S6502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

Kay R. Hagan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 

Richard Blumenthal, Ron Wyden, Barbara Boxer. 

MOTION TO COMMIT WITH AMENDMENT NO. 2846

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

motion to commit the joint resolution 

with instructions, which is at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the motion. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] moves 

to commit the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 117, 

to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith with the 

instructions, amendment numbered 2846. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end, add the following new section: 

SEC. lll. 

This joint resolution shall become effective 3 days after enactment. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2847

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment to the instructions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 2847 to the 

Instructions on the Motion to Commit. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘3 days’’ and insert ‘‘2 days’’. 

Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2848 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2847

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now have 

a second-degree amendment at the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 2848 to 

amendment No. 2847. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘2 days’’ and insert ‘‘1 day’’. 

f 

SPORTSMEN’S ACT OF 2012— 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to 

proceed to Calendar No. 504, S. 3525. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the bill by title. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] moves 

to proceed to the consideration of Calendar 

No. 504, S. 3525, a bill to protect and enhance 

opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at 

the desk. 

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, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 504, S. 3525, a bill to 

protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and 

for other purposes. 

Harry Reid, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin III, 

Jeanne Shaheen, Sheldon Whitehouse, 

Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden, Max 

Baucus, Daniel K. Inouye, Kent Conrad, 

Mark Pryor, Christopher A. Coons, Michael F. Bennet, Kay R. Hagan, Robert 

P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, Ben 

Nelson. 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the mandatory quorum required 

under rule XXII be waived with respect 

to both cloture motions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the President pro tempore of the Senate is on 

the floor and seeks recognition. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

President pro tempore. 

H.J. RES. 117

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, 

as we near the end of the current fiscal 

year, the Senate is considering H.J. 

Res. 117, a continuing resolution to ensure that the Federal Government will 

remain functioning through March of 

next year in the absence of regular appropriations. Last Thursday, the House 

passed this measure by a vote of 329 to 

91. 

This bill provides total discretionary 

spending of $1.047 trillion. This is the 

funding level the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended on an 

overwhelming bipartisan vote of 27 to 2 

and the level agreed to last year in the 

Budget Control Act, but this bill is $19 

billion more than what was approved 

by the House in the PAUL RYAN budget. 

I am encouraged the House has finally 

repudiated its own budget. I am only 

sorry it has taken them this long to 

come to their senses. One of the primary reasons Congress now faces this 

CR is that the House broke this agreement on spending. 

I want my colleagues to know I support this measure even though it is far 

from perfect. In fact, I would say it is 

not a good bill, but passing it is much 

better than allowing the government 

to shut down over a lack of funding. 

Continuing resolutions are not new. 

As some of my colleagues are aware, I 

have served in this Senate for 49 years 

and 9 months. During my tenure, this 

Congress has completed its work and 

enacted all of its spending bills without 

needing a continuing resolution on 

only three occasions. In 49 years, three 

times. This is not a record we should be 

proud of, but it demonstrates how difficult it is to agree on funding for each 

of the thousands of Federal programs 

that the Appropriations Committee reviews annually. However, never before 

in history has the Congress passed a 

stopgap resolution in September to 

fund the entire government for half the 

coming fiscal year. It is unfortunate 

that it has come to this. 

Seven months ago, as we began this 

legislative session, the mood was quite 

different. There was broad support for 

acting on appropriations bills. Several 

Members on both sides of the aisle 

came to the floor to speak about restoring regular order and passing all 12 

appropriations bills. Both the Republican and Democratic leaders spoke in 

favor of considering all of these bills. 

The Appropriations Committee was 

urged to conduct a budget review as 

quickly as possible and report bills to 

the Senate for consideration, and our 

subcommittees embraced this challenge. We shortened our hearing schedule, conducted thousands of meetings 

with executive branch officials and the 

public, and began to mark up bills 

shortly after receiving our allocation 

from the Budget Committee. 

In most years the Senate Appropriations Committee begins its markups in 

June. This year the committee reported its first two bills in April and 

had nine bills ready for floor consideration by the end of June. 

By July the committee had reported 

out 11 bills, 9 of which were recommended with strong bipartisan 

votes, and by that I mean 30 to 0 or 29 

to 1. Despite the work of the committee, none of those bills have been 

considered by the Senate. The decision 

by the House to break faith with the 

Senate and the administration on funding levels and the inclusion of outrageous legislative policy riders in 

their bills drained the enthusiasm for 

acting on those measures. But the real 

culprit thwarting the efforts of the 

committee was a handful of my colleagues who insisted on delaying the 

business of the Senate. 

We have heard our distinguished majority leader cite the statistics. In 382 

instances in the past 6 years he has 

been forced to file cloture to break filibusters. It is becoming very clear filibusters are crippling the Senate. This 

year, this Senate has been in session 

for 105 days. By my count, on 31 of 

those days the Senate has done nothing 

but consider motions to proceed, as we 

are doing with this motion, or to invoke cloture. That means nearly 30 

percent of the Senate’s time this year 

has been completely wasted. 

Moreover, the Senate has only voted 

on amendments and legislation on 21 of 

those days that we were in session. On 

21 out of 105 days, we actually legislated and worked. The rest of the time 

was spent on a backlog of nominations 

or breaking filibusters. 

I have never experienced anything 

like this in my many years in the Senate. It is true that for some time the 

use of filibusters has been increasing, 

but this year it has truly exploded. I do 

not oppose filibusters. I believe the filibuster is one of the most critical tools 

Senators have to protect the rights of 

our constituents. This is especially 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6503 

true for small States, such as Hawaii, 

which are at a disadvantage in the 

House of Representatives compared to 

States with very large delegations. In 

fact, the first speech I delivered in the 

Senate was in defense of the filibuster. 

I supported the filibuster. Times were 

different then. 

For example, I waited until April of 

that year before speaking on the Senate floor, and I spoke on the filibuster. 

When I delivered my maiden speech, 

legendary Senators such as Everett 

Dirksen, Richard Russell, Mike Mansfield, and John Stennis were all in attendance. Truly, times have changed, 

but the most striking difference between then and now is that a filibuster 

was used very rarely in those early 

days and only for matters of extreme 

importance to Members and their 

States. 

I did not agree with those who used 

the filibuster in the 1960s to try to stop 

civil rights legislation. I disagreed 

with those who used the filibuster 

against health care reform in 2010. But 

in both cases I defended the right to do 

so. 

This year the Senate has been held 

up, delayed, and rendered ineffective 

for at least 30 percent of its time by 

the abuse of the filibuster. These filibusters were not to highlight important policy differences, nor were they 

to protect a Senator’s constituents. Instead, in virtually every case it was 

simply to thwart the ability of the 

Senate to function. 

So today is a sad day. The Senate is 

forced to take up a 6-month continuing 

resolution instead of acting upon regular appropriations bills. The bipartisan zeal for regular order last spring 

has been crushed by dilatory tactics of 

a few Members who have wasted the 

Senate’s time. At some point, this body 

needs to alter either its behavior or its 

rules. 

In addition to discretionary funding, 

this resolution also provides $99 billion 

for overseas contingencies as requested 

and necessary for the coming year. 

Further, it continues funding at current levels to pay for disasters under 

FEMA and to fight fraud, waste, and 

abuse in the Social Security Program. 

Each of these is consistent with the authorities included in the Budget Control Act. 

In addition, the bill before the Senate 

provides only the bare minimum that 

is necessary to maintain the functions 

of our Federal Government. The administration sought approximately 78 

proposals to ensure that critical programs and authorities could be continued for the next 6 months. This bill includes only about half of them because 

the House was unwilling to allow more. 

Provisions deemed essential by the 

Secretary of Defense to preserve authorities for ongoing programs in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and 

in Iraq are not in this measure. Special 

provisions to allow the Department of 

Defense to award contracts for critical 

programs were denied. Additional funding to activate new Federal prisons 

that currently sit empty was not included. 

This bill denies necessary authorities 

for dozens of programs. In some cases, 

the administration will find cumbersome work-arounds. For others it 

will have to slow down work on ongoing programs, and this increases costs 

and brings about inefficiency. Many 

programs will simply have to cease activity and await additional action on 

appropriations bills. 

We urged the House to include many 

of the provisions requested by the administration, but they refused. The bill 

would have been far better had more of 

these requirements been met. Yet I 

would point out that the House has not 

played favorites. No department was 

granted the authorities it required. 

The Defense Department has not been 

singled out for special help by House 

Republicans. If anything, it has been 

treated more harshly than many other 

agencies. 

So I support this bill because opposing it is not a responsible alternative. 

No one should be interested in delaying 

or defeating this bill. We simply cannot afford to shut down government 

operations. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in 

voting for this bill which will preserve 

our government. It is lean and it is 

stripped down, but it contains the 

funding and minimal authorities essential to ensure that the services provided for all Americans can be continued over the coming months. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, 

this continuing resolution results from 

an agreement reached between the 

President and the congressional leadership for a 6-month, clean CR that adheres to the fiscal year 2013 spending 

levels set out in the Budget Control 

Act. 

The continuing resolution does not 

make reductions in programs for which 

the President requested less money in 

fiscal year 2013, nor does it make cuts 

that have been proposed by the Congress. Neither does the resolution increase funding for programs Congress 

or the administration deemed to be 

high priorities, with a few exceptions. 

The continuing resolution does not 

contain any new oversight provisions 

to guide agencies, nor does it include 

any new riders to limit the activities of 

the executive branch. In short, it puts 

the portion of government that we call 

discretionary on automatic pilot. Enactment of this resolution will, for the 

time being, avoid a disruptive government-shutdown fight. 

The resolution represents a lost opportunity. We have lost the opportunity to provide agencies with at least 

some certainty about funding for this 

fiscal year. We have lost the opportunity to make informed judgments 

about which programs are effective and 

deserving of additional resources and 

which programs should be reformed or 

terminated. Contracts will not be let in 

a timely and efficient manner, and acquisition and construction costs will 

rise with delay. The morale of the Federal workforce will suffer. Perhaps 

most importantly, we have lost a 

chance to supplant the looming sequester. 

Elections have consequences, as they 

most certainly should, but elections 

should not have the consequence of 

rendering Congress unwilling or incapable of performing its most fundamental duties in the times leading up 

to those elections. In my view, the 

thoughtful and dutiful appropriation of 

funds for our national defense and 

other government operations is such a 

fundamental duty. 

I deeply regret that the majority 

leader chose not to call up a single appropriations bill. Chairman INOUYE has 

shown impressive leadership of our 

committee in reporting 11 of the 12 

bills out of our committee. Most were 

reported on a broad bipartisan basis. 

The chairmen and ranking members of 

the subcommittees have put a lot of 

time and thought into the bills. The 

staffs have worked very hard producing 

this legislation. The other body has 

also produced a bill. It has passed seven 

of the appropriations bills in the other 

body and I suspect would have passed 

the others had there been any sign of 

movement in the Senate. 

We can only speculate as to why none 

of the bills have been considered here 

in the Senate. Other issues were 

deemed more pressing or expedient for 

one reason or another. Perhaps votes 

on amendments to spending bills were 

deemed to be politically perilous, 

whatever the reasons. 

At a time when addressing our Nation’s fiscal situation is so central to 

our duty as Senators, it seems more 

imperative than ever that Members of 

this body have an opportunity to offer 

amendments to shape the spending 

bills. Our problems are sufficiently 

large that it will require all of our good 

ideas to make the day-to-day operations of government as efficient and 

effective as possible. This might mean 

we have to take votes on difficult 

amendments. But would that really be 

so traumatic? 

As a result of our inaction, we are 

compelled to pass this continuing resolution to fund the government. I would 

have preferred a shorter term CR in 

order to motivate action on the appropriations bills, but 6 months is what 

has been agreed to. 

Proponents of this 6-month CR argue 

that the prospect of a government 

shutdown should be taken off the table 

so that we can focus on the complex 

issues facing us in the coming months. 

But do those issues look any more simple now that we are about to pass this 

CR? 

All manner of taxes are scheduled to 

go up on January 1. Medicare reimbursement rates will be cut dramatically. The debt ceiling looms. And due 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

to the inability of the supercommittee 

to propose a debt reduction package, 

we are facing a budget sequester that 

very few people seem to think is a good 

idea. 

Perhaps passage of this CR will help 

us address these pressing matters. I 

hope that it will. But I am not so sure 

it changes things that much. 

Regardless of who wins what in the 

upcoming election, we have a great 

deal of unfinished business to resolve 

in the coming months. 

None of my colleagues likely relish 

the prospect of voting in March—up or 

down—on either a trillion-dollar omnibus bill or a trillion-dollar full-year 

CR. Yet that is where we are headed if 

we continue to do nothing. 

Appropriations bills are not simply 

opportunities to spend more money. 

They provide regular opportunities for 

effective oversight of Federal agencies. 

And when we take the time to bring 

them to the Senate floor, they provide 

regular opportunities for the elected 

representatives of all the people to 

shape, as well as fund the operations of 

the Federal Government. I hope the 

Senate will not continue to deny the 

people that opportunity. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii. 

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I believe the record should show how much 

we appreciate the work of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the 

vice chairman of the committee, THAD

COCHRAN. We have demonstrated to our 

colleagues that bipartisanship works in 

this Senate. All they have to do is 

watch us operate. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

REMEMBERING JENNIFER GREEN

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise 

today with great sadness to inform the 

Senate that Jennifer Green, a valued 

member of my staff and a cherished 

member of the Senate family, passed 

away last weekend after a brief illness. 

It is a comfort to all who knew Jennifer that she spent her last hours in a 

room filled with the family she cherished so deeply, but no room on Earth 

would have been large enough to hold 

all those who mourn her, who have 

been touched and made better by 

Jennifer’s beautiful smile, big heart, 

and easy friendship. She is sorely 

missed in my office, throughout the 

Senate, and even across the country. 

Jennifer worked in my office for the 

past 14 years, but she served the Senate 

for nearly a quarter century, starting 

with the Sergeant at Arms when she 

was just 20 years old. Jennifer was 

often the first face visitors to my office 

would see. She did more than just arrange Capitol tours or point them to 

the nearest DC attraction; she worked 

out a botched hotel reservation, found 

a glass of water to soothe an overheated toddler, listened to worries 

about a failing farm, a sick grandparent, or a threatened job. 

Many of my constituents arrive in 

the office a little overwhelmed by 

Washington, perhaps a little angry at 

Congress, but after meeting Jennifer, 

they left knowing they had a friend 

here. Jennifer put a human, caring face 

on the Senate—a service to this institution that affected the way hundreds, 

and probably thousands, of Wisconsinites viewed their government. 

Of course, no one, not visitor or staff, 

could leave the office without an update on Jennifer’s family, especially 

her beloved mother Beatrice Spicer, 

her father Floyd Spicer, her brothers 

and sisters, and her son Lorenzo Green. 

She was so proud of this fine young 

man, as we all are. Through Jennifer, 

we got to watch a mischievous little 

boy grow to a talented and strong man 

serving our country as a member of the 

U.S. Coast Guard. She made sure everyone got a good look at the handsome—and big—framed picture she 

kept in her cubicle of Lorenzo in uniform. 

Jennifer made us all feel as if we 

were part of her wonderful family. She 

was always the first to ask to see the 

picture of a new baby, quick to drive a 

colleague to the doctor or listen to a 

staffer who lost a parent, ready to swap 

a recipe or dissect the Redskins’ latest 

performance. And that was not just my 

experience and that of my staff—Jennifer knew just about everyone who 

works on the Hill. We have had a 

steady stream of visitors stopping by 

the office to share memories and express their condolences. Thank you all 

for the comfort that has brought our 

staff. 

Jennifer’s funeral will be held in her 

hometown of Princeton, WV, this Saturday. I urge anyone who wants to attend or to leave a message for the family through the funeral home to contact my office for details. We will also 

be organizing a memorial service for 

Jennifer here in the Senate in the coming weeks, and we will make sure all 

offices get plenty of notice so that her 

many friends can be there. 

Everywhere you look in the Capitol, 

there are plaques, pictures, and statues 

commemorating the men and women 

who built this great institution, but 

these, like all things physical, oftentimes fade or are forgotten. Jennifer 

touched the heart of the Senate, the 

people who work here, and the people 

who visit. Hers is a legacy and a contribution that time cannot erase. 

For everyone in my office and for the 

entire Senate, I offer my deepest condolences to Jennifer’s dear family. I 

hope you can find comfort in knowing 

of all the good she did and the joy she 

brought in her time here. We will all 

miss her profoundly and hold her in our 

hearts forever. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 

consent to have printed in the RECORD

a copy of Jennifer’s obituary. 

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

RECORD, as follows: 

JENNIFER DENISE SPICER GREEN

Jennifer Denise Spicer Green, 46 of Lusby, 

MD, departed this life Saturday, September 

15, 2012, at Georgetown University Hospital 

in Washington, DC. She was born February 

23, 1966 in Princeton to the union of James F. 

Spicer and Beatrice Spicer and was the 

youngest of five children. Jennifer first accepted the Lord at Mt. Calvary Missionary 

Baptist Church in Princeton and after moving to Maryland she became a member of the 

Maple Springs Baptist Church in Suitland, 

MD. She was a graduate of Princeton High 

School and was a former employee at the 

Dairy Queen in Princeton. Her first government position was doorkeeper of the Senate 

Chamber, and she then worked as an elevator 

operator in the Unites States Capitol in 

Washington, DC. Jennifer continued her 

service as mail carrier under the Senate Sergeant at Arms Office for the Senate Post Office. She then became a data entry operator 

to U.S. Senator Paul Simon of Illinois and 

later accepted a position as front office receptionist with the Special Committee of 

Aging. During the changing of legislature, 

Jennifer moved to Charlotte, NC, where she 

worked with the American Heart Association 

and Gerrard Tire and Automotive. Upon 

moving back to Maryland, Jennifer accepted 

the position as receptionist with the Senate 

Finance Committee and then spent the last 

sixteen years with the office of Senator Herb 

Kohl of Wisconsin in the positions of Mailroom Manager, Photographer, and Intern Supervisor. During this time she also worked 

part time for Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, 

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, 

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and 

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. She was 

preceded in death by her maternal and paternal grandparents. Survivors include her loving son, Lorenzo J. Green of the U.S. Coast 

Guard stationed in Alaska; parents, Beatrice 

E. Burton Spicer of Princeton and James 

‘‘Floyd’’ Spicer of Atlanta, GA; step children, LaQuosha Jackson, Willard Green, Jr., 

Byron Green, Latonya Green, and Trea 

Green; three godchildren, Brittany Coleman, 

Mykisha Avery, and Amanda Spicer; two 

brothers, Joey A. Spicer and James ‘‘Toby’’ 

Spicer both of Princeton; two sisters, Cindy 

E. Townes of New Carlton, MD and Donna M. 

Spicer of Mooresville, NC; special cousin 

that was like a brother to Jennifer, John 

‘‘Dexter’’ Coles of Capitol Heights, MD; 

faithful friend, Derrick Williams; and a host 

of aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins 

and additional friends. Funeral services will 

be conducted at 11:00 AM, Saturday, September 22, 2012 at the George W. Seaver 

Chapel of Seaver Funeral Home in Princeton 

with Bishop Romey Coles, Rev. Charles 

Stores, Rev. Jesse Woods and Rev. Terrance 

Porter officiating. Burial will follow at 

Restlawn Memorial Gardens, Littlesburg 

Road in Bluefield. Family and friends may 

call at the funeral home from 6:00 PM until 

8:00 PM, Friday, September 21, 2012 and 10:00 

AM until the service hour on Saturday. On 

line condolences may be sent by visiting 

www.seaverfuneralservice.com. Seaver Funeral Home in Princeton is serving the Green 

family. 

Mr. KOHL. I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

TRIBUTE TO RYAN MCCOY

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise 

today to recognize and honor my friend 

Ryan McCoy, a departing member of 

my staff. Ryan McCoy is, in fact, much 

more than just a member of my staff; 

he has been the energy behind many of 

my legislative goals, and he is also a 

close friend. While no tribute of words 

could ever match the debt of gratitude 

he truly deserves, I would like to pay 

tribute in the official records of Congress to someone who fought to make a 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6505 

difference both for the State of Utah 

and for our country. 

C.S. Lewis said: 

Friendship is born at that moment when 

one person says to another: ‘‘What! You too? 

I thought I was the only one.’’ 

My friendship with Ryan McCoy, my 

former legislative director, was born in 

that very way described by C.S. Lewis. 

We met back in 2009 when I was speaking to a group of Utahans about a topic 

near and dear to my heart: article I, 

section 8 of the Constitution. I spoke of 

my passion for the Constitution and for 

the principles of limited government 

embodied therein, and my message apparently struck something of a chord 

with Ryan, who had recently taken a 

greater interest in finding ways to restore those same principles. We spent 

several hours after the speech talking 

about what the Constitution meant to 

both of us. I had not always thought 

about running for office, but when 

Ryan suddenly prepared a PowerPoint 

presentation for me about the problems 

we face as a country and about the 

ways in which he and I, working together, could make a difference, I 

started thinking much more seriously 

about it. 

When Ryan and I discussed later his 

leadership role in my office, his wife 

Kara jokingly told him that he had no 

idea what he was doing. But the truth 

is that we needed to know only one 

thing, just one thing: that we could 

make a difference. In the end, I believe 

that was our greatest asset. Ryan and 

I shared a vision for change in Washington. We knew it would not come 

easily, but it had to come from people 

who wanted to make a difference. It 

had to come from people who had lived 

in difficult economic circumstances 

and felt the need for change as it 

tugged at their own pocketbooks and 

at their own individual freedoms being 

eroded by an ever-expanding government. 

At a meeting a few months after we 

met, Ryan spoke of the common goals 

we shared. He said that our movement 

would be based on a clear, unequivocal 

message that it was time to change 

course for our country. Ryan and I 

shared this vision, and Ryan knew others would catch on to it. In the nearly 

2 years he served as my legislative director, he worked hard, he worked tirelessly, he worked constantly to keep us 

focused on these legislative goals and 

to keep us true to our principles. 

It is safe to say that I would not be 

here today without the hard work and 

dedication of Ryan McCoy. Once here, I 

would never have been able to do many 

of the things I have done without Ryan 

McCoy’s expert assistance. Ryan will 

be remembered in my office as a respected leader and as a man who truly 

loves his country. 

Too often in the hustle and bustle of 

Washington, we tend to take our staff 

members for granted. It is when they 

leave that we truly see the impact they 

have had and the wide breadth of influence they had while they were here. 

As much as we will miss Ryan, we 

will also miss his wife Kara and her 

shared enthusiasm every bit as much. I 

thank Kara. She and Ryan have become an important part of my life, an 

important part of my family, an important part of my office family. 

In addition to thanking Kara, I also 

want to thank Ryan and Kara’s children, Connor, Tate, Gage, and McCall, 

for loaning their dad to me for these 

few years. Kara once told me that during a particularly busy time in the 

Senate, one of their children—I do not 

remember which one—actually came to 

her and asked her where their dad had 

gone and whether or when he might be 

returning. I appreciate their sacrifice, 

and I hope they will grow up knowing 

their father is a true hero of mine—and 

always will be—one who works tirelessly for his country and for their future. I wish them the best back in 

Utah, and on behalf of myself, Sharon, 

and my entire staff, I extend my love 

and sincere appreciation to each of 

them. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

TAX AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, 

two enormous challenges will await us 

when we return from recess. Our economy is still not yet fully recovered 

from a devastating recession, and the 

prospects for our middle class and for 

those aspiring to be in the middle class 

or to get back into the middle class remain uncertain. Meanwhile, our budget 

remains sorely out of balance, and our 

long-term debt crisis is putting our Nation’s fiscal future at risk. These two 

challenges are, of course, linked. We 

cannot hope to solve our long-term 

debt problem unless we get our economy growing again, and we cannot 

hope to rebuild our prosperity unless 

we resolve our budget problems. 

So we will have big decisions to make 

when we come back, but in the meantime the American people will be wrestling with the same issues: What 

should we do to grow our economy and 

reduce our debt? What are the right investments to make? 

How should we pay for them? What 

sacrifices must be made in the name of 

fiscal responsibility? Who is going to 

make them? That is the debate our Nation will have over the next 6 weeks. 

Those are the questions we must be 

prepared to answer when we return. So 

before I go home to Minnesota to share 

my thoughts with my constituents, I 

wanted to take a few moments to share 

them with my colleagues. 

My view of what we should do in response to these challenges is based 

upon what we have done in response to 

similar challenges in the past. We are 

not the first Congress or the first generation to struggle with these issues. 

At the end of 2011, our national debt 

had reached 100 percent of our gross domestic product. That is frightening. 

But after World War II, our debt was 

121 percent of GDP. 

To be fair, we had something to show 

for it. We had won World War II and 

the world was a very different place in 

1945 than it is today. But the point is 

that we were tested. How did we respond? Well, we invested in the things 

we believed would grow the economy. 

We invested in education, things such 

as the GI bill, which helped my mother-in-law, widowed at age 29, go to college. 

We invested in Pell grants which 

helped my wife Franni and her three 

sisters go to college. We invested in infrastructure. We built 40,000 miles of 

highways in the 1950s. We invested in 

innovation and we won the space race 

which, in turn, led to the creation of 

whole new industries such as personal 

computers and telecommunications. 

Those investments paid off and our 

economy experienced three decades of 

incredible growth, growth that flowed 

to the top, to the middle, and to the 

bottom. Between 1947 and 1977, wages 

for the top fifth, the top fifth of workers, grew by 99 percent, and wages for 

those in the bottom fifth rose by 116 

percent. I know that is hard to believe. 

The wages of the bottom fifth grew 

more than those of the top fifth. But 

that happened. 

Even though we remained a Nation in 

which many kids like my wife Franni 

grew up in poverty, we had enough to 

invest in a strong safety net that 

helped those kids like Franni and her 

sisters and her brother work their way 

into the middle class. We bounced back 

from World War II to build an economy 

with a middle class that was strong, secure, and accessible to almost everyone. 

Thanks in large part to the growth 

generated by that thriving middle 

class, we were able to lower our national debt to about 31 percent by 1981; 

so 121 percent at the end of World War 

II, to 1981, about 31 percent. Since then 

our economy has had some good times 

and some bad times. We have raised 

taxes and we have lowered taxes. We 

have had surpluses and we have had 

deficits. 

As this chart shows, our debt relative 

to GDP has gone up and down. We have 

seen the results of a variety of approaches to the issues we face today. In 

the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan was 

elected on a platform that appealed to 

concerns that the government taxed 

too much and spent too much. His approach was later called ‘‘starving the 

beast.’’ Here is how he explained it. 

This is a quote. This is President 

Reagan. 

There are always those who told us that 

taxes could not be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our 

children about extravagance until we run 

out of voice and breath or we can cure their 

extravagance by simply reducing their allowance. 

Cutting taxes, cutting revenue to the 

government. When Reagan took office, 

he fulfilled his campaign promise and 

signed into law a huge tax cut, and on 

cue we began to amass enormous deficits almost immediately. In fact, President Reagan’s Budget Director at the 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

time, David Stockman, has explained 

that 1981 was when the era of large permanent deficits began. 

The deficits were so bad in his first 

year, in 1981, that President Reagan 

had to increase taxes in 1982, and again 

in 1983. In fact, he ended up raising 

taxes 11 times; not because Ronald 

Reagan was a Socialist—at least I really do not think so—but, rather, because he could not ignore the arithmetic. 

Still that first tax cut was so big 

that over the course of his Presidency, 

our national debt nearly tripled. It did 

not grow rapidly during the administration of George H. W. Bush. Then he 

handed it off to President Clinton. And 

what he handed off was at that point 

the largest deficit in the history of our 

country. 

In President Clinton’s 1993 deficit reduction package, he added two new tax 

rates, marginal tax rates, at the top 

end: 36 percent for income above 

$180,000, 39.6 percent for incomes above 

$250,000. The Republicans objected 

rather vehemently, arguing that asking the top 2 percent pay a little more 

would send the economy into a recession, which, of course, would be detrimental to the goal of reducing the deficit. 

The bill passed without a single Republican vote in either House. But the 

Republicans’ dire predictions turned 

out to be wrong, extremely wrong. Between 1993 and 2001, this country experienced an unprecedented expansion of 

our economy. We created 22.7 million 

net new jobs. We decreased the number 

of Americans in poverty to record lows. 

We increased the median household income and we created more millionaires 

than we ever had before. 

Not only did President Clinton’s deficit reduction plan reduce the deficit, 

it eliminated the deficit. President 

Clinton was able to hand off to President George W. Bush a record surplus. 

In fact, in January of 2001, we were on 

track to completely pay off our national debt by the year 2011. However, 

as we know, President Bush chose a 

different course. Whether you agree 

with the two wars we entered into during his administration, the new entitlement program that we created, or the 

two tax cuts we passed, the fact of the 

matter is we did not pay for any of 

those things. They all went on our national credit card. 

While the two tax cuts tilted toward 

those at the top—they did help some at 

the top do extremely well during the 

Bush administration—it is hard to say 

the things we put on that credit card 

created the kind of durable broad-based 

prosperity we saw in the 1990s or that 

we built in the 30 years after World 

War II, for that matter. It would be 

hard to say, because when President 

Obama took office from President 

Bush, the economy was hemorrhaging 

jobs at the rate of over 800,000 a month. 

And when the bill came for the Bush 

policies, we were staring at a projected 

$1.1 trillion deficit for 2009. That was 

the projected deficit that President 

Bush left for President Obama. 

So far I have talked about President 

Reagan and his approach of cutting 

revenue in order to force the government to cut spending. We saw what 

happened. We could not or did not cut 

enough spending to keep our budget in 

balance. We had huge deficits even 

when Reagan tried to backtrack and 

raise more revenue. I have talked 

about President Clinton and his approach of raising taxes on the top 2 

percent in order to bring the budget 

into balance. We saw what happened. 

The economy grew and we generated a 

record surplus. I have talked about 

President Bush and his approach of 

cutting taxes and incurring large expenses without worrying about the 

ramifications on the deficit. We saw 

what happened. Deficits ballooned and 

when the economy crashed, it crashed 

hard. 

So what about President Obama? 

What has his approach been? Well, if 

you ask some people, including unfortunately many in this Chamber, they 

tell you that President Obama’s approach was to go on a massive spending 

spree. Well, it is not true. Over his 4 

budget years, Federal spending is on 

track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 

trillion, an annual increase of 0.84 percent. 

You can hash these figures out, but 

here is a chart that comes from Market 

Watch, a publication of Dow Jones 

which also owns the Wall Street Journal, that shows Obama’s increase in 

spending from 2010 to 2013. These are 

Reagan’s. These are numbers from the 

nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, from the Office of Management 

and Budget. You can see the growth of 

Federal spending. This is lower than it 

was under any of the Presidents I 

talked about. 

Indeed, the article that ran with this 

chart concludes that the growth of 

Federal spending under President 

Obama is the lowest it has been since 

the Eisenhower administration during 

the wind-down from the Korean war. 

But remember that besides a $1.1 trillion deficit, President Obama inherited 

an economy that in the month he took 

office lost over 800,000 jobs. That was 

January. The next month, February, 

2009, he lost about 700,000 jobs. But that 

is also the month in which we passed 

the Recovery Act. By the way, when 

the Recovery Act was passed in February of 2009, the unemployment rate 

was already above 8 percent. 

The Recovery Act, also known as the 

stimulus, is what people usually point 

to when pressed to explain why they 

think President Obama has increased 

spending. But the truth is that more 

than one-third of the Recovery Act was 

tax cuts. The stimulus cut taxes for 95 

percent of American families. Another 

one-third was fiscal aid to the States, 

which were feeling the same budget 

crunch as the Federal Government but, 

in most cases, didn’t have the option of 

running a deficit in tough years. Without the Recovery Act, imagine how 

many more teachers and firefighters 

and police officers would have had to 

have been laid off, and imagine what 

that would have meant to our economy, never mind what it would have 

meant to our communities. But the 

one-third that gets the most attention 

was the one-third that went toward 

creating jobs. 

Did it work? There are a few ways to 

answer that question, but the answer is 

the same every time: Yes. First, we can 

look at our chart and see that once the 

Recovery Act began to be implemented 

we started losing less jobs and then we 

started creating jobs. We have had 30 

straight months of private job creation—of growth. 

Secondly, we can ask economists. 

The most reputable economists, including—— 

Mr. REID. Would my friend yield? 

Mr. FRANKEN. Certainly. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, we are 

going to have no more votes today—no 

more votes today. It is obvious to me 

what is going on. I have been to a few 

of these rodeos. It is obvious a big stall 

is taking place, so one of the Senators 

who doesn’t want to be in the debate 

tonight will not be in the debate. He 

can’t use the Senate as an excuse. 

There will be no more votes today. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair. 

That is too bad. 

I was going over what happened, reviewing what happened once the stimulus package had been passed in February, when unemployment was over 8 

percent. And we can see as it started 

taking effect we lost less and less jobs 

and have since had 30 straight months 

of private sector job growth. I said we 

could ask economists. Most reputable 

economists, including those of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 

agree the Recovery Act created or 

saved anywhere from 2.5 million to 3.5 

million jobs. 

In the words of Mark Zandi, the economic adviser to Senator JOHN MCCAIN

in his 2008 Presidential campaign, the 

Federal policy response to the financial crisis, including the stimulus, 

‘‘probably averted what could have 

been called the Great Depression 2.0.’’ 

But we don’t have to take the word of 

Mark Zandi. We don’t have to take the 

word of all the other reputable economists. We don’t even have to take the 

word of the Congressional Budget Office, although the CBO sort of exists 

for those of us in Congress. We can ask 

Jamie, Cecil, and Sheila. 

This is Jamie, working on the Duluth 

Lift Bridge a couple years back. This is 

a picture of Cecil, who is working on a 

highway extension project. Let’s give 

Cecil his due. He is working on a highway extension project in Brooklyn 

Park in the suburban Twin Cities. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6507 

Then we have Sheila. This is Sheila in 

front of her Bobcat working the night 

shift on an I–94 improvement project. 

These are people who were put back 

to work by the stimulus. Despite 

claims by some that the only jobs created by the stimulus went to government bureaucrats, we will notice 

Jamie, Cecil, and Sheila are not, in 

fact, government bureaucrats. Thankfully, we do not let government bureaucrats operate heavy machinery. 

What can we say about the approach 

of President Obama so far? 

He slowed the growth of Federal 

spending to its lowest level since Eisenhower. He has cut taxes—not just in 

the stimulus package but many times 

during his first term—to the tune of 

more than $850 billion. When the economy was at its low point, he made investments and put people back to work 

in the short-term and prevented things 

from getting even worse. 

There was another road we could 

have taken. That approach would have 

involved not just cutting spending but 

gutting the government, and it definitely wouldn’t have involved making 

investments to put people back to 

work. 

We will never know whether that approach—known as austerity—would 

have gotten us results such as the ones 

reflected on the previous chart, but we 

do know what happened in countries 

where they tried this alternate approach. This is a chart of European 

countries that went the austerity 

route. This is GDP from 2008 to 2012. 

This would be where President Obama 

became President and this is Europe 

and we all were seeing a global meltdown. These are countries that did austerity in Europe, and this is the United 

States. The evidence tells us our way 

worked. President Obama’s way 

worked and theirs did not. 

Of course, while we are better off 

than we were 4 years ago and better off 

than we would be if we had tried austerity instead of the approach taken by 

President Obama, which, if we look at 

the growth in spending, was pretty 

close to austerity, we are obviously 

still not where we want to be, either in 

terms of our economy or in terms of 

our deficit. 

What is the right way going forward? 

First, let us talk about deficit reduction. It is clear to me that any solution 

that does not include both increased 

revenue and decreased spending simply 

isn’t going to work. The hole is too big 

for us to tax our way out or to cut our 

way out. We have to do both. The hole 

is, in fact, so big we can’t even get out 

of it just by taxing and cutting. We 

have to grow our way out too. 

That is why I think we need to invest 

in education, and infrastructure, and 

innovation. That means early childhood education, which has a return of 

investment in every study—quality 

early childhood education—of $16 for 

every $1 spent, and in workforce training, in roads and bridges and rural 

broadband, in clean energy and health 

care technology. 

I don’t think only government can 

create jobs. I know that. But I know 

that only government can make those 

critical investments that will help the 

private sector create jobs, and I know 

it works when we do. It worked after 

World War II, it worked under President Clinton, and it worked in the Recovery Act. Those investments, however, cost money, and we will not be 

able to afford them unless we reduce 

our deficits. 

I think people who talk about cutting spending should say what spending 

they want to cut. I want to cut spending, so let me tell you what spending I 

want to cut. 

I want to cut the billions in subsidies 

we give to oil companies that simply 

don’t need them. I want to let Medicare 

negotiate for pharmaceuticals under 

Part D, just as the VA does, because 

prohibiting Medicare from doing so 

amounts to a subsidy for pharmaceutical companies, one that, again, 

they do not need. I want to make cuts 

in our military budget, because as the 

comprehensive defense review found— 

begun under Secretary Gates and completed under Secretary Panetta—we 

can make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the defense budget without compromising our fundamental security and military interests. 

Of course, we can’t only cut the 

things we think are easy calls to cut. 

We are going to have to cut some 

things we don’t want to cut. Speaking 

personally, I have already had to vote 

for some of those hard cuts, and it was 

not fun. But there simply aren’t 

enough cuts to make. It is clear to me, 

if we are going to protect our most vulnerable Americans—our children, the 

sick, the disabled, our seniors—and 

make the investments that will grow 

our middle class and our economy, we 

are going to have to raise revenue. 

Just like President Reagan—but unlike some of today’s Republicans—I 

know we don’t raise revenue by cutting 

taxes. That is why I support restoring 

the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 

of income but after that allowing the 

top marginal rate to go back to where 

it was under President Clinton. I know 

that, as they did in 1993, people will 

argue that doing so will hurt the economy. But I am equally confident that, 

as they were in 1993, they will be 

wrong. 

I know we all come to the debate 

about our Nation’s challenges with different philosophies and different convictions and I respect that many of my 

colleagues feel they would be betraying 

their own political core by asking the 

wealthy to pay a little more or investing taxpayer dollars in job creation. I 

didn’t feel great about all the cuts I 

had to vote for over the last couple 

years either. But I don’t think we are 

going to get anywhere if we are so invested in following our own ideologies 

that we refuse to acknowledge the lessons of where we have been or the truth 

about where we are and where we are 

headed. 

We are not going to get anywhere if 

we can’t agree that, yes, the government does have a role to play in helping the private sector create jobs; and, 

no, we will not cut the deficit by cutting taxes; and, yes, we are going to 

have to both raise revenue and reduce 

spending if we want to get a balanced 

budget; and, no, asking the wealthy to 

pay a little more will not drive us back 

into a recession. 

We have debated these issues a lot 

this year and we haven’t resolved the 

argument. Now we are going home, and 

it is the American people’s time. It is 

the American people who get to have 

their say. I hope that over the next 6 

weeks we lead them in a debate worthy 

of the challenges we face—a debate 

rooted in the facts and mindful of our 

history. 

I hope when we come back we are 

ready to have that kind of worthy debate ourselves and then make the 

tough calls, as our constituents will in 

November. 

I wish my colleagues well over the recess, and I look forward to getting 

back to our important work when we 

return. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST S. 3576

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

I see my friend, the majority leader, on 

the floor. 

I am surprised they announced no 

more votes a little while ago. We are 

prepared to finish business today. In 

fact, I intend to offer shortly the unanimous consent agreement that the majority leader himself was shopping last 

night. Our side of the aisle is prepared 

to finish up the business for this particular preelection session. 

I ask unanimous consent that at 5 

p.m. today, the Senate proceed to the 

consideration of S. 3576, Senator 

PAUL’s bill regarding foreign aid; that 

there be up to 2 hours of debate, equally divided between Senators Paul and 

Kerry or their designees; that upon the 

use or yielding back of that time, the 

Senate proceed to vote on passage of 

the bill; that the vote on passage be 

subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that if the bill does not achieve 60 

affirmative votes, it be considered as 

having been read twice, placed on the 

calendar; that following the vote on 

passage of that legislation, S. 3576, the 

Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 418, S.J. Res. 41; that there 

be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally 

divided between Senators Graham and 

Senator PAUL or their designees; that 

upon the use or yielding back of that 

time, the Senate proceed to vote on 

passage of the joint resolution; that if 

the joint resolution is not passed, it be 

returned to the calendar; that following the vote on the joint resolution, 

the Senate resume consideration of 

H.J. Res. 117, the continuing resolution; that the motion to proceed be 

agreed to, there be up to 30 minutes of 

debate, equally divided between the 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

two leaders or their designees, with 

Senator COBURN controlling 15 minutes 

of the Republican time, prior to a vote 

on passage of the joint resolution; that 

the vote on passage be subject to a 60- 

vote affirmative threshold; that following the vote, the majority leader be 

recognized; and, finally, that no 

amendments, motions or points of 

order be in order during the consideration of these measures. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have had the 

stall for several days now. I wanted to 

make sure that one of the Senators 

who wanted to go to a debate would be 

able to do that tonight. So he can go 

now, because as I announced half an 

hour ago there is plenty of time to do 

the debate. 

As I have indicated before, we are 

anxious to finish the business we have 

to do this work period. I am happy to 

vote on the Paul amendment. I have 

said that. I am the one who arranged it 

so it is possible to vote on it. I have no 

regret as to having done that. I am 

happy to vote on the continuing resolution, something that has 80 or more 

sponsors. 

I am happy to have all these votes. In 

fact, we can do the debate tonight on 

the containment resolution and the 

Paul amendment. But understand this: 

We are not separating the vote on the 

CR and a piece of legislation that 

groups around this country have been 

trying to get done for years. It has 

been held up here. As I have said before, everything shouldn’t be a fight 

here. 

The Senator from Montana, Mr. 

TESTER, has assembled a broad package 

of bipartisan legislation that has wideranging support from Republicans. 

They are noted publicly in publications 

here saying they support it. They will 

vote for it. It has the support of sportsmen throughout this country. Getting 

to vote on this bill should not have to 

be a big fight. This is the sort of thing 

we ought to be able to simply vote on, 

and we are going to do that. But we are 

not going to separate the two. We are 

going to have a vote on the CR; immediately thereafter, we will have a vote 

on the motion to proceed to the sportsmen’s bill. 

We can get the debate out of the way 

tonight. We can vote tomorrow. If not, 

we are going to vote tomorrow after 

midnight. That will take care of one 

vote, and the next will be sometime 

Sunday morning. 

We are not having these votes today, 

so everyone should understand. We are 

not going to do that for the reasons I 

have already indicated. So if we want 

to do this, we can do it early in the 

morning—that is fine with me—or we 

can wait until tomorrow night after 

midnight and then come in Sunday 

morning. 

So I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

just so everybody in the Senate will 

understand, both Democrats and Republicans, I just offered the consent 

the majority leader himself was trying 

to get last night. 

Senate Republicans are prepared to 

finish the continuing resolution today, 

prepared to vote on the Rand Paul proposal today, and prepared to vote on 

the Lindsey Graham proposal today. 

That was acceptable to the majority 

leader; it is not acceptable to him 

today. Obviously, something changed 

over on that side of the aisle. 

So I just want everybody to understand that I and all the members of my 

conference are prepared to finish the 

business of the Senate that was before 

the Senate at the suggestion of the majority leader as recently as last night. 

Mr. REID. While we are educating 

Senators, I would like to add a little to 

that. 

We are willing to vote on all these 

things, but we will do it tomorrow, not 

today. We want the debate to go forward. We are in very important Senate 

races across the country. 

So we will vote early in the morning, 

get all the debate out of the way or we 

will do it tomorrow night after midnight because we are not going to separate the sportsmen’s bill from the rest 

of the stuff for obvious reasons. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I would only add 

that is a new development here that 

the majority leader is saying. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, there 

has been no new development. Everyone—Republican staff, Democratic 

staff, all my caucus—has known for a 

long time that we are going to have a 

vote on this sportsmen’s package. This 

is no new development. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. REID. Madam President, we have 

a very important matter at 4 today. 

The Secretary of State is coming to address all of us as to what is going on in 

the Middle East and around the world. 

There will be intelligence officers here 

and a lot of other people. So I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 4 to 5 today to accommodate 

this very important Senators-only 

briefing. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my 

understanding we have a couple Senators who would like to speak before 

that. 

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to 

object. 

Mr. REID. I have no problem with 

the Senator from Texas speaking. I ask 

unanimous consent that Senator CORNYN be recognized for up to 15 minutes; 

and when he completes that, the Senate go into recess for 1 hour. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Texas. 

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the majority 

leader for his courtesy. 

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE

Earlier this month, we received another big job report and along with it a 

serious disappointment. 

The numbers speak for themselves. 

In August, a remarkable 368,000 Americans left the workforce. They gave up, 

bringing the labor force participation 

rate, as it is known, to its lowest level 

in more than three decades. 

Fewer people are looking for work in 

America than at any time in the last 30 

years. That is a national tragedy. The 

unemployment rate stayed above 8 percent only because they quit counting 

the people who have given up. But it 

had been above 8 percent for the 43rd 

straight month. If, in fact, the same 

number of people who were looking for 

work in January of 2009 are still looking for work today, the unemployment 

rate would be over 11 percent. That was 

the date President Obama took office, 

January 20, 2009. So if the same number 

were looking today as were looking for 

work then, it would be over 11 percent, 

to show you how those numbers don’t 

reveal the true pain and the sacrifice of 

American citizens who are looking for 

work. 

I don’t know of anyone who could 

look at the August job report or the 

June or July job numbers and feel good 

about the economy. I also don’t know 

how they could now support a tax increase when the economy is growing at 

a much slower pace, contrary to their 

position—including the President’s position—in December 2010, when the 

economy was growing at roughly 3 percent of GDP. 

Beyond our borders, the Europeans 

are mired in a debt crisis, the Chinese 

economy has slowed down dramatically, and the United States continues 

to face major economic headwinds. We 

can’t afford any self-inflicted wounds. 

All I am suggesting is that we maintain the current Federal tax rates until 

we can work together in a bipartisan 

way and adopt real tax reform. Yet the 

President occasionally calls that position extreme—ironically, the same position he, himself, held in December of 

2010, as I said just a moment ago. 

It seems the President does not always understand or appreciate the 

strong connection between taxes and 

economic incentives on small businesses and other people we are depending upon to create businesses or to 

grow existing businesses and create 

jobs and to put Americans back to 

work. 

We need look no further than the 2010 

health care law, the law that went to 

the U.S. Supreme Court. Two aspects 

of it were found unconstitutional but 

not the tax on middle-class Americans. 

In addition to that middle-class tax 

increase, the law contains a new excise 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6509 

tax on medical device manufacturers 

that will discourage companies from 

building factories and creating jobs in 

the United States. That is not just my 

conclusion. 

For example, Cook Medical, which 

has roughly 4,000 employees around 

Bloomington, IN, recently announced 

it is canceling five new manufacturing 

plants it had scheduled to open over 

the next half decade. A senior official 

estimated the new medical device tax 

will cost his firm between $20 million 

and $30 million extra each year. That is 

why they are shuttering those additional five plants and killing those potential new jobs. 

Another medical device company in 

another part of the country—New 

York—Welch Allyn, recently announced it will be slashing 10 percent 

of its global workforce in response to 

this new tax. 

All of this is, sadly, predictable and 

it is common sense. Unfortunately, 

common sense doesn’t seem, to most 

Americans, to prevail or to be all that 

common in Washington, DC, these 

days. But if we raise the taxes on these 

medical devices, it is only logical, it is 

only reasonable, it is only common 

sense to expect that these companies 

will produce fewer jobs and, in the 

process, less innovation. 

The irony of this discussion over 

taxes is we now have a growing bipartisan consensus in Congress and in 

Washington, DC, about the need for 

commonsense tax reform that would 

broaden the base, lower the rates, and 

help grow the economy by creating the 

proper incentives. 

That was the recommendation of the 

President’s own bipartisan fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission in December 2010—the President’s 

own bipartisan fiscal commission— 

where Republicans and Democrats 

agreed this is a good place to start in 

reforming our broken Tax Code, paying 

down the debt, and getting our country 

and our economy growing again. It was 

also the recommendation of the 

Domenici-Rivlin panel, another bipartisan panel. Both recommended a more 

logical, more equitable, more growthoriented Tax Code. 

Why, we may ask, is tax reform so 

urgent? Earlier this month the World 

Economic Forum released its new 

‘‘Global Competitiveness Report.’’ 

America is not alone in trying to create jobs and grow our economy. We are 

competing with other economies and 

other countries around the world. As 

recently as 2008, the United States was 

ranked the most competitive country 

on the planet. 

In the latest index, we fell to seventh. We are heading in the wrong direction when it comes to competing in 

a global economy for the jobs so that 

Americans can work and provide for 

their families and put food on their tables and gain the dignity that goes 

along with working and providing for 

your family. 

Harvard Business School also surveyed 10,000 of its alumni to find out 

their views of America’s competitiveness. At Harvard Business School, one 

of the premier business schools in the 

country, alarmingly 71 percent of those 

who responded said America would become less competitive during the next 

few years. In other words, they were 

not optimistic about the direction of 

the country when it came to competitiveness and job creation. One of the 

biggest reasons for their pessimism is 

the bewildering complexity of our Tax 

Code. A large majority said the tax 

complexity is either ‘‘much worse’’ or 

‘‘somewhat worse’’ in the United 

States than it was in other developed 

countries. That is why Americans now 

spend hundreds of billions of dollars on 

tax compliance, because of a broken, 

unnecessarily complex and impenetrable Tax Code—unless you have the 

money to hire armies of lawyers and 

accountants to help you figure it out. 

One more point about our Tax Code. 

Over time, our Tax Code has become 

larded with special provisions and tax 

expenditures that represent what has 

come to be known as crony capitalism. 

In other words, the Federal Government just doesn’t spend money, the 

Federal Government has a Tax Code 

that benefits certain industries and 

sectors of the economy. Some of them 

we would largely agree on—such as the 

mortgage interest deduction or the interest you pay on your home mortgage. 

There is broad support for that, although everyone realizes we need to 

get all of these on the table. That is 

what Simpson-Bowles recommended. 

Let’s get $1 trillion or more of these 

special tax expenditures on the table 

and look at the ones that still make 

sense and the ones we should do away 

with. As long as the Tax Code is as 

complicated as ours is, it is a drag on 

the economy. It promotes a culture of 

corruption, where people come to Congress and they lobby for special tax 

provisions that are not available to the 

broad population that benefit them. It 

seeks favoritism and rent-seeking, with 

companies and industries that try to 

gain competitive advantages through 

tax subsidies. 

If we want businesses to spend more 

time in productive activity and less 

time begging the government for tax 

breaks, we need to fix the broken Tax 

Code with a flatter, fairer, more transparent system which encourages working and saving and investing—not lobbying here in Washington, DC, for special breaks. If we want our tax laws to 

be respected and understood, they need 

to be clearer, simpler, and more equitable. 

Given how much President Obama 

talks about fairness of the Tax Code, 

you would think he would be all over 

this. You might expect he would be an 

eager champion for tax reform. Instead, the President wants to use the 

Tax Code as an ATM machine to subsidize particular industries and interest groups while punishing others. We 

need to get them all on the table, bring 

them all out into the light of day and 

address all of these special tax provisions so we can simplify and make 

more fair our tax system, unleashing 

the growth potential of the entrepreneurial American economy to create 

jobs and prosperity that is sadly lacking now in the current environment. 

Unfortunately, President Obama, 

rather than attack this issue of crony 

capitalism, has promoted it. During 

the long government-run Chrysler 

bankruptcy process, the company-secured bondholders received less for 

their loans—29 cents per dollar—than 

the United Auto Workers pension 

funds. They got 40 cents on the dollar. 

The UAW pension funds, mind you, 

were unsecured creditors, entitled to 

less priority than the bondholders, who 

were entitled to the highest priority, 

but because of the way this was manipulated, the bondholders got 29 cents on 

the dollar, the union got 40 cents on 

the dollar. 

During the automobile bailouts 

President Obama let politics trump the 

rule of law. What do I mean by that? I 

believe that rather than let the rule of 

law apply, he injected politics and favoritism in the process. In his energy 

policy, which I alluded to a moment 

ago, he put politics before his fiduciary 

responsibility to the American taxpayer. We agree that the Federal Government has a role in funding, through 

the research and development tax credit and other ways, basic scientific research to promote innovation. But the 

President and Congress should not be 

using your tax dollars to make risky, 

politically motivated investments that 

benefit specific companies or industries 

at your expense. 

Solyndra offers the most conspicuous 

example. This now bankrupt solar energy firm received a $535 million loan 

guarantee from the Federal Government. According to the Washington 

Post, the Obama administration ‘‘remained steadfast in its support for 

Solyndra,’’ even after being ‘‘warned 

that financial disaster might lie 

ahead.’’ Then, as Solyndra went bankrupt, the administration violated the 

law by making taxpayers subordinate 

to private lenders. 

In other words, even though the taxpayers gave a $535 million loan guarantee to this company that went bankrupt, the ones who ended up taking it 

in the neck were the taxpayers rather 

than the private lenders who should 

have been subordinated to the taxpayers when it comes to getting paid. 

If President Obama is as concerned as 

he claims about dicey investments 

with taxpayer money, he should repudiate these kinds of boondoggles and 

let the market work to allocate capital. Washington should not be picking 

economic winners and losers. 

Speaking of winners and losers, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services granted a series of 1- and 3- 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

year waivers from the annual limit requirements contained in the President’s 2010 health care law. These waivers fostered the impression that certain companies, unions, and institutions would be exempted and given 

preferential treatment. 

The health-care law thus highlighted 

an inconvenient truth about big government: Any dramatic increase in federal regulations and bureaucratic authority will lead to a dramatic increase 

in rent-seeking and crony capitalism. 

Finally, a word about the 2010 DoddFrank law. Democrats argue that 

Dodd-Frank ended ‘‘too big to fail.’’ In 

fact, it codified too big to fail, because 

certain companies will now formally be 

identified as ‘‘systemically important.’’ 

Are we really supposed to believe 

that ‘‘systemically important’’ companies will be allowed to collapse? The 

more likely scenario is that these firms 

will be viewed as too big to fail—both 

by investors and by federal officials— 

the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

were. 

As University of Pennsylvania law 

professor David Skeel has written: 

The companies that are cordoned off as 

systemically important distort the credit 

markets, as a result of the Fannie Mae effect. Because these institutions can raise 

capital more cheaply than financial institutions that do not enjoy implicit government 

protection, they have a competitive advantage over smaller institutions. This may 

dampen innovation in the financial system 

and lead to inefficient allocation of credit to 

nonfinancial businesses. 

In short, regardless of what Democrats may think, Dodd-Frank has actually strengthened the nexus between 

Washington and Wall Street. 

The rise of crony capitalism under 

President Obama has led many people 

to question America’s commitment to 

free markets and the rule of law. Likewise, the President’s failure to revive 

our economy has led to widespread pessimism about America’s future. I firmly believe we can turn things around 

and restore our global reputation, and 

I firmly reject the notion that our decline is inevitable. There is no reason 

we can’t rejuvenate the Great American Jobs Machine and return to prosperity. But it won’t happen until we 

get much better leadership from the 

White House. 

I yield the floor. 

f 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

in recess until 5 p.m. today. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 4:08 p.m., 

recessed until 5:08 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. FRANKEN). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. 

SPORTMEN’S ACT OF 2012 MOTION 

TO PROCEED—Continued 

JOINT REFERRAL

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that, as if in executive session, the nomination of Keith 

Kelly, of Montana, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training, sent to the Senate 

by the President, be referred jointly to 

the HELP and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

STATE OF THE ECONOMY

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 4 years 

ago our economy was in a free fall. AIG 

had been bailed out, and Lehman 

Brothers plunged into bankruptcy. The 

depth of the recession we fell into is 

difficult to understate. 

With the economy contracting at 

nearly 9 percent in the last few months 

of 2008 and nearly 700,000 jobs lost every 

month, it is not an exaggeration to call 

the crisis we faced the worst since the 

Great Depression. Demand dried up as 

our financial system collapsed, families struggled to pay the bills, and millions lost their homes to foreclosure. 

Our unemployment rate peaked at 10 

percent nationally and 11.4 percent in 

Illinois. 

It has been a hard road back to stable 

economic ground, but things have 

turned around. Private sector businesses are hiring again and have been 

for 30 straight months. Between July 

2011 and July 2012, the economy added 

an average of 153,000 jobs every 

month—about 1.8 million jobs. Compare that to the average monthly 

losses of 544,000 between July 2008 and 

July 2009. 

There is a lot of work still to be 

done. We all would like to see more 

jobs created, but it is clear our economy is better off and we are better off 

than we were 4 years ago. 

I saw many examples of our economic 

progress as I have traveled my State. 

The Nucor steel plant in Bourbonnais, 

IL, makes rebar and angle iron that is 

used in construction across the country. What makes Nucor unique is that 

during the recession when many other 

companies were shedding employees, 

Nucor made a commitment to keep all 

of their full-time employees. It wasn’t 

easy. When demand slowed, the company’s idle workers developed new 

products for customers or they were 

actually, in many cases, sent out to 

work in the community on service 

projects as they waited for their company to get back into business. 

During this time the Bourbonnais facility applied for and received the Department of Labor’s Voluntary Protection Program star certification, recognizing their extraordinary efforts to 

improve workplace safety. Nucor made 

a commitment not just to the bottom 

line but to its workers and to the communities where they lived. It has paid 

off. Demand has returned, and the company is now firing on all cylinders, employing roughly 300 workers. 

I have visited a lot of different production facilities. There was nothing 

more jaw-dropping than to stand in 

that steel mill and watch these three 

poles go into a caldron of scrap metal, 

burst and explode into flames, and then 

watch steel come trickling out of the 

bottom into these forms to make rebar 

and angle iron. 

Earlier this summer I also met with 

the CEO of Woodward, an aerospace 

and energy firm, about its possible expansion of a facility in Loves Park, IL. 

Woodward was considering two locations for expanding its airline turbine 

product line. In the end, thank goodness for us, Woodward picked Illinois. 

The company is investing more than 

$200 million in the facility, and it is estimated that it will add 600 new jobs 

over the next 5 years. 

There is more to the story. While 

growing demand led to the expansion 

decision, it was the infrastructure and 

skilled workers that sealed the deal for 

Loves Park. Loves Park and the Rockford area has been the home of aerospace companies for decades. Yet they 

made a concerted effort to grow and expand the training opportunities to 

meet modern workforce needs. Through 

a public-private partnership, the community has created an atmosphere that 

attracts new business investments and 

new jobs. 

Illinois is about the last place—and 

southern Illinois certainly the last 

place—one would expect to find a 

world-leading firm in oilspill cleanups, 

but if one goes to Fairfield and Carmi, 

IL, that is what one will find. The 

Elastec/American Marine Company 

specializes in equipment to clean up 

environmental accidents, specifically 

oilspills. In two former Wal-Mart buildings in those towns, 140 employees have 

developed new technologies that have 

expanded our ability to clean up oilspills around the world. Just last year, 

the company won a $1 million X PRIZE 

for recovering more than 2,500 gallons 

per minute—triple the industry’s previous best recovery rate in controlled 

conditions. This is in southern Illinois. 

Testing oilspill cleanup in southern Illinois is hard to imagine. Elastec’s 

equipment was used for cleanups during both Exxon Valdez and the more recent gulf spill. 

This is American ingenuity at its 

best, but the business is driven by regulations governing the discharge of oil. 

Without these ‘‘job-killing’’ regulations, the company, its jobs, and the 

technology it uses to clean up oilspills 

probably wouldn’t exist. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE