September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6395 

the University of Louisville next Monday. I know the students and the larger 

community there are all looking forward to her visit. 

But for now, this is a truly special 

day here at the Capitol. It has been a 

long time coming. We are honored to 

have this hero with us today and delighted to award her our Nation’s highest civilian honor. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

leadership time is reserved. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

Senate will resume consideration of S. 

3457, which the clerk will report by 

title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3457) to require the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans jobs 

corps, and for other purposes. 

Pending: 

Reid (for Murray) amendment No. 2789, in 

the nature of a substitute. 

Reid amendment No. 2808 (to amendment 

No. 2789), to change the enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 2809 (to amendment 

No. 2808), of a perfecting nature. 

Reid amendment No. 2810 (to the language 

proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 

2789), to change the enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 2811 (to amendment 

No. 2810), of a perfecting nature. 

Reid motion to commit the bill to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2812, to 

change the enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 2813 (to (the instructions) amendment No. 2812), of a perfecting 

nature. 

Reid amendment No. 2814 (to amendment 

No. 2813), of a perfecting nature. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

time until 12 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two 

leaders or their designees. 

The Senator from Illinois. 

KNOWING WHO YOU REALLY ARE

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Bill 

Daley is a businessman in Chicago and 

a friend of mine. A few years back he 

was the chairman of the Al Gore Presidential campaign. We all know how the 

campaign ended in the Florida recount. 

Bill was contacted several years later 

by those who wanted to run for President. They made their trip to Chicago 

and asked Bill if he could give them 

some insight into what it was all 

about, how you would win. Bill said to 

them, one and all, the same thing: I am 

not sure I have any special strategy to 

tell you, but there is one thing I have 

discovered over the years. By the end 

of the Presidential campaign, the 

American people will know who you 

really are. 

I thought that was very simply and 

directly stated by Bill Daley and reflected the fact that although every 

candidate at every level tries to surround himself or herself with the 

wisest people in Christendom, to give 

them advice on polling and media and 

analyzing the electorate and the right 

words to be said, that more so in a 

Presidential campaign than almost any 

others, by the end of the campaign, the 

American people know who you really 

are. 

The revelations into a person’s values and character are not those wellscripted ads or even those flowery 

speeches. The revelations come by observing that person in good times and 

bad and perhaps hearing the unguarded 

comments which give you an insight 

into what they think when the camera 

is not on. 

That is why this release of a video of 

Mitt Romney has had such an impact 

on America. What he said at a fundraiser in Boca Raton, FL, to some very 

wealthy supporters on May 17, 2012, 

bears repeating in specific detail. Here 

is what he said: 

There are 47 percent of the people who will 

vote for the president no matter what. All 

right, there are 47 percent who are with him, 

who are dependent upon government, who 

believe that they are victims, who believe 

the government has a responsibility to care 

for them, who believe that they are entitled 

to health care, to food, to housing, to youname-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the 

government should give it to them. And they 

will vote for this president no matter what. 

. . . These are people who pay no income tax. 

. . . [M]y job— 

This is Mitt Romney speaking— 

is not to worry about those people. I’ll 

never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. 

It was a moment of candor by Romney in a room full of friends about his 

view of America, and it has become the 

centerpiece of this week’s debate in the 

Presidential campaign, not just because he was caught in an off moment 

or with an embarrassing statement, 

but the fact that since then he has not 

retracted, he has not backed off of 

those statements. 

In his first press conference, when 

confronted, he said he was ‘‘inelegant’’ 

in the way he spoke. Well, assuming 

that he meant ineloquent and not lacking eloquence, I would say he has had 

enough time to develop an elegant 

reply, and we have not heard it. 

I think there is more truth than not 

in what he says when it comes to his 

point of view of this country, and it is 

no surprise when you look back to 

those other unguarded moments and 

things he has said during the course of 

the campaign. 

We remember the highlights. ‘‘Corporations are people, my friend,’’ he 

said. ‘‘I like being able to fire people,’’ 

he said. ‘‘I’m not concerned about the 

very poor,’’ Romney said. ‘‘I’m also unemployed,’’ Romney said. ‘‘Ann drives 

a couple of Cadillacs,’’ Romney said. 

‘‘Ten thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?’’ he 

said. ‘‘I have some great friends that 

are NASCAR team owners,’’ he said. 

It was Bill Kristol who wrote recently—I believe it was yesterday—in 

the Weekly Standard a response in 

which he was critical of President 

Obama but also of Governor Romney. 

Here is what Bill Kristol, one of the 

prominent conservative spokesmen in 

America, in response to Romney’s revelation at the Boca Raton fundraiser, 

wrote: 

It’s worth recalling that a good chunk of 

the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes 

are Romney supporters—especially of course 

seniors (who might well ‘‘believe they are entitled to health care,’’ a position Romney 

agrees with), as well as many lower-income 

Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative 

policies are better for the country even if 

they’re not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose 

him, but for tens of millions who intend to 

vote for him. 

End of quote from Bill Kristol. 

This was a revelation into his values 

and his view of America. But it also 

tells us that he does not understand 

this country and the people who live in 

it. Because when we take a close look 

at those in the 47 percent, here is who 

we find: the elderly, working families 

with children, and low-wage earners. 

That is the 47 percent. 

The elderly. One in five of the elderly 

is in the 47 percent. These Americans 

do not owe any Federal income tax because of a longstanding policy choice 

that Social Security benefits—modest 

Social Security benefits—should not be 

taxed. Does Romney oppose that? Does 

he want to tax Social Security benefits 

so these will be responsible nonvictims 

in his view of America? 

Now let’s turn to low-income working families with children. They make 

up approximately one out of six people 

in the 47 percent. They benefit from 

the earned income tax credit. It was an 

incentive for them to go to work. Realizing they do not make much money 

working, we are going to give them a 

break in the Tax Code to help them get 

by. 

As the majority leader mentioned 

earlier, this notion came out under 

President Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan who said, when he signed 

this into law in 1986, this will remove 

‘‘six million [poor] people from the income tax rolls,’’ making it one of the 

most effective antipoverty programs in 

our history.’’ 

So these people are not paying 

taxes—so-called victims, so-called irresponsible, under Romney’s analysis. Is 

he suggesting the earned income tax 

credit has to go? 

When you take a look at these people 

who make up the 47 percent in America, you understand that many of them 

have paid their dues. Veterans on disability may not be paying income 

taxes. They are part of the 47 percent. 

People who are middle-income working 

families, whose kids borrow money for 

college are turning to the government 

for help when they want to put their 

kids through school to make sure they 

have a better life. 

I close because I know I have my colleagues coming to the floor. There is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

one thing that leapt off the page when 

I read this quote from Boca Raton. It 

appears that Mitt Romney makes his 

value judgments on Americans based 

on their income tax returns. 

Historically, American voters have 

made a judgment on Presidential candidates based on their income tax returns. The man who set the gold standard that was followed for decades in 

America in Presidential races was Mitt 

Romney’s father George Romney, 

former Governor of Michigan. He disclosed 12 years of income tax returns, 

and he said: Do not just give me 1 year. 

That does not tell me anything. One 

year might look good. Give me 12 

years, and I can then decide whether 

this person is paying taxes as they 

should and make a value judgment accordingly. 

Well, the son did not learn from the 

father. Over the past 36 years, Willard 

Mitt Romney holds the distinction of 

all Presidential candidates of either 

political party of having made the 

least disclosure of income tax returns 

of any Presidential candidate—1 year. 

He promises another, but 1 year. 

What did this 1 year reveal? It revealed he is the first Presidential candidate in the history of the United 

States of America with a Swiss bank 

account. I have asked business leaders 

across America, Why would you have a 

Swiss bank account? 

I asked Warren Buffett—he is one of 

the wealthiest men in our country— 

have you ever had a Swiss bank account. He said: No, there are perfectly 

good banks in the United States. 

Then I asked business leaders—and 

seriously—Why would you have a Swiss 

bank account? Two reasons. You want 

to conceal what you have and the 

transactions that lead up to you acquiring it or, secondly, you believe the 

Swiss franc is a stronger currency than 

the U.S. dollar. I might add that Mitt 

Romney created a Swiss bank account 

under President George W. Bush’s administration. 

Secondly, the offshore tax shelters in 

the Cayman Islands and Bermuda—why 

do you have those? To avoid tax liability in the United States. 

I do not know what is in Mitt Romney’s income tax returns. There must 

be something in there he does not want 

America to see, because he is defying 

all the calls to go public with the income tax returns. 

Are income tax returns important? 

In Boca Raton he judged 47 percent of 

the American people based on their income tax returns. We should judge Mitt 

Romney based on his income tax returns or his refusal to disclose them. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

know my colleague, the Democratic assistant leader, is here, and I will make 

a budget point of order now because I 

understand he would be objecting. 

Madam President, the pending 

amendment, No. 2789, offered by the 

Senator from Washington, would cause 

the underlying legislation to exceed 

the authorizing committee’s section 

302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays. Therefore, it violates 

the budget and I raise a point of order 

against this measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to 

waive the applicable sections of that 

act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

will say to my colleague, I appreciate 

his eloquence and his advocacy. He 

gave us a real partisan speech this 

morning. I will just ask a few things of 

one of our leaders in the Senate, Mr. 

DURBIN. 

What about the responsibility of this 

body to pass a budget? We have not had 

one in over 1,200 days. What about the 

responsibility of this body to move appropriations bills? Not one single appropriations bill has been advanced. 

And while we are working on legislation that could help veterans find 

jobs—it will cost about $200 million a 

year—why has this body not brought 

up the defense appropriations bill that 

funds the Defense Department at over 

$500 billion? We have not even brought 

it up for a vote, even though the House 

has passed one. 

Why have we not brought up the defense authorization bill that passed the 

Armed Services Committee unanimously? I am a member of it. It has 

been sitting here for months and not 

been brought up. Why? Because we 

would have a debate, actually have 

some votes around here? 

So that is a problem I think we have 

in this Senate, and I believe it is a serious matter. 

I was going to make some comments 

about the bill before us. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. I will be brief. I thank 

the Senator from Alabama, my friend, 

for yielding the floor. He asks an important question: Why has Congress 

not passed a budget resolution in a 

number of years? But he knows the answer. The answer is because we did better than that. We enacted a statute, a 

law. A resolution is a message from one 

house of Congress, back and forth, and 

kind of binds us internally. A law 

signed by the President has the force of 

law. It was called the Budget Control 

Act. 

The interesting thing about the 

Budget Control Act is it was written by 

Democrats and Republicans. It charts 

the course of spending for 2 years, including the one we are appropriating 

into now. It was voted on in favor by 

Democratic and Republican leaders 

alike. It was a bipartisan effort signed 

by President Obama with the force of 

law. That has more power than any 

budget resolution. 

So, clearly, saying that we did not 

pass a budget resolution on its face is 

true, but to say that we are not bound 

by rules when it is comes to spending is 

to ignore the obvious—a budget control 

act voted on by the leaders on both 

sides of the aisle. 

The second question he asked is, are 

we ignoring that spending restriction 

when it comes to those veterans programs, and why should we? 

Well, first, the bill that is before us, 

this Veterans Jobs Corps Act, is paid 

for. It does not add a penny to the deficit. 

The second question is, Well, why do 

you need it anyway? 

Have you noticed the veterans coming home? Have you noticed the high 

unemployment rate? Have you noticed 

the problems they are facing when they 

bring home visible and invisible scars 

from this war? Is it greater than we 

thought we would face at this time? 

Yes. Do we have an obligation to spend 

this money regardless? Of course. Did 

we not promise these men and women: 

If you raise your hand and swear your 

allegiance to the United States and 

your willingness to risk your life, we 

will stand with you when you come 

home. We will help you find a job. We 

will give you the medical care you 

need. 

We promised it. We are going to keep 

the promise. 

Now comes the Budget Act, and now 

a technicality is being argued that 

maybe we cannot keep the promise. I 

am going to vote to waive the Budget 

Act because I stood on this floor with 

Democrats and Republicans alike, 

joined in the speeches, joined in the parades, joined in the flag waving saying 

how much we respect these veterans. 

But when it comes to spending the 

money we promised them we would 

spend so they could become a vital part 

of America’s future, I am not going to 

step back and hide behind the Budget 

Act. I am going to stand and make sure 

that money is there, paid for, not adding to the deficit, so that they have the 

help they need for the lives we promised them. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

thank my eloquent colleague. But we 

do not have a budget. The law requires 

us to have a budget—passed decades 

ago. The Senate Democratic leadership, of which he is a part, said it was 

foolish to have a budget. They were not 

going to have one. We have not had one 

for 3 years. So it resulted last year in 

a debate over raising the debt ceiling 

because we had run up more debt than 

any time in the history of this Republic. And there was an agreement to 

limit spending. It is not a budget. It 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6397 

sets a limit on spending—only on discretionary spending, not on the 60 percent of the government otherwise on 

which we spend money. It is inadequate 

and insufficient, and before the ink is 

dry on it, we are back in here with a 

Democratic majority advocating legislation that violates that cap. There is 

no dispute about it. This is the eighth 

time we have raised budget points of 

order for violation of the agreement 

setting a cap on spending limits. So 

here we go again. 

Public opinion of Congress is lower 

today than at almost any time in history. According to the most recent 

Gallup Poll, only 13 percent of the public approves of Congress’s actions. 

Americans do not trust us. Why should 

Americans trust us when we keep using 

gimmicks and budget slights of hand to 

hide more spending and drive this 

country further into debt when we 

make a promise by passing a law that 

limits spending and then promptly violate that law within months of passage? And, now, the Democrats will attempt again today to violate that law? 

Why should the American people respect an institution, such as this one, 

that cannot adhere to a sound financial 

course for America? 

On August 28, our country’s gross 

debt reached $16 trillion—$16 trillion— 

over 100 percent of the entire gross domestic product of this Nation. It is a 

danger zone, according to every expert 

who has testified. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget’s latest mid-session 

review of our fiscal condition, our Nation’s debt will increase $4.4 trillion 

over the next 4 years, rising to over $20 

trillion. And in that period of time, we 

will virtually have doubled the entire 

debt of the United States since the 

Democrats took the majority in the 

Senate and President Obama was elected—double the entire debt. And the 

course we remain on does not get better. These are their budget numbers. 

This is a course America is on, and we 

are not getting off of it. It is $1 trillion 

a year in deficits. The U.S. debt per 

household is now $137,000 per household—up $80,000 since just 2002. While 

Americans have tightened their budgets to make ends meet, Congress has 

not passed a budget in 1,239 days. 

Erskine Bowles, whom President 

Obama asked to chair the debt commission, noted recently—I saw him in a 

CNBC interview at a conference on 

July 12. He said: 

If you take last year, 100 percent of our 

revenue came into the country . . . was 

spent on our—what’s called mandatory 

spending and interest on the debt. Mandatary spending is principally the entitlement 

programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 

Security. 

That is what the tax revenue pays 

for. Everything above that is funded by 

borrowed money. That is what he said. 

Is he correct? Absolutely. We are now 

borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we 

spend. That is not sustainable. At that 

conference, Mr. Bowles repeated what 

he said before the Budget Committee, 

on which I am ranking member. Mr. 

Bowles said this Nation has never been 

on a more predictable financial crisis 

path. That is what he said. If we continue at this rate, we are going to have 

a financial crisis like 2007. Hopefully 

not if we can avoid it, but if we do not 

change what we are doing, we are going 

to have one. He is absolutely confident 

about it. He has repeated it. So has the 

Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. 

Bernanke. He said: These numbers are 

not going to continue. If you do not 

change, we will have a crisis before we 

get there. 

At the debt debate last summer— 

most Americans remember that; Congress should certainly remember it—we 

finally reached an agreement that is 

now being violated. We passed the 

Budget Control Act last August at the 

last minute, if you remember, to set 

strict spending limits over the next 10 

years. It created a super committee to 

solve all of our problems, we hoped, or 

if the committee failed, which it did, to 

enact $1.2 trillion, at least, in cuts 

through sequestration. That would 

raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. We 

would have a net cut in spending of $2.1 

trillion. The debt ceiling money gets 

spent now. We have almost added another $2.1 trillion to the debt since last 

August. We are getting close to the 

debt limit again. But the cuts were 

promised to be over 10 years. We will 

spend now, but we promise you we have 

got a plan. We have a law that will 

keep us on the right path over the next 

10 years. So the questions are: Are we 

spending at that limit? Will we stay 

there? 

Secondly, let me note parenthetically that the $2.1 trillion is not 

enough in reduced spending projections. We are talking about reducing 

projected spending rates—the increase—not cutting spending $2.1 trillion. We are talking about cutting the 

projected increase in spending. So at 

the current rate of spending—$3.7, $3.8 

trillion this year—if you carry that out 

for 10 years, that would be $38 trillion. 

Under the projections, we are to spend 

$47 trillion over the next 10 years—almost $10 trillion more. All the Budget 

Control act says is: We are going to 

spend $45 trillion rather than $47 trillion, that our spending would increase 

from $37 trillion to $45 trillion. Can the 

Republic sustain that? Is that going to 

throw us into the ocean? Will we collapse as a nation? Will children starve 

and people not get their Social Security? Of course not. We will still be 

spending more money. That is all the 

budget agreement called for, and we 

are already waffling on that commitment that occurred last summer. 

So here we are. While our colleagues 

have offered well-meaning legislation 

and something that we should work on 

to try to deal with the unfortunate increase in unemployment for our veterans—and we can help them, I truly 

believe—they have refused to go by the 

promises made under the Budget Control Act last summer—flatly refused. 

So I am worried about unemployment. I am worried about it especially 

among veterans. And there are things 

we can do. In an effort to find common 

ground, Senator BURR from North 

Carolina, representing Fort Bragg, 

where I spent a summer, offered an alternative bill, the Careers for Veterans 

Act, which would help our veterans 

find jobs while keeping the Federal 

budget under control and honoring the 

commitment we made last summer. It 

can be done. This is not hard to do if 

you want to do it. 

Since the Senate majority will not 

even allow a vote on any bill that 

abides by the budget—Senator REID is 

obstructing the right of Members to 

offer amendments to the bill—I have 

raised a budget point of order against 

Senator MURRAY’s substitute amendment. Sustaining this point of order 

will allow us to keep the promises 

made in the Budget Control Act that 

Senator DURBIN talked about so proudly—just stay within those promises. It 

will allow us to continue to work on 

this bill in a way that helps our veterans without adding more to our children’s debt. It does not kill the legislation; it simply tells the sponsors: We 

are not going to do this until you get it 

within the budget limits to which we 

agreed. And it can be done. Senator 

BURR’s bill does it. It certainly can be 

done. 

The Senate majority had the opportunity to write legislation complying 

with the spending limits set in the 

Budget Control Act. Instead, they bypassed the committee process. We have 

not had any committee hearings on 

this legislation. And they have offered 

a substitute amendment that violates 

the Congressional Budget Act by increasing mandatory spending $700 million over the Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s 302(a) allocation. 

Under the Budget Act, the committee 

is given a certain amount of money to 

spend for veterans, and this amendment would violate that agreement. 

Specifically, the Murray amendment 

violates Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act by spending $61 million above the committee’s allocation 

for 2013 and $480 million above the committee’s allocation for 2013 through 

2017. It would also spend $666 million 

above the committee’s allocation for 

2013 through 2022. 

Surely, out of a budget that spends 

$47 trillion over 10 years, we can find 

$700 million in savings to pay for this 

bill. That is all that needs to be done 

to ensure that the bill complies with 

the Budget Act. As a result of exceeding the Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s 

allocation, the Murray substitute 

amendment violates Section 302(f) of 

the Congressional Budget Act. That 

has been discussed with Chairman CONRAD, the Democratic chairman of the 

Budget Committee. He acknowledges 

that it does, and so does his staff. I am 

very confident that the Parliamentarian agrees and will rule that it violates the Budget Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

Now the Senate majority plans to 

have a vote to waive—to waive the 

promise they made to the American 

people to control spending just over a 

year ago. So that is the issue before us 

today. Do we take the bill and fix it so 

it complies with the budget—which can 

easily be done because the substitute 

Senator BURR has drafted does it—or 

will we once again waive the promises 

we made last August and so proudly 

touted that we were going to cut $2.1 

trillion in spending. 

In effect, there is a tax increase, argued with some validity, to pay for this 

bill. The bill uses a tax enforcement 

measure to stop abuses by people who 

don’t fully pay their taxes. This will 

raise revenue, and, therefore, the bill is 

offset, and so we shouldn’t worry about 

it. So here we have a new idea for helping veterans: We will raise taxes and 

revenue and we pay for it. 

But this is what is called tax and 

spend. Tax and spend. We agreed to a 

limit on what we would spend. If we 

have discovered a method to collect 

more taxes or raise taxes to get more 

revenue, that money, under our budget 

agreement last summer, is to be used 

to pay down the debt, not to take more 

money to spend on a new program 

today because we have more revenue to 

spend. So that is a fundamental issue. 

Just because it is paid for does not 

mean we are not spending more than 

we agreed to spend. We very precisely 

are. 

Not only does the Murray amendment violate the Budget Act by spending above agreed-to levels, but it also 

uses budget gimmicks—extraordinarily 

really—to make the bill appear to be 

offset. This budget sleight of hand is 

called a timing shift. What about this 

offset or pay-for idea? Let me discuss 

that a moment. 

This is one of the issues that, if the 

American people fully understood it, 

would outrage them. As a matter of 

fact, it is probably part of why they are 

not happy with us now because they 

have seen so much of this. This is a recurring gimmick. If a CEO offered 

stock based on this kind of promise of 

financial solvency they would go to 

jail. It is as bogus as a three-dollar bill. 

This is what it is. It shifts the payment 

of corporate income taxes 2 to 3 

months sooner so we can count it in 

this fiscal year. Specifically, this gimmick would collect additional revenue 

over the 2013 through 2017 budget window, which is the budget window they 

were trying to deal with since it violates the Budget Act over that 5 year 

period. So this was designed to cover 

up more spending. 

But think about it. It is exactly the 

same amount of less revenue that will 

occur in the 2014 through 2018 budget 

window. If we ask someone to pay their 

taxes earlier, they do not owe it the 

next year when we would otherwise expect to receive it. 

The height of this gimmick was demonstrated years ago when I first came 

to the Senate. I was shocked. This is 

what they did: They moved a Social Security check from this fiscal year to 

the next fiscal year. What was the result? It resulted in having a lot of 

money to spend this fiscal year; right? 

The CBO said we have more money because we didn’t pay a Social Security 

payment. They moved—delayed—it by 

1 day. That is what they wanted to do, 

to move it 1 day. But what happens to 

the next fiscal year? Is this really a 

gain or a gimmick? It is a gimmick because the next fiscal year we would 

need to make an additional Social Security payment in that budget year. 

It is just a way to spend more today 

and push off the cost until tomorrow. 

That is what they did then, and that is 

exactly what this is today. It is a 

smoke-and-mirror scheme used to 

avoid the rules in the Budget Act and 

the scorekeepers at the Congressional 

Budget Office. It being used to manipulate the scoring for short-term gain. It 

simply speeds up the payments in the 

first 5 years so it appears we have more 

money to spend. In reality, the gimmick merely creates a hole in the 

budget next year because the money 

that was expected to come in next 

year—now coming in this year—is not 

coming in next year. 

So this point of order is not a technical issue, it is an issue of whether 

this body will uphold its commitment 

to the American people on how much 

money we are going to spend. Congress 

agreed to certain spending levels in the 

Budget Control Act. We voted on those 

spending levels, and we should stick 

with those spending levels today. There 

is no reason for us to violate that 

agreement. The point of order exists so 

that Congress cannot raise taxes and 

spend money over the agreed-to 

amount. The point of order requires 60 

votes to waive, and it exists so the Senate does not succumb to political pressure to spend beyond our means. Really, it is meant to try to stop spending 

beyond our means. 

The Senate majority was aware of 

the budget rules when they wrote this 

bill. They were aware of it. Instead of 

writing a bill that complied with the 

Budget Act, they decided to go above 

the agreed-upon spending levels. Senator BURR—a fine Senator—was also 

aware of the rules under the Budget 

Act and the spending levels set under 

the Budget Control Act. He drafted alternative legislation that complied 

with the budget rules and that would 

fund a veterans jobs program through 

discretionary spending. 

Unfortunately, the Senate majority 

took most of Senator BURR’s policy 

suggestions but did not keep the fiscal 

discipline found in his bill. They will 

not allow us to have a vote to aid veterans within the spending agreement. 

Contrary to what my friends on the 

other side of the aisle claim, this point 

of order will not kill the bill. It only 

returns the bill to the legislative calendar. It will remain right there on the 

calendar, but it will allow the people 

who support it, if they want it passed— 

and they do—to propose changes so 

that the bill complies with the Budget 

Act. 

We can still fix and pass this bill before we leave this week. It wouldn’t 

take much time at all to fix this matter. A vote in support of the point of 

order will protect the integrity of the 

budget process. Supporting this point 

of order will allow us to change the underlying bill so that it is fiscally sound 

and complies with the spending levels 

we have agreed to. 

Unfortunately, while the Senate majority refuses to allow a vote on a reasonable veterans bill that complies 

with the Budget Act, they are neglecting the looming cuts that face our 

military men and women on January 2, 

2013—the sequester. Given the events 

happening around the world today, we 

need to be very careful not to allow 

these kinds of cuts to take place in the 

first part of next year. There are various ways we could easily fix that, in 

my opinion, but we will not even confront the issue. The Senate majority 

has refused to address sequestration, 

which the Secretary of Defense—President Obama’s Secretary of Defense— 

said would be catastrophic. Defense 

people have said it would hollow out 

the military. It is too rapid a bite, according to the experts in the Obama 

administration and others, but no effort has been brought forward to confront that problem—to bring it up on 

the Senate floor and have a full debate 

about it. 

We can do a $200 million a year bill 

that we spent a week or more on, but 

we have no time on the Senate floor 

dedicated to dealing with the sequester, which would take $500 billion out 

of the defense budget. This bill on the 

floor today would spend nearly $1 billion over 5 years above the budget. 

What about the $500 billion in cuts 

that are looming right now in January? We need to wrestle with that and 

decide how we are going to confront 

that. It is not going to be easy. Maybe 

defense can sustain some more cuts, 

but I don’t think this much. They have 

already taken $500 billion in cuts, and 

this would be an additional $500 billion 

in cuts. 

The Defense Department, under the 

plan today, which represents one-sixth 

of Federal Government spending, would 

get half the cuts, and the remaining 

five-sixths of the Federal Government 

would get the other half of the cuts. 

This is disproportionate. It should not 

have been part of the Budget Act. But 

they slipped it in the dead of night, and 

it came to the floor and people went 

along with it so we would not hit the 

debt ceiling. But it is not good, and we 

need to fix that, in my opinion. 

House Republicans have confronted 

this matter. They realized this was a 

problem, and they proposed a budget 

and a plan to replace and undo the sequester and to do it in a way that made 

sense without violating spending levels 

we agreed to last August. How many 

proposals to fix this problem have we 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6399 

received from Senator DURBIN and Senator REID? Zero. Nothing. They are not 

doing anything but blocking any attempt to bring up legislation that 

would fix it. 

That is why we don’t have a Defense 

authorization bill, which came out of 

my committee unanimously, the 

Armed Services Committee. It has been 

sitting here and not being brought up. 

Why? Because if we do, we will have a 

discussion about the sequester and the 

Defense Department and the future of 

America, and they do not want that. 

The House passed the Defense authorization bill in May, and they passed the 

Defense appropriations bill in June. We 

have passed none of them, not even 

brought them to the floor. 

They want to attack Republicans as 

not caring about our men and women 

who serve our country. Yet we are trying to fix the sequester, trying to bring 

up a Defense bill that will actually do 

some good and give a pay raise to our 

men and women in uniform—a small 

one, but a pay raise. So I am really disappointed we haven’t brought up the 

Defense authorization bill, which came 

out of my committee. 

A few days ago—last week—Senator 

MCCAIN spoke about this. He said: 

Shame, shame, shame. Imagine that 

for 51 years, every year, this Senate 

has passed the Defense authorization 

bill. This will be the first time in 51 

years we haven’t passed the Defense 

authorization bill, and we have so 

many important issues related to our 

Defense Department today. Nothing is 

more important than that. Yet we 

spent a whole week, or the last few 

days, discussing a bill that could have 

been agreed to just like that, with the 

suggestions of Senator BURR, because 

we can’t wait to get out of this place. 

This could have already passed, and we 

could have been dealing with these important issues. I find it breathtaking, 

frankly. 

Let me just point out the bill is not 

going to go through the House since it 

violates the Constitution. There are 

revenue proposals in this bill. It will 

not see the light of day in the House 

because the Constitution says revenue 

bills must be generated in the House. 

So we have wasted all this time producing a bill that cannot and will not 

be received by the House. 

Article 1, Section 7 of the United 

States Constitution says: 

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . . . 

This is a revenue bill. 

So what has happened? Is it just an 

idea? Let’s see, we don’t want to talk 

about the Defense appropriations bill. 

We don’t want to talk about the Defense authorization bill; it involves 

hundreds of billions of dollars. We 

don’t want to talk about those, so let’s 

bring up this veterans bill. We will 

bring it up even though it violates the 

Budget Act. And do you know what 

those stupid Republicans will do? They 

will object and say it violates the 

Budget Act. And do you know what we 

can say? We can say: You don’t like 

veterans. You don’t believe in honoring 

those who served our country. Do you 

want to know the truth? That is what 

has happened right here today, and it 

is irresponsible. 

So let’s vote for Senator BURR’s bill. 

Let’s pass legislation that will help 

veterans right now, or we are going to 

send this bill back—I am confident—to 

see if they come up with some other 

plan that would be helpful to our veterans and their employment prospects 

without violating the Budget Act. 

I want to mention one more thing because I think it is important. The two 

largest veterans groups, the VFW and 

the American Legion, have said these 

things. Steve Gonzalez, assistant director of the American Legion, said both 

bills, the Burr and Murray bills ‘‘have 

ideas on how to get veterans quality 

jobs,’’ and added that BURR’s version 

stands a better chance of passing. 

What about the VFW? In the Washington Post today: 

‘‘VFW supports concepts behind the Veterans Job Corps bill, but we have some concerns about the budgetary implications,’’ 

said Ryan Gallucci, deputy director of national legislative affairs for the VFW. 

We don’t have to do it the way this 

bill has come up. Senator BURR has offered a very fine proposal that the 

VFW and the American Legion seem to 

support. Let’s do that. Let’s do it that 

way and not violate our commitment 

to the American people to live within 

our means. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado. 

PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam 

President, I rise again this morning, as 

I have for a number of months, to talk 

about the most important issue facing 

the American people and this Congress, 

and that is jobs. 

A good news story on the jobs front 

has been our wind energy industry. The 

wind energy industry has created thousands of good-paying jobs, and it could 

create thousands more. But the troubling news that goes along with the 

good news is that the potentially 

bright future of this industry is uncertain. Why? Because we in the Congress 

are holding the wind energy industry 

hostage because we have failed to extend the production tax credit. 

As I have said every day I have been 

on the Senate floor since June to discuss this topic, every day that we fail 

to extend the PTC for wind energy 

more jobs are put at risk. We have seen 

this unfortunate reality unfold across 

the country as predicted, including in 

my home State of Colorado, where over 

100 people have lost their jobs. I don’t 

have to tell my colleagues that when 

people lose jobs, those job losses negatively affect families and the communities where they live. 

Just yesterday—it breaks my heart— 

Siemens Energy announced they are 

going to lay off more than 600 people in 

Iowa, Kansas, and Florida. Enough is 

enough. These layoffs that continue to 

be announced almost weekly should 

spur us to extend the wind production 

tax credit without any further delay. 

Jobs are at stake. It is that simple. 

With many Americans already losing 

their jobs, more jobs are at risk—thousands, literally—if we don’t act. 

Here is my question: Why would we 

forfeit leadership in an industry that is 

poised to grow even further? There is 

no reason we should cede leadership of 

this important industry to China or 

anywhere else by letting the production tax credit expire. If we commit to 

extending the PTC, we will then lead 

the world in wind power, and here is a 

part of why I come to the floor every 

day and talk about particular States. 

There are few places that is more apparent than in Wyoming. Wyoming has 

phenomenal wind reserves. If you have 

driven through Wyoming, you know 

what I am talking about. If you talk to 

anybody from Wyoming, they will always ironically say: One of the things 

we have in excess in Wyoming is wind. 

The National Global Energy Lab 

based in Colorado estimates that Wyoming has enough wind power potential 

to meet 116 times the State’s energy 

needs. To put it another way, that is 25 

million homes that would be powered 

by harnessing wind. 

Wyoming is well on its way to harnessing its wind potential. Why? Although it ranks 11th in the Nation for 

installed wind power—which is not a 

shabby number, frankly—there are 

plans to nearly quadruple the amount 

of wind power in the State of Wyoming. 

Not only would that create thousands 

of jobs—that goes without saying—it 

would produce enough electricity to 

power 1.5 million homes. The construction of those projects will create hundreds of nicely paying renewable energy jobs right in the State of Wyoming. 

It is no wonder then that the massive 

wind potential in Wyoming has also attracted investment for manufacturers. 

To make that point, I want to share a 

development with you. 

Last year a plan to build the first 

wind energy manufacturing facility in 

Wyoming was announced. It was a joint 

venture between the Spanish wind 

manufacturer Gestamp and an Ohiobased company called Worthington Industries. They formed a conglomerate 

called Gestamp Worthington Wind 

Steel. The companies announced they 

would build a facility in Cheyenne, WY, 

and there would be 150 good-paying 

jobs attached to that facility. They 

planned to invest $40 million in the 

plant. But here is the twist: That 

project has now been put on hold. 

Those jobs and the millions in investment that were planned to be directed 

into Wyoming have been shelved. 

This isn’t an isolated incident. There 

are wind manufacturing facilities and 

wind projects across the country where 

we are seeing exactly the same thing 

happening, and the reason is clear: uncertainty over the future of the production tax credit. So our inaction in the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6400 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

Congress is putting good-paying American jobs at risk and reducing opportunities for further investments in this 

growing industry. There is just no reason for it. The PTC has strong support 

from both sides of the aisle and from 

both Houses of the Congress. Of course, 

a broad array of groups in the private 

sector support the wind energy industry. 

Yesterday, a group of businesses from 

across the country wrote to leaders in 

the House and the Senate urging us to 

bring up and pass an extension of the 

PTC as soon as possible. Businesses 

such as Starbucks and Levi’s joined a 

diverse group of companies, including 

Colorado’s own Aspen Skiing Company 

and New Belgium Brewery, in urging us 

in the Congress to work across the divide, work across the aisle, and extend 

the PTC. These companies understand 

how positive the production tax credit 

and our wind industry has been for 

jobs, national security, and our clean 

energy economy. They made that case 

yesterday in their letter. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

printed in the RECORD a copy of this 

letter. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

BUSINESS FOR INNOVATIVE

CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY, 

Boston, MA, September 18, 2012. 

Re: Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

House Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. HARRY REID, 

Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, 

Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SPEAKER BOEHNER, MAJORITY LEADER

REID, MINORITY LEADER PELOSI, AND MINORITY LEADER MCCONNELL: As major U.S. employers and some of the largest non-utility 

purchasers of renewable energy, we urge you 

to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) 

for wind energy before the end of the 112th 

Congress. A failure to pass an extension will 

amount to levying a tax on companies committed to buying American energy and growing the U.S. economy. In today’s economic 

climate, a tax hike on American businesses 

buying American renewable energy is unwarranted. 

In the past decade American businesses 

have significantly ramped up their purchase 

of American wind energy. For consumers of 

wind electricity, the economic benefits of 

the PTC are tremendous. Electricity rates, 

which reflect marginal costs for power plant 

operations and fuel prices, consistently decrease when wind enters the market. Because wind prices can be locked in up front, 

businesses incorporating wind into their energy portfolios are better equipped to hedge 

market volatility in traditional fuels markets caused by supply shocks. We are concerned that allowing the PTC to expire will 

immediately raise prices for the renewable 

electricity we buy today. 

The PTC has enabled the industry to slash 

wind energy costs—90% since 1980—a big reason why companies like ours are buying increasing amounts of renewable energy. Wind 

now supplies over 3% of U.S. demand and accounts for 35% of new power capacity installed in the last four years. In the seven 

years that the PTC has been continuously in 

place, installed wind capacity has grown sevenfold to nearly 47 Gigawatts representing 

more than $79 billion in private investment. 

As Congress investigates ways to spur business growth, we urge you to ensure an extension of the PTC. Failure to extend the PTC 

for wind would tax our companies and thousands of others like us that purchase significant amounts of renewable energy and hurt 

our bottom lines at a time when the economy is struggling to recover. Extending the 

PTC lowers prices for all consumers, keeps 

America competitive in a global marketplace and creates homegrown American jobs. 

Sincerely, 

Akamai Technologies, Annie’s, Inc., 

Aspen Skiing Company, Ben & Jerry’s, 

Clif Bar, Johnson & Johnson, Jones 

Lang LaSalle, Levi Strauss & Co, New 

Belgium Brewing, The North Face, 

Piney Bowes, Portland Trail Blazers, 

Seventh Generation, Sprint, 

Starbucks, Stonyfield Farm, 

Symantec, Timberland, Yahoo! 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam 

President, as I conclude I want to remind us that in August, before we adjourned for our month’s State work period, our Senate Finance Committee 

passed legislation that would include 

an extension of the production tax 

credit. I was encouraged to see that the 

committee bridged the partisan divide 

to advance what is really and truly a 

commonsense policy that will help our 

American economy and our middle 

class. 

We should build on what the Finance 

Committee did and take up and pass 

this legislation as soon as possible. The 

longer we delay, the more jobs we put 

at risk and the more our economic recovery is at risk. 

It is very simple: The production tax 

credit equals jobs. We should pass it as 

soon as possible. So, my colleagues, 

let’s work together. Let’s find a path 

forward, and let’s pass this critical tax 

credit as soon as possible. 

Madam President, I yield the floor, 

and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I 

want to spend a few moments this 

morning talking about the budget 

point of order. But a bigger topic is we 

are going to have a vote at noon, and 

the question, in my mind, is: Will we at 

some point in the future recognize the 

hole we are in? 

When I talk to individual Members 

they all agree we are in a hole, we have 

a problem, and it is getting ready to 

bite this country in ways that are unimaginable in terms of its impact on 

the everyday citizens of this country. 

Yet in the Senate we have done nothing to address the bigger problems facing the country. 

Now we have a bill that has a budget 

point of order that is lying against it, 

and the question is: Will we continue 

the behavior that put our country in 

the problems we are in today or will we 

take a new track? 

The desire to help veterans is a noble 

desire, but there are a lot of points 

about this bill that the average American and the average veteran ought to 

be asking. There are also other questions, such as: What are the other 

things we are doing for jobs for veterans, and how well are they working. 

We have six veterans job training 

programs. We already have a preference across the Federal Government 

for hiring veterans. We have SBA programs like crazy. We have contracting 

programs 8a and 8b. We have all these 

programs, but not one hearing has been 

held by the committee of jurisdiction 

oversight of the job training programs 

or the other programs we have to enhance the economic well-being of our 

veterans. 

So what we have is a bill that is 

brought to the Senate floor that has 

good intentions behind it but shows the 

absolute laziness of Congress in terms 

of digging things out. 

When the GAO issued its duplication 

report on the job training programs for 

veterans, four of them do exactly the 

same thing. None of them has a metric. 

So we don’t know if they are working, 

and we haven’t held a hearing to find 

out if they are working. But what are 

we doing? We are proposing another 

jobs program for veterans without having done the serious work of how we invest $1 billion. 

Now, the other point that we should 

know is, we are spending $1 billion a 

year right now on veterans job training 

programs. This bill has $1 billion over 

5. The second point I would like to 

make—and I think it was made by the 

ranking member of the Budget Committee—is there is no honest accounting in this bill regardless of the budget 

point of order or the blue slip, the nonconstitutionality of originating revenue bills in the Senate. There is absolutely no transparency nor correctness 

nor character nor integrity in the financing of this bill. When we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt and we are 

going to pay for another bill over 5 

years by 10 years of change, we never 

get out of the problem. We make the 

problem worse. 

What are we doing and whom are we 

doing it for? Are we truly thinking 

about veterans when we do not solve 

the bigger problems? We have the 

manifest presence in this bill of the 

very problems we say we need to be addressing. Yet we are making them 

worse with this bill. We are making the 

financial problems worse with this bill. 

I am befuddled and disappointed that 

we cannot, as a group of individuals 

who all love this country very much, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6401 

come together on some certain baseline principles that we ought to be operating under in the Senate. The first 

of those ought to be we ought to do 

nothing now that makes the problem 

worse for our kids and grandkids. We 

are now over $200,000 per family of debt 

in this country. We are over $200,000—it 

is actually about $225,000. Think about 

the median family income over the last 

4 years that has gone down 9 percent in 

this country, and we are going to make 

sure it goes down even further if we 

continue to do what we are doing in 

this bill. We have gone from $54,900 median family to $50,200 in the last 4 

years, median family income, and we 

have gas prices as high as they have 

ever been and we are going to perpetuate a system that says we are going to 

continue to make the problem worse, 

not better. 

There is also another little gimmick 

in this bill that if we were to do it in 

private, we would go to jail for it; that 

is, we are going to charge corporations 

more income tax than what they actually owe to get past 1 year, and then 

after the year is over, we are going to 

flip it back so we can say we paid for 

something when we did not. That violates all aspects of integrity and honesty. Do you know what the answer I 

hear as to why we are doing it? ‘‘Oh, we 

have done that in the past.’’ It was not 

right in the past, and it is certainly 

not right now to lie, to cheat, to be dishonest about the accounting principles 

surrounding this bill in terms of how 

we pay for it because, in essence, it violates pay-go—the very rule we said was 

going to help us get out of our problems that 67 times has been waived in 

the last 3 years. As a matter of fact, I 

don’t know the last time a pay-go challenge was not waived. 

The second principle we ought to be 

dealing with is we ought to follow the 

rules we set up for ourselves that are 

supposed to discipline us in terms of 

getting our country out of the problems which we are, regrettably, continually ignoring. If, in fact, we want to 

help veterans get jobs, there are a lot 

of ways for us to do it. One is make 

sure the job programs we have are 

working—and they are not. If they are 

not working, why are we continuing to 

spend $1 billion a year on them? No. 2, 

create a level of confidence in this 

country, by our own behavior, that we 

are actually addressing the real problems in front of the country rather 

than the political dynamics of an election that says we want to do something 

and everybody in this Chamber knows, 

even if we pass this bill, it is not going 

to accomplish anything because, in 

fact, it has a blue slip against it because of the Constitution. 

On Monday mornings when I get up— 

I get up about 4:30 to catch a flight to 

come back here—I have noticed I have 

an attitude problem. I don’t want to 

come anymore. The reason I don’t want 

to come anymore is because we are not 

doing anything to address the real 

problems that are in front of our country. We are ignoring the real problems 

so we can create political contrasts for 

an election, all the while the country is 

sinking and sinking and sinking. 

What it is is a lack of leadership. We 

can lead in the wrong direction, knowing what the problems are and making 

mistakes, and we can be forgiven for 

that. But when we know what the real 

problems are and we are ignoring them, 

that is an unforgivable failure of leadership. That is where we find ourselves. 

I heard my colleague mention the Defense authorization bill. There is absolutely no excuse for us not to have 

passed a Defense authorization bill 

that gives the planning, the direction, 

and the commitment for this country’s 

future in terms of our defenses—the 

No. 1 priority for us as a Congress, according to the Constitution. Yet we 

have not done that. We have made the 

immediate political situation trump 

everything. That is the opposite of 

leadership. It is actually cowardice, because when someone is a leader and 

they duck the real problems in front of 

them, they take everybody down with 

them—the well intentioned and the not 

well intentioned. That is where we 

are—as a country, as a Senate—by not 

addressing the real issues of this country. 

I don’t know what is going to happen 

on the votes on this bill, but I know 

what needs to happen in the Senate. 

There needs to be a renewed sense of 

awareness of the real problems facing 

this country and a redoubling of our 

commitment to shed partisan roles and 

get down to fixing the real problems in 

front of us. Parochialism has no place 

in that discussion. The political careers of Members have no place in that 

discussion. The real future of our country is at risk and we are, similar to the 

proverbial person with their head in 

the sand, ignoring that risk. The greatest country in the world is on the precipice of falling, predicted long ago by 

such people as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—that the day would come 

that we, in fact, would put the political 

ahead of the best interests of our country. That is what we are seeing played 

out in Washington. That is exactly 

what we are seeing played out with 

this bill. The American people deserve 

much better. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, 

before the Senator leaves, I would ask 

him a question. And the reason I am 

asking Senator COBURN about this is 

because there is no one of these 100 

Senators here today who has spent 

more hours, effort and time in dealing 

with the duplicative programs of the 

Federal Government than Senator 

COBURN. He has brought up these issues 

time and again. 

I just ask, according to the GAO, in 

2009, Senator COBURN, I understand 

that 9 Federal agencies spent $18 billion to administer 47 job training programs. The Senator has looked into 

that. I know I have heard him speak on 

that specifically. I was surprised the 

Senator brought out that there are already six programs for veterans now, 

and this would be a new one added to 

it. 

What is the Senator’s view of what a 

responsible Congress should do when 

we learn we are spending this much 

money on these programs with their 

own bureaucrats and so forth? Can we 

do better? 

Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. Let me 

give people some hope. VIRGINIA FOXX, 

a Representative in the House, who is 

the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Workforce and Labor, has passed a bill 

out of her committee that consolidates 

33 of those job training programs into 

1, puts metrics on every one of them so 

we will know if they are working and 

requires mandatory oversight of them. 

The reason she did not do all 47 is 14 of 

them are not in her jurisdiction. 

But add to it another $4 billion, and 

another 20-plus programs for the disabled, so we actually have almost 70 

programs and $23 billion a year we are 

spending on job training, of which nobody knows—as a matter of fact I know 

they are not working. 

We actually released a report on job 

training in Oklahoma. We looked at 

every Federal job training and State 

job training program going on in Oklahoma. Do you know what works? Oklahoma programs. Do you know what 

does not work? Federal job training 

programs in Oklahoma. 

We have 1 city in Oklahoma that is 

16,000 people, 17 Federal job training 

centers, and an unemployment rate of 

4.7 percent; 17 different Federal agencies in 1 city of 16,000 people with an 

unemployment rate of 4.7 percent. 

What we are doing is employing people 

in the job training industry—which 

may be good if they are having results. 

But we have results that are untenable. 

Job training is just one area of our 

Federal Government. The GAO has released reports on duplication. Their 

final report will come in February of 

next year, where they will have looked 

at the entire Federal Government. 

What we know right now is if we did 

our work, the 100 Senators who care 

about our country did our work, over 

the next 10 years we could save $200 billion by eliminating duplication in Federal programs—$200 billion. I said over 

10 years; that is, $200 billion per year. 

It is $2 trillion over 10 years. We could 

save over $200 billion per year. 

We wouldn’t be having sequestration 

if we did our job, if we did our oversight, if we consolidated programs, 

made them transparent and made them 

accountable and then put metrics on 

them to see if they were working and 

then did oversight to see that they are 

working. We would not be in sequestration. We would not have near the problems we have today. But the failure is 

us. The Congress has failed to do its 

job. 

The consequences will not be borne 

by us. The consequences will be borne 

by the son of my health LA who was 

just born, by my new grandson who is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6402 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

now almost 7 weeks old. That is who is 

going to pay the consequences—the 

children of this country—when we fail 

to do our jobs. 

I appreciate the Senator’s leadership. 

I am going to support his point of 

order. It is the right thing to do. I did 

not even talk about the areas he talked 

about in terms of—we set up this budget agreement for 2 years. I will tell you 

what, the CR coming—this is the irony 

of all ironies. Had we not had that 

budget agreement and we did a CR, we 

would spend $2.6 billion less next year 

if we had a clean CR than under the 

Budget Control Act we passed. By 

doing the Budget Control Act, we are 

actually going to spend more money 

than we did last year. 

So everything is upside down in 

Washington because everything is political or parochial and nobody is 

thinking long term about the big problems facing our country. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He 

served on the debt commission. He is 

steeped in the challenges facing our 

country and he is working hard to fix 

our problems. 

I salute Senator BURR for coming forward with a proposal that helps veterans while abiding by the rules set 

forth in the Budget Act. Regretfully, I 

think we will end this matter today, 

the legislation that is coming forward, 

through the budget point of order. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam 

President, the Senator from Alabama 

knows the personal friendship we have 

and my high regard for him and the 

privilege I have had working with him 

over the years. It has been a working 

relationship. 

Regardless of what one feels about a 

budget and a budget point of order, we 

are talking about a technicality to kill 

a bill to help unemployed veterans at a 

time they desperately need help because they are coming back from Iraq 

and Afghanistan and they can’t find 

work. Until we come out of the recession—and the recovery is under way, 

but veterans have a higher percentage 

of unemployment and especially veterans under age 24 have an even higher 

percentage of unemployment. So what 

we have is a piece of legislation to give 

an employment cushion for veterans 

for at least a year, until they can find 

employment in the private sector. 

This is employment to do things we 

need, since so many of our national resources, such as parks and emergency 

responders and firefighters and police, 

need help. Look at all of the deterioration in the national parks. This would 

be an opportunity to employ those veterans and to employ them up to a year. 

Everybody knows this makes common 

sense and it is the right thing to do. 

What is happening is the folks on 

that side of the aisle, because we are in 

an election year and because this happened to be a proposal coming out of 

the White House and is brought to the 

floor by this Senator from Florida, are 

not going to support it, and they are 

going to kill it on a technicality by denying us 60 votes in order to waive the 

budgetary point of order. That is the 

bottom line. That is what is going on 

here, and it is sad. Yet that is what is 

happening. 

Look at the votes in the last week. 

We passed the motion for cloture on 

the motion to proceed by 95 to 1. 

Doesn’t that tell us something? Then 

we had the second procedural vote 

which was 84 to 8. All we need is 60 

votes to get over this hurdle and to get 

to the bill and then probably pass it by 

unanimous consent because everybody 

agrees with the substance of the bill. It 

is clear that commonsense legislation 

that has bipartisan support is getting 

thwarted in this Chamber. We all know 

how important it is to help our veterans find work as they return home. 

Does the Senator from Oklahoma 

want to ask a question? The Senator 

from Oklahoma knows my respect for 

him and my personal friendship for 

him. I admire the Senator for the courageous stance he takes. But I hope the 

Senator from Oklahoma understands— 

and I respectfully say that—for a need 

so great as unemployed veterans, this 

is not the time to draw a technical line 

on a budget. I would earnestly and respectfully request of my friend that 

this be one of the considerations he 

would make. 

Does the Senator wish to engage in 

any conversation? If not, I will complete my remarks. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I 

would ask to have a back-and-forth 

real debate on this, recognizing us 

both, with the Senator from Florida 

controlling the time, if he has no difficulty agreeing with that. 

One of the reasons I came out is I 

don’t agree with the substance of this 

bill and I don’t want the Senator from 

Florida to make a statement on the 

floor that everybody agrees with it. We 

have six veterans job training programs that nobody is overseeing. Nobody knows if they work. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. OK. Then 

what I would suggest to my friend—and 

he knows he is my friend—if we have a 

difference of opinion, I respect that, 

and I would like him to share that. I 

wish to complete my very brief statement and then the Senator from Oklahoma may make whatever statement 

he wishes to make. 

The unemployment rate among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is hovering around 11 percent, and 

for those unemployed veterans age 24 

and less it is even higher. We have 

taken steps to combat this problem. 

This past summer we passed legislation 

that will help veterans get Federal occupational licenses when their military 

training matches civilian requirements. That made sense. That made 

common sense. As a matter of fact, we 

got that through the Senate unanimously and it was signed into law. The 

bill recognized that a veteran gets all 

of this specialized training and they 

ought to be able to utilize that training without having to go through all 

the retraining and the relicensing. We 

could do that—and what we passed is 

now law—we could do that in Federal 

employment where there is a similar 

kind of requirement. 

What is in this bill is to do that for 

the State occupational requirements; 

to take a veteran who has a military 

discipline—a specialty—as that veteran 

is applying for a private sector job that 

happens to be covered by State law on 

the occupational requirements and requirements of licensing, that it is a 

consideration, instead of the veteran 

having to go through all of that again. 

That makes common sense. 

That particular idea was offered by 

the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. PRYOR, 

and it is a part of the bill. Also, Senator MURRAY, who is here on the floor 

and who is the chairman of the committee, reached out and incorporated a 

number—and she can address that—of 

the different bipartisan ideas and not 

just my idea, which is the one I was 

talking about wherein veterans can 

have employment up to a year—but so 

many others that are incorporated into 

the bill that came out of committee. 

So we already did something about 

matching civilian requirements, albeit 

what was signed into law was just with 

regard to Federal employment. 

Also, last year we passed a bill that 

granted tax benefits to companies that 

hire wounded warriors. Of course, we 

know what inspiration all the rest of 

us take from the wounded warriors. 

The Senator from Oklahoma and I from 

time to time go to Bethesda to what 

used to be called Bethesda Naval and 

now is the combined, all-military services Walter Reed. For every one of us 

who goes out there and suddenly sees 

these veterans coming in who are on 

these new kinds of computer-controlled 

prostheses where they can actually 

walk and run, even when their leg has 

been blown off above the knee, it pulls 

at our hearts and yet we are so glad 

that technology has moved forward. 

But those same ladies and gentlemen 

need jobs. Until the recovery is complete, they are having difficulty. That 

is why I filed this bill. The chairman of 

the committee and the ranking member have done their best to work across 

the aisle. 

Veterans don’t care to hear about 

why we can’t help them. They don’t 

care to hear about technicalities of a 

budget point of order. They want our 

country to support them in the way 

they have supported us, and that is an 

obligation. A lot of us in this Chamber 

have served in the military. I think it 

is engrained in every Senator here that 

we have an obligation to those who 

have served this country. 

This effort here today that we are 

going to vote on in 20 minutes has 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6403 

broad support from veterans and police 

organizations. The Disabled American 

Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, and 

the American Legion all support it. 

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America have called and pleaded for its 

immediate passage. They know why: 

Because of their veterans’ need to 

know that Congress has their back. 

So I would make a plea to the Senate. We just need a few votes from that 

side of the aisle to get to the threshold 

of 60 to waive the technicality of the 

budget point of order. 

I look forward to the comments of 

my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma. 

Madam President, since the time is 

controlled over here, I reserve the final 

7 minutes for the chairman of the committee. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the 

floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, my 

colleague from Florida raises some 

good points about us wanting to help 

our veterans. I don’t think there is 

anybody who does not recognize their 

significant sacrifice. As a matter of 

fact, it was not long ago that the 45th 

from Oklahoma lost 17 people in Afghanistan and hundreds were wounded. 

The real question is: how do we help 

them the best? How do we really help 

veterans? We are going to have plenty 

of opportunities to say there is a reason to not do the right thing for the 

long-term best interests of our country. 

We have never found ourselves in the 

predicament we find ourselves in today 

in terms of our financial exposure and 

the real risk to the veterans who have 

jobs today—which nobody is talking 

about but the real risk for them. Because when this thing goes down—and I 

am talking about the financial collapse 

of this country—when it happens, those 

who have jobs who are veterans today 

are going to lose them. So there could 

be no more noble cause than to make 

an exception for veterans, except that 

is not what the Senate does. We make 

an exception every time—every time. 

Here is the question for my friend: 

Under what system of values, honor, 

and integrity did these veterans serve? 

The highest and noblest of honor and 

integrity, without a doubt. 

They put their life on the line so I do 

not have to, so my adult, mature children in their thirties and forties do not 

have to. The difference is, what they 

put their life on the line for was to ensure that the freedom and liberty and 

vibrancy of this country goes forward. 

We are taking a little pocketknife to 

one of the legs of the three-legged stool 

with our actions and slowly nibbling 

the support of that leg. We are taking 

it away by our very actions. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam 

President, I would like to respond to 

my friend. 

Mr. COBURN. If I could finish. Since 

the other side has the last 7 minutes, I 

will be finished well before then. 

We are going to say the financial 

condition of the country does not matter. We are going to say it does not 

matter the $1 billion a year we are 

spending already on veterans job training programs. It does not matter. We 

are going to say here is a year’s program for jobs for 20,000 veterans and 

that is going to trump everything else. 

You would not have any objection 

from this Senator if you actually really paid for this, No. 1, if you did not 

violate pay-go and you truly did it in a 

way that oversighted the present job 

training programs we have and you 

truly did it in a way that matches the 

integrity and honor of our veterans. 

But we did not do that. No. We played 

games. We played games with budget 

rules. We played games with pay-go. 

We did not do any oversight. We did 

not even have a hearing. There was no 

hearing on this bill. 

You took Senator BURR’s suggestions, which were common sense, and 

applied it broadly across the government. But we did not match the honor 

and integrity and valor and purpose. 

When I meet with veterans in townhall 

meetings, I ask them why they serve. 

Do you know what they tell me? Because this is the greatest country the 

world has ever known and they want to 

keep it that way. 

What we are doing today does not 

keep it that way. It perpetuates the 

same problems that created the very 

dangerous situation this country is in. 

So when we make a claim about that 

everybody agrees with this bill, I just 

wish to say I do not agree with the bill. 

There are a whole lot of ways to help 

veterans that are better than this, that 

give them a permanent job. We passed 

the post-9/11 GI bill; right? They can 

get paid a stipend while they go to college to learn a new skill, the same as a 

noncom officer. They get paid for the 

books and tuition and everything else 

so they can become whole as they learn 

a skill. We have the capability for 

studies while we are in the military. 

We have six separate job training programs that we are spending $1 billion a 

year on. 

The best way to help veterans is to 

fix this country’s economic situation 

to create opportunity, and they will fly 

because they have already proven they 

have the initiative, the strength, the 

moral courage, the integrity, and the 

valor to accomplish anything they 

want to accomplish. 

So I am in disagreement with my 

friend. I think we have a political device in front of us, and I am going to be 

very interested to see the character of 

the Senate on whether it succumbs to 

the parochial and political over the 

best long-term interests of the country. If it does, it just proves that the 

Senate needs to be changed to truly address the real problems in front of our 

country. That is what it is going to 

prove, regardless of the outcome: Do 

we have the character? Do we match 

the valor, honor, and integrity of the 

people who serve this Nation in the 

Armed Forces with our willingness to 

sacrifice our political careers to do 

what is in the best long-term interest 

of the country? 

They set the example for us. The 

question is whether we will follow their 

example. 

I yield to my friend from Florida. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam 

President, before the chairman of the 

committee uses the time reserved for 

her, I wish to respond to my friend 

from Oklahoma—and he is my friend— 

by telling him why I think he is wrong 

on this issue and telling him by way of 

a compliment to him because the Senator from Oklahoma and I, the Senator 

from Florida, had worked together, he 

being much more prominent in the efforts, to bring the budget under control 

1 year ago. 

In having discussions across the 

aisle—often private discussions—what 

started as a rump group known as the 

Gang of 6 that grew and blossomed into 

what, in effect, became a group of 45— 

and I think that was the number of us 

who stood in the Senate Press Gallery 

in the summer 1 year ago; it was the 

summer of 2011—and we said we wanted 

a big $4 trillion-plus budget deficit, and 

we pointed out ways we could get 

there. 

Indeed, what this Senator has said— 

and I have heard other Republican Senators who feel and have said very close 

to identical things publicly; and I will 

name one and that is Senator LINDSEY

GRAHAM and he stated it on ‘‘Meet the 

Press’’ a couple months ago—that the 

way we get there is producing revenue 

through reform of the Tax Code by 

going after all the tax preferences 

which have ballooned out of control 

since the last tax reform bill in 1986, 

that this Senator, then a young Congressman, voted for, to the point that 

tax expenditures, tax preferences are 

now $14 trillion over 10 years. A lot of 

them have outlived their usefulness. 

For a lot of them, their special interests or sponsors would tell us: We 

would not want that if we could have a 

certainty of a lower rate. 

Therefore, we have said many times 

on this floor and in public statements, 

we can take tax preferences, restrain 

them, and use that revenue to do two 

things: lower everybody’s tax rates, including corporate, streamline the Tax 

Code by getting all this underbrush of 

preferences out of the way, and then 

use the rest of the revenue to lower the 

deficit. 

I suspect the Senator and I feel very 

similar about that issue. So when he 

talks about reforming the spending 

process, the fiscal process which includes the revenue process of this country, then I think we have grounds for 

significant agreement, and I would 

hope we are going to address that in 

the lameduck session that starts. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

My plea is that we do not take it out, 

in this particular case, on something 

that can be done immediately for veterans in need returning home from Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield 

for a question? 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course. 

Mr. COBURN. Through the Chair, I 

would ask the Senator, how did he vote 

on the tax extender package coming 

out of the Senate Finance Committee? 

Because that is the real test of whether 

the Senator wants to reform the Tax 

Code. As I recall, the Senator voted for 

it and I voted against it. There is a 

very big difference. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I 

would remind all the Senators, we are 

here on the floor on a very important 

bill on the Veterans Jobs Corps, and I 

wish to thank my colleague from Florida, Senator BILL NELSON, for his tremendous leadership and passion on the 

issue of making sure our veterans get 

back to work, at a time when they 

have a 20-percent-plus unemployment 

rate, and for his work on this bill as we 

move to this point. 

I have been listening to the debate on 

this bill, and what I have heard are 

some pretty weak arguments against 

the merits of this legislation. I have 

heard we have not held hearings on the 

employment or on the provisions of 

this legislation. 

The Senators who spoke may not 

have known—they are not on our committee—but, indeed, we have had hearings on employment both last year and 

this year and on this bill. Veterans 

groups and the VA at multiple hearings, in fact, have had multiple opportunities to give their views. The COPS 

and SAFER Grant Programs in this 

bill have been around for years, and we 

know they work. 

On the point I heard reiterated here, 

that the bill was not paid for, violated 

pay-go, as all bills that come before the 

Senate, this bill is fully paid for. It 

does not violate pay-go rules. 

We are going to have a vote shortly 

on a point of order on this bill. A vote 

to support the point of order, plain and 

simple, says we spend enough now on 

our veterans. 

That is what it says: We spend 

enough on our veterans. A vote to support this point of order says that despite the fact that we have paid for this 

bill, despite the fact that one in four of 

our young veterans is out of work, despite the fact that veteran suicides are 

outpacing combat deaths, and despite 

the fact that more and more veterans 

are coming home today, we are not 

going to invest in those challenges. It 

says we have done enough. 

This point of order puts a price on 

what we as a country are willing to 

provide our veterans and says we are 

not going to do a penny more. It is a 

point of order that not only will kill 

our ability, I will tell my colleagues, to 

pass this bill, but it will also affect 

every effort we make to improve the 

lives of our veterans going forward. 

In fact, just last week we held a 

markup in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. We passed a slew of bills in a 

bipartisan fashion. Those were very important bills to improve mental health 

access, to give students new tools so 

they can maximize their GI benefit, 

and, importantly, it would give veterans who have lost their ability to 

start a family access to fertility services. All those bills, under this, would 

be subject to a point of order, as would, 

of course, countless other bills introduced by Senators on both sides of the 

aisle. There is no end in sight, I would 

tell everyone, for how long this point 

of order could be raised. 

We have to consider, as we vote, the 

lasting effect of this vote that we are 

about to take. We should all consider 

the fact that veterans are watching 

this vote very closely. 

(Mr. FRANKEN assumed the Chair.) 

Mr. President, this is a bill that has 

been endorsed by the American Legion 

and by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. They know, as I do, 

neither party has a magic bullet for 

this problem of employment, and we 

should be taking good ideas from both 

sides of the aisle, which is exactly what 

we have done with this bill that is before us. This bill includes 12 different 

provisions to help create veterans jobs. 

Eight of them are ideas that have come 

from Republicans. In fact, to make this 

bill even more inclusive and more bipartisan, we took Senator BURR’s entire alternative bill and added it to our 

bill. 

At every turn we have sought compromise. But instead of meeting us 

halfway, we have been met with resistance. Instead of saying yes to nearly 1 

million unemployed veterans, it seems 

that some on the other side of the aisle 

have spent the last week and a half 

seeking any way to say no. 

It does not have to end this way for 

our unemployed veterans. We can join 

together and pass this bill. 

Mr. President, as you have heard me 

say, our veterans don’t ask for a lot. 

My own father never talked about his 

service. The veterans whom I meet 

across the country do not want to be 

seen as dependent on government. But 

we owe them more than a pat on the 

back, sending them out to the world 

when they come home. We owe them 

more than bumper stickers and platitudes. We owe them more than procedural roadblocks, which is what we will 

vote on shortly, that will impede our 

ability to provide them not only help 

now but into the future. 

We owe them action. We owe them 

real investments that will help them 

get back to work, and that is what this 

legislation does. It does so because putting our servicemembers back to work 

is a cost of war. Putting our veterans 

back to work is a cost of war, just like 

their health care and benefits. It is 

part of what we owe the less than 1 percent of men and women who sacrificed 

for the 99 percent who did not. 

It is no secret that this is not the 

easiest time of year to get a bill 

passed. 

It is too easy to point to the calendar 

here and level accusations about politics against one another. But in my 

two decades working on veterans issues 

here in the Senate, I have seen veterans issues rise above politics time 

and again, even when it seemed our 

backs were against the wall. I have 

seen Democrats and Republicans come 

together, and they have done so because there is one group of Americans 

who do not care about the calendar or 

how many days we are out from an 

election; that is, our unemployed veterans. What they care about is finding 

work in their communities, finding 

work that gives them the self-esteem 

they need today, and finding work that 

helps them provide for their loved ones. 

We can do that today. 

I urge my colleagues to join with us 

in waiving this point of order, to join 

with us in telling our veterans we are 

not done investing in their care and 

benefits, not by a long shot. Join with 

us in moving forward with a bill that is 

paid for, that will not add to our deficit, and that should not be killed by 

procedural games. Join with us in putting veterans above political obstructionism and back to work. 

I yield the floor and yield back any 

time that remains. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the question is on 

agreeing to the motion. 

The yeas and nays have previously 

been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. KIRK). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 58, 

nays 40, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.] 

YEAS—58 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Collins 

Conrad 

Coons 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Heller 

Inouye 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Manchin 

McCaskill 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wyden 

NAYS—40 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Barrasso 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Burr 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Enzi 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hatch 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Isakson 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6405 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kyl 

Lee 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moran 

Paul 

Portman 

Risch 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Thune 

Toomey 

Vitter 

Wicker 

NOT VOTING—2 

Inhofe Kirk 

Mr. FRANKEN. On this vote, the 

yeas are 58 and the nays are 40. Threefifths of the Senators duly chosen and 

sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The 

point of order is sustained, and the 

amendment falls. 

Under the previous order, the cloture 

motions with respect to amendment 

No. 2789 and S. 3457 are withdrawn and 

the bill will be returned to the calendar. 

The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move 

to withdraw my motion to proceed to 

Calendar No. 499. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The motion is 

withdrawn. 

f 

MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISAL YEAR 2013 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move 

to proceed to Calendar No. 511, H.J. 

Res. 117, which is the continuing resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows. 

A resolution (H.J. Res. 117) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, 

and for other purposes. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am momentarily going to send to the desk a 

cloture motion that I will ask be reported. But prior to that, I am filing 

cloture. What a shame. Why would we 

have to file cloture on the continuing 

resolution? It is absurd. But I will go 

through the process and do it. I think 

it is just such a shame. 

I have a cloture motion at the desk, 

and I ask that it be reported. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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, do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar No. 511, H.J. Res. 

117, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for 

other purposes. 

Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Patty 

Murray, Bernard Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon 

Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Ron 

Wyden, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, 

Christopher A. Coons, Jon Tester, Michael F. Bennet, Kay R. Hagan, Robert 

P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, 

Barbara Boxer. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 

quorum required under rule XXII be 

waived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, per our previous consent agreement which is now 

before the Senate, we will have the cloture vote after the caucus lunches, at 

2:15 p.m. today. 

f 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

in recess until 2:15 p.m. today. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:35 p.m, 

recessed until 2:15 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. S

f 

ANDERS). 

MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, pursuant to rule 

XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate 

the pending cloture motion, which the 

clerk will state. 

The legislative 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, do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar No. 511, H.J. Res. 

117, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for 

other purposes. 

Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Patty 

Murray, Bernard Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon 

Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Ron 

Wyden, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, 

Christopher A. Coons, Jon Tester, Michael F. Bennet, Kay R. Hagan, Robert 

P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, 

Barbara Boxer. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call has been waived. 

The question is, Is it the sense of the 

Senate that debate on the motion to 

proceed to H.J. Res. 117, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations 

for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? 

The yeas and nays are mandatory 

under the rule. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE,) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. KIRK). 

Further, if present and voting, the 

Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE) 

would have voted: ‘‘yea.’’ 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 76, 

nays 22, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.] 

YEAS—76 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Blunt 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Burr 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Cochran 

Conrad 

Coons 

Cornyn 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (SD) 

Johnson (WI) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Portman 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Roberts 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Thune 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—22 

Barrasso 

Boozman 

Coburn 

Collins 

Corker 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Enzi 

Graham 

Grassley 

Lee 

Manchin 

McCain 

Moran 

Paul 

Risch 

Rubio 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Toomey 

Vitter 

NOT VOTING—2 

Inhofe Kirk 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 22. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

The Senator from Montana. 

THE FARM BILL

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 3 

months ago the United States Senate 

came together and passed a full 5-year 

farm bill. We did not kick the can down 

the road. We passed a bill, working together, that provides the certainty 

America’s farmers and ranchers need 

to continue supporting rural jobs and 

putting food on our tables. So there is 

absolutely no excuse for Congress to 

adjourn without sending this bill to the 

President’s desk to be signed into law. 

Still, because the House refuses to even 

bring this bill up for a vote, it looks as 

though that is exactly what is going to 

happen. It is shameful. 

Passing the bill in the Senate was 

not easy; everyone had to make a compromise. But the farm bill touches on 

the lives of millions of Americans in 

every single State. It is too important 

not to act. 

The Senate’s farm bill is true reform. 

We cut the deficit by more than $23 billion over 10 years. We streamlined programs to make them more efficient. 

We went back to the drawing board on 

commodity programs and created a 

true safety net—one that works for 

America’s farmers as well as for the 

taxpayers—again, cutting the farm 

program by $23 billion. 

The House Agriculture Committee 

pushed out a bipartisan farm bill as 

well. I give the House Agriculture Committee a lot of credit. It is no secret 

that there are differences, but even to 

begin working out those differences the 

House needs to catch up, because despite having a bipartisan farm bill that 

passed the House Agriculture Committee, the House leadership is refusing to take it up. 

This isn’t my first farm bill. I can 

tell my colleagues from personal experience that this action in the House 

body is unprecedented. House leadership has never blocked a farm bill that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE