction (within 

the meaning of section 63(c)(2)), and 

‘‘(II) the exemption amount (within the 

meaning of section 151(d)(1) (or, in the case 

of subsection (a), 2 such exemption 

amounts). 

‘‘(C) APPLICABLE THRESHOLD.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘applicable 

threshold’ means— 

‘‘(i) $250,000 in the case of subsection (a), 

‘‘(ii) $225,000 in the case of subsection (b), 

‘‘(iii) $200,000 in the case of subsections (c), 

and 

‘‘(iv) 1⁄2 the amount applicable under clause 

(i) (after adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of subsection (d). 

‘‘(D) FOURTH RATE BRACKET.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘fourth rate 

bracket’ means the bracket which would (determined without regard to this paragraph) 

be the 36-percent rate bracket. 

‘‘(E) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, with respect to taxable 

years beginning in calendar years after 2012, 

each of the dollar amounts under clauses (i), 

(ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (C) shall be adjusted in the same manner as under paragraph (1)(C), except that subsection (f)(3)(B) 

shall be applied by substituting ‘2008’ for 

‘1992’.’’. 

(2) PHASEOUT OF PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS AND

ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.— 

(A) OVERALL LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.—Section 68 is amended— 

(i) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ the 

first place it appears in subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘the applicable threshold in effect 

under section 1(i)(3)’’, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ in 

subsection (a)(1) and inserting ‘‘such applicable threshold’’, 

(iii) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively, and 

(iv) by striking subsections (f) and (g). 

(B) PHASEOUT OF DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL

EXEMPTIONS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

151(d) is amended— 

(I) by striking ‘‘the threshold amount’’ in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting ‘‘the 

applicable threshold in effect under section 

1(i)(3)’’, 

(II) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 

(C), and 

(III) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F). 

(ii) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Paragraph 

(4) of section 151(d) is amended— 

(I) by striking subparagraph (B), 

(II) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of 

subparagraph (A) as subparagraphs (A) and 

(B), respectively, and by indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) accordingly, 

and 

(III) by striking all that precedes ‘‘in a calendar year after 1989,’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

any taxable year beginning’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as otherwise 

provided, the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning 

after December 31, 2012. 

(d) APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET.— 

Each amendment made by subsection (b) 

shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as if such amendment was included in 

title I of such Act. 

SEC. 102. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) EXTENSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this subsection shall take effect as 

if included in the enactment of the Jobs and 

Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003. 

(b) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR

CERTAIN HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

1(h) is amended by striking subparagraph 

(C), by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and 

(E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F) and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following 

new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(C) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) as exceeds 

the amount on which a tax is determined 

under subparagraph (B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess (if any) of— 

‘‘(I) the amount of taxable income which 

would (without regard to this paragraph) be 

taxed at a rate below 36 percent, over 

‘‘(II) the sum of the amounts on which a 

tax is determined under subparagraphs (A) 

and (B), 

‘‘(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),’’. 

(2) MINIMUM TAX.—Paragraph (3) of section 

55(b) is amended by striking subparagraph 

(C), by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E), and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(C) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) as exceeds 

the amount on which tax is determined 

under subparagraph (B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess described in section 

1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus 

‘‘(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C), 

plus’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) The following provisions are each 

amended by striking ‘‘15 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’: 

(A) Section 531. 

(B) Section 541. 

(C) Section 1445(e)(1). 

(D) The second sentence of section 

7518(g)(6)(A). 

(E) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United 

States Code. 

(2) Sections 1(h)(1)(B) and 55(b)(3)(B) are 

each amended by striking ‘‘5 percent (0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning 

after 2007)’’ and inserting ‘‘0 percent’’. 

(3) Section 1445(e)(6) is amended by striking ‘‘15 percent (20 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 

2010)’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by subsections 

(b) and (c) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

(2) WITHHOLDING.—The amendments made 

by paragraphs (1)(C) and (3) of subsection (c) 

shall apply to amounts paid on or after January 1, 2013. 

(e) APPLICATION OF JGTRRA SUNSET.— 

Each amendment made by subsections (b) 

and (c) shall be subject to section 303 of the 

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2003 to the same extent and in the 

same manner as if such amendment was included in title III of such Act. 

SEC. 103. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2010 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 25A(i) is amended 

by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2012, or 

2013’’. 

(2) TREATMENT OF POSSESSIONS.—Section 

1004(c)(1) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is 

amended by striking ‘‘and 2012’’ each place it 

appears and inserting ‘‘2012, and 2013’’. 

(b) CHILD TAX CREDIT.—Section 24(d)(4) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘AND 2012’’ in the heading 

and inserting ‘‘2012, AND 2013’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting 

‘‘2012, or 2013’’. 

(c) EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.—Section 

32(b)(3) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘AND 2012’’ in the heading 

and inserting ‘‘2012, AND 2013’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting 

‘‘2012, or 2013’’. 

(d) TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF RULE DISREGARDING REFUNDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION

OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS.—Subsection (b) of section 

6409 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(e) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

paragraph (2), the amendments made by this 

section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

(2) RULE DISREGARDING REFUNDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.—The 

amendment made by subsection (d) shall 

apply to amounts received after December 

31, 2012. 

SEC. 104. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ELECTION 

TO EXPENSE CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Section 179(b)(1) is 

amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E), 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $250,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(2) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Section 

179(b)(2) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E), 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $800,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(b) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Section 

179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(c) ELECTION.—Section 179(c)(2) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

TITLE II—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 

RELIEF 

SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 

TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

55(d) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$72,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (A) and 

inserting ‘‘$78,750 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$47,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (B) and 

inserting ‘‘$50,600 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

SEC. 202. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 

NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

26(a) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘or 2011’’ and inserting 

‘‘2011, or 2012’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2011’’ in the heading thereof 

and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

TITLE III—BUDGETARY EFFECTS 

SEC. 301. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

(a) PAYGO SCORECARD.—The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant 

to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Act of 2010. 

(b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARD.—The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered 

on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for 

purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 

(110th Congress). 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I 

rise today in support of the Middle 

Class Tax Relief Act. This afternoon, I 

voted for legislation that would have 

extended the middle-class tax cuts 

through 2013. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5357 

In Minnesota, 2 million families and 

small businesses will see their Federal 

income taxes increase by an average of 

$1,600 unless the middle-class tax cuts 

are extended. Instead of waiting until 

the eleventh hour, this legislation 

would have provided certainty for families and small businesses that their already squeezed budgets won’t have to 

be trimmed further in the coming year. 

I would like to make clear that extending the middle-class tax cuts is 

just the first step. There is a growing 

majority here that favors comprehensive tax reform that would simplify the 

Tax Code, broaden the base, and lower 

tax rates. Passing the middle-class tax 

cuts today would give us time to reach 

consensus on the details of reform that 

would streamline our Tax Code, pay 

down our debt, and ensure the United 

States remains competitive. 

We also must take action on the estate tax. If Congress does nothing, the 

exemption would drop to $1 million and 

the rate would rise to 55 percent. This 

is not an acceptable outcome and 

would hurt farmers and small businesses in Minnesota who have worked 

hard to build a legacy they can pass on 

to their children and grandchildren. In 

the past we have come together to pass 

compromise levels that don’t harm 

farmers and small business owners, 

while still being mindful of our deficit. 

I will work to ensure it happens again. 

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to 

talk briefly about the estate tax and 

Colorado’s agricultural community and 

small businesses. While I voted in favor 

of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, I do 

not believe that this legislation represents an end to the tax reform debate 

in Washington. In particular, it is important that we find a bipartisan and 

responsible path forward on the estate 

tax that provides the necessary certainty for businesses and families 

across Colorado. This is vital for Colorado’s economy. I am committed to 

working with my colleagues in Congress to establish an estate tax policy 

that works for small businesses, family 

farms and ranches, and all Coloradans. 

f 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to 

Calendar No. 470, S. 3414. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 

3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

cloture motion which has been filed at 

the desk and I ask that it be reported. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The cloture 

motion having been presented under 

rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk 

to read the motion. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to 

enhance the security and resiliency of the 

cyber and communications infrastructure of 

the United States. 

Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, John 

D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman, 

Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Charles E. 

Schumer, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. 

Coons, Tom Udall, Carl Levin, Mark R. 

Warner, Ben Nelson. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask 

unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 

waived. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

HONORING SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR

LUGAR

Mr. REID. 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. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, as 

the majority leader has indicated, two 

legislative milestones have been 

reached in the Senate today by two 

dedicated and long-serving Senators 

who happen to be from different sides 

of the aisle. I pay tribute to the senior 

Senator from Vermont, Mr. LEAHY, for 

casting his 14,000th vote, and to the 

senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. 

LUGAR, for casting his 13,000th vote. 

To put these milestones in perspective: 

Senator LEAHY, a Member of the Senate since 1975, ranks sixth on the alltime rollcall vote list, most recently 

passing former Senator Pete Domenici. 

Senator LUGAR, who was first elected 

to the Senate 2 years later, in 1976, 

ranks tenth on the all-time list and 

most recently passed our former colleague and current occupant of the 

chair, Vice President JOE BIDEN. This 

is not only a remarkable accomplishment of longevity for both men, it is 

also an opportunity for their colleagues to honor them for their decades 

of service to the people of Indiana and 

of Vermont. 

Senator LEAHY isn’t just the second 

most senior Senator in this body, he is 

also the chairman of the Judiciary 

Committee and a senior member of the 

Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. PAT and I got to know each 

other pretty well, alternating as chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations for over a decade. Somehow he finds time to also be an amateur photographer and to have a blossoming movie career. I have no doubt 

he gives most of the credit, of course, 

to Marcelle, his wife, with whom he 

will be celebrating a far more important milestone in the next month, 

their 50th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to PAT on both counts. 

As for our friend Senator DICK

LUGAR, I have known him going back 

to my first Senate campaign. He is the 

longest serving Member of Congress in 

Indiana history and one of America’s 

most widely respected voices on foreign policy. In a career filled with 

many achievements and milestones, 

Senator LUGAR’s leadership on the 

Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is, in my opinion, his 

greatest and most lasting achievement 

with the American people—not only for 

the American people and for the security of this country, but for the promotion of peace throughout the world. 

Because of Senator LUGAR’s work, 

thousands of nuclear warheads have 

been dismantled and the world is, indeed, a safer place. 

Like Senator LEAHY, I know Senator 

LUGAR would say none of this would 

have been possible without the love 

and support of his wife of 55 years, 

Charlene. So I congratulate them both 

on this milestone and I join my colleagues in once again paying tribute to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE