Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we have is a case of Republicans in the Senate once again not taking ``yes'' for an answer. This morning, the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on his proposal. Just now I told everyone we are willing to have that vote, an up-or-down vote. But now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill. So I object.

Mr. REID. If my friend will yield, I have business here and then he will get the floor right back.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, 387 is on its way. I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 554, S. 3637.

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about my friend and colleague Senator Jim Webb. He has made a decision not to run for reelection which, for me, is very sad, but it is truly not a good deal for the State of Virginia or our country. Jim Webb has served one term in the Senate. He accomplished more in that one term than most do in a lifetime. I repeat, I am very sorry to see him leave. Jim is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a highly decorated Marine. He was an infantry officer and served with distinction in Vietnam, and that is an understatement. He did serve with distinction. He earned a Navy Cross, which is the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps. He got that for heroism in Vietnam. He was awarded a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts. He, of course, wanted to be in the military all of his life, but when he returned from Vietnam he could not do it anymore. His injuries from the war prevented him from doing that. He attended Georgetown Law School where he graduated with distinction, served 4 years with President Reagan as Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy. He was the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as the civilian head of the Navy. He is also an author, having written six books, a filmmaker, screen writer. He even won an Emmy. Long after Jim Webb left the Marine Corps, and despite his many civilian accomplishments, he remains a marine at heart. He is a marine through and through. He learned the tradition of service at home, although home changed often with his father's duty station. Jim's father was an officer in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot during World War II. Jim's son, Jimmy Webb, a marine who served in Iraq, continued that tradition of service. Although Jim Webb was a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, he was incredibly proud of his son's service as a soldier in battle-torn Iraq. Every day of his 2006 campaign, Jim Webb wore his son's combat boots. It was a tribute not only to Jimmy, his boy, but to all people who have been sent into harm's way, he said. I met Jim Webb in my office not far from here as a result of Senator Bob Kerrey asking me if I would spend some time with him. I was happy to do so. I will never forget that meeting, just the three of us in the room. Those of us who worked with Bob Kerrey know he is and was such a vibrant person. He was almost mischievous, I guess you could put it. You could just tell he had a little touch of differentness. When he brought Jim in to visit with me I learned very quickly they were both warriors--Bob Kerrey, a Navy Seal, recipient of the Medal of Honor, and Jim Webb, as we said, Navy Cross, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, both veterans of the Vietnam war. As we sat talking, it was obvious they were both fighters, warriors. Jim certainly proved that in his 2006 campaign. The reason Bob wanted me to visit with him is because Jim Webb had decided he wanted to run for the Senate. What did I think of it? I probably told Jim what a lot of people told him: You want to run for the Senate? The election is right upon us. He said, I want to do that. Not many believed he had any chance of winning. He believed he could, Bob Kerrey believed he could, but he ran because he wanted to and, boy, did he run hard. For me, though, it did not settle in my mind until the night before the election. There was an event in Alexandria, VA. It was a cold November night. I stood with Jim on that stage. I realized then that he could win. People were lined up for blocks. ``Lined up'' was the wrong word--people covered blocks. Every open space as far as you could see was filled with people. President Clinton was there. I was there. They didn't come to see me, of course. They came to see not President Clinton, they came to see Jim Webb because he was doing the impossible. He had captivated the voters. He was unafraid. He spoke his mind. And what a smart man. I marvel at the intelligence of Jim Webb, his ability to learn and to express his ideas. As I said, he captivated the voters. That is really why he won the race he should not have been able to win. Once he was elected, he was a marvel to watch. He believed he could change the world. He did change several corners of the world. Let me give one example. He was a new Senator and he came to me and said, I have an idea. Jim Webb is not a person who just focuses on an idea and walks away from it. When Jim Webb came to see me, he had the legislation he had drafted. It was not sent to some bill drafter to have him look it over, he drafted the legislation himself. What did he want to do? He wanted to introduce a post- 9/11 GI Bill Of Rights. What he wanted to do was expand educational benefits for military families and he brought our commitment to our veterans to the standard enjoyed by World War II veterans. He was just a freshman Senator. After spending about an hour with him with facts and figures and the actual legislation, I said sign me up. I will do whatever I can to help you with it. A brandnew Senator passed this major piece of legislation. He built a coalition of veterans and Democratic and Republican Senators to fight for this legislation. Since this legislation became law in 2008, more than 750,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families have used the program to access the education they deserve. Jim, who speaks Vietnamese, has also helped shape our country's foreign policy in other places. He played a key role in Burma where he secured the rights of democracy activists such as Aung San Suu Kyi, who came and visited us a month or so ago. Jim Webb is a unique individual in so many different ways. He has visited many of the places where the battles were fought in World War II. He went to those islands and spent time walking to see what the veterans had gone through in a war prior to the one in which he was involved. He actually did that. It was physically hard, but he wanted to do that and he did it on his own. Robert Kennedy said: Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. Jim Webb should be proud of his part--it was not a small part--in writing the history of his generation. He did it in the battlefields in Vietnam. He did it in the Pentagon. He did it here in the Senate. I do not know what is ahead for Jim Webb, but we have not heard the last of him. He has a wonderful, beautiful wife and wonderful children. He left his mark on the Senate and he will never be forgotten, even though he served here one term. I am really sorry his Senate career was not longer, but I am gratified it was so productive. I congratulate Jim Webb and express on this Record how much I admire him and what a strength he has been to me. He was a strength to me on the health care bill. He has given me wonderful information on immigration--which I have spent a lot of time on. I have read some of his books. I have not read them all but I read a couple of them. He is somebody I will miss very much and I will always consider Jim Webb somebody who made me a better person. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for up to 4 hours. The reason for that is we have been on a Defense bill for a considerable number of days, and people haven't had the opportunity to come to express their views on a number of different issues, so we are going to extend that morning business for a longer time than normal. Following morning business, about 2 o'clock, we will begin consideration of H.R. 6156, the Russia trade bill. We hope we are able to complete action on that matter today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, across the country Americans are lamenting the lack of progress in negotiations to avoid a massive tax increase on middle-class families, and I share that frustration. But for insight into why negotiations have been difficult, consider yesterday's failure of the disabilities convention at the hands of the tea party. This shouldn't have been a battle, but extreme elements of the Republican Party picked a fight when there was nothing to fight about. Thirty- eight Republicans voted against the convention, including several who were on record supporting it, even cosponsored it. This treaty, already ratified by 125 countries, would hold foreign nations to the same high standard and treatment the United States already maintains for people with disabilities. It would safeguard American citizens traveling, working, and serving abroad, and that is hundreds of thousands of people right now. The treaty has the support of veterans groups, disability groups from around the country, virtually all of them. It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a single penny. It wouldn't require any changes to existing United States law, and the issue is as bipartisan as they come. Here is what one Senator said about the treaty: Protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, any person's, is not a political issue. It is a human issue, regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a normal, independent life where basic rights and accessibilities are available. Disability rights and protections have always been a bipartisan issue and ratifying this treaty should be no different. This wasn't some ultraliberal speaking, it was Senator John McCain, a disabled veteran, a hero from the Vietnam conflict, who broke with extremists and tea partiers and voted to ratify the treaty. The convention also has the strong support from a number of other leading Republicans, including George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. He, by the way, of course, was a World War II veteran and did heroic things during that war. It also has the support of former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, certainly a patriot. Senator Dole, a disabled veteran from World War II, who led the fight to pass the treaty, was here yesterday urging Republican support. Think about that. Robert Dole, who was grievously injured in World War II, spent more than 2 years in a hospital, came to this Senate floor, and the first speech he gave was on disabilities. We need to do something about it. He was here leading the fight to pass the treaty, urging Republicans to support it. A few Republicans greeted him as he was in his wheelchair here. They greeted this 89-year-old war hero--I repeat, a patriot--who just last week was in Walter Reed Hospital. Then one by one all but a handful of them voted against the treaty, ensuring its failure. But their professed reasons for opposing it had no basis in fact--none. Most Republicans acknowledged that. Some used an excuse, well, it is a lameduck, we shouldn't be doing it in a lameduck. I mean, wow. There is no justification for sending a message that every individual around the world who strives to lead a productive life in spite of a disability does not deserve the same just treatment. There is no justification for telling disabled Americans, especially those who have sacrificed their bodies for our freedom, our veterans, that they don't deserve the same protections abroad they do here at home. Yet that is the message 38 of my Republican colleagues sent yesterday. Tax Increases These are the same Republicans with whom Democrats are supposed to reach an agreement to protect middle-class families from a tax increase. It is difficult to engage in rational negotiations when one side holds well-known facts and proven truths in such low esteem. Hopefully, compromise is not out of reach, but as negotiations continue, I hope my Republican colleagues will keep in mind the oft- repeated words of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I know how high the stakes are. The days run short. There is still a quick, easy way out of this. The House must take up the Senate-passed middle-class tax cut. A few reasonable Republicans who are left agree we need to give certainty to middle-class families now. Yesterday Olympia Snowe, a very courageous legislator for more than two decades, who is retiring, said Congress should fight about tax rates for the top 2 percent after we have reassured the middle class. Americans ``should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.'' That is her quote. People are questioning this. If House Republican leaders allow a vote on our legislation, it will pass; every Democrat will vote for it. It will only take 26 Republican votes. It is a huge body, 435 Members. We only need 26 Republicans for this to pass. I know there are 26 Republicans who would vote for this. We have one conservative Republican serving in the House who has said more than half would vote for it. I believe there are 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to serve Grover Norquist. So I say to my friend, John Boehner, in the House of Representatives, you control matters on the floor. No one else does. You have the ability, and you are the only one who has the ability, to put this on the floor for a vote. He should do that. That would be the American way.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Would the Chair announce the business for the day?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to H.R. 6156; that following the reporting of the bill, there be up to 5 hours of debate, equally divided by the two leaders or their designees during today's session; that on Thursday, December 6, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after visiting with and consulting with the Republican leader, there be up to 10 minutes of debate, equally divided by the two leaders or their designees; and that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. REID. I reserve the right to object. Just a minute ago, Mr. President, I moved to the Russia trade bill. The purpose of moving this bill is to protect American jobs. If we don't do this legislation, we will lose American jobs for sure and put American companies in even worse shape than they are with Chinese and European companies. So the question is really this: Are we going to get serious here and legislate or is this more of the obstructionism we have felt so much of during this last Congress? The answer to that is really obvious. The answer is yes. Are we going to continue the sort of political stunts the minority leader is trying to pull here and now? On the substance, the Senate has passed a bill that will go a long way to address the fiscal cliff. It has already passed here. Last July the Senate passed a bill to continue tax cuts for 98 percent of all Americans and 90 percent of all American small businesses. If the Republican leader were serious about preventing us from going over the fiscal cliff, he would urge his colleague, the Speaker, to get the House to take up the Senate-passed bill now. There are Republicans who have already said that is the right thing to do. Conservatives, more moderate Republicans--we even had one Republican Senator today say she thinks that will happen and it should happen. In the meantime, the Republican leader's request is just a stunt. But the election is over. It is time to get down to business. These pieces of paper he has--Secretary Geithner didn't bring that stack of stuff to me. It was a private meeting--a private meeting--trying to work something out with this very troublesome issue facing this country--the deficit, the debt. And this private meeting turned out to be a publicity stunt for the Republicans talking about what he had said in private. So, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no Geithner proposal. This is all made up. Mr. President, I remember Dorothy in ``The Wizard of Oz''--I think she was from Kansas and she wound up in Oz. We are here in Washington, DC, and yet suddenly we are in Oz--a real strange place. The Republican leader is an expert in ways to kill legislation, and people who are watching can see he is trying to torpedo the fiscal cliff negotiations which are ongoing. Republican Senators have spoken to people in the White House today. This is no serious way to negotiate, out here on the Senate floor. At the end, the Republican leader is complaining because President Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share, and as usual Republicans are defending the rich, holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage. At the first of the year, unless we work something out, taxes will go up for people making less than $250,000 a year, an average of $2,200 each--not per family but each person. The Senate has already passed the centerpiece of President Obama's offer, and his offer has always been the same. We are not going to go through the same thing we have gone through here for years where we lay out different ways to cut spending and there is never any revenue. The President has made it very, very clear. They have already passed the President's proposal, which is to make sure people making less than $250,000 a year are not burdened with an extra $2,200 each after the first of the year. That passed in July. The House could take that up. Every Democrat in the House has agreed they will vote for that. We need only 25 or 26 Republicans in the House to make life something that is stable for people making less than $250,000 a year.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. As provided under the previous order, at 5 p.m., the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 676. For the information of all Senators, we expect a rollcall vote on the nomination of Michael Shea, a district court judge for the District of Connecticut, at approximately 5:30. We will go into executive session at 5 and move toward that.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 4, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the disabilities treaty. The time until noon will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Kerry and Lugar, the managers of this treaty, or their designees. At noon there will be a rollcall vote on the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I have a number of requests. We don't do treaties often, and our requests from Senators on both sides of the aisle have suggested, and I think they are right, that because this is a treaty, the votes will take place from our desk today. Everyone should be on notice, they should be here, and we will vote from our desks. Following the vote, the Senate will recess to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. Additional votes on the National Defense Authorization Act are expected during today's session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told there is a bill, H.R. 6429, due for a second reading.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation at this time.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it has been almost 3 weeks since we all met with the President to avert that fiscal cliff we hear so much about. Yesterday, after weeks of delay, and as the days dwindle and taxes are set to go up for millions of families and businesses, Republicans in the House finally showed up at the negotiating table. Now we know why they have been holding their cards so close to their vests. Their proposal would raise taxes on millions of middle-class families. Their plan is to raise $800 billion in revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions and credits that would reach deep into the pockets of middle-class families. Republicans are so intent on protecting low tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to sacrifice middle-class families' economic security to do so. In the first year, unless we do something, middle-class families; that is, people making less than $250,000 a year, will get an average of $2,200 in additional tax, taxes they will have to pay. Their proposal that we received yesterday was short on specifics, but we do know from independent analysis that it is impossible to raise enough revenue to make a dent in the deficit without using one of two things: raising tax rates on the top 2 percent or raising taxes on the middle class. As my friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, said on the Sunday talk shows, the Speaker has to make a decision whether it is more important to keep his job or to do something about the economy that is in such difficult shape in America. He has to make a choice. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center called it mathematically impossible to reduce the deficit and give more tax cuts to the rich without harming the middle class. This is the same thing President Clinton talked about so often during the campaign, saying to everyone it is arithmetic. As usual, given the choice between millionaires and billionaires and the middle class, Republicans again sided with the wealthy of this country. In fact, their plan doesn't just keep rates low for the richest 2 percent, it actually lowers them further. The Democrats' plan would protect 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from painful tax increases by asking the top 2 percent to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit. The Republicans' plan, on the other hand, is more of the same. Not only does it balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, it voids our promise to seniors with steep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, all to pay for even more handouts to the rich. At least we now know where they stand. Republicans have sought cover by invoking Erskine Bowles' name, but he has disavowed their plan in no uncertain terms. We are glad to finally see Republicans joining in the negotiating process instead of watching from the sidelines. While their proposal may be serious, it is also a nonstarter. They know any agreement that raises taxes on the middle class in order to protect more unnecessary giveaways to the top 2 percent is doomed from the start. It will not pass. Democrats would not agree to it. President Obama wouldn't sign such a bill, and the American people would not support it. That is in all the polls that are in at press this morning. The American people are tired of budget-busting giveaways to the wealthiest few people who have enjoyed growing paychecks and shrinking tax bills for more than a decade. The American people want a balanced deal. Simple math dictates that a balanced deal must include higher taxes on the richest of the rich. Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind as negotiations move forward. We are willing to compromise, but we also will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain. I have been told the leader of the Democrats in the House will file today a discharge petition asking the Speaker to bring the bill to the floor. All Democratic House Members, as far as I know, every one of them will sign this discharge petition. We have heard Republicans in the House who are willing to move forward. If every Democrat signs this, we will only need about 25 Republicans to join. The American people should see that picture. With 25 Republican votes--25 Republican votes--middle-class America would be able to rest assured that they will not have a tax increase at the first of the year. Twenty-five Republicans is all it would take.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it would be hard to travel to a university campus or to a chamber of commerce meeting or anyplace in the country, travel just to a supermarket and talk to people where they wouldn't all agree that the Senate is dysfunctional, has not worked well. To show how right they are is a statement made yesterday by John McCain. Now, Mr. President, John McCain and I have had our political differences, but no one--no one--can quibble with the fact that John McCain is an American patriot. He was a Navy aviator shot down in Vietnam, spent years--I think it was 6\1/2\ or 7 years--as a prisoner of war, 4\1/2\ of those in solitary confinement. He and I came to the House of Representatives together. I know how the House works. I served there. While I appreciate my friend the Republican leader giving me a minilecture on the House, I don't need one. I served in the House, and I know how the House works. And I know what John McCain said yesterday because I am reading a verbatim transcript from those proceedings, and here is what he said: . . . I apologize for what seems to have happened. Much to my dismay, it lends credence to the argument that maybe we ought not to do business the way we are doing here in the Senate. That is a direct quote from John McCain. As I said in my opening statement, I served in the House, and the reason I mentioned today in my opening statement about the discharge petition is that when I served there, under the leadership of Speaker O'Neill, Majority Leader Michel, and then Jim Wright and Michel, a Republican, there was no way they would ever consider doing a vote with the majority of the majority. They wanted to get 218 votes. That is what they did on reforming Social Security; that is what they did on virtually everything--get Democrats and Republicans together and get 218 votes. And that is the challenge I gave to the Speaker today, Speaker Boehner. Let the House vote. One Republican House Member suggested that more than half of the Republicans in the House would vote for giving tax security to people making less than $250,000 a year. So I say, let's have Speaker Boehner call upon the Republicans in the House to add 25 or so votes to what the Democrats would do, and they would have 218 votes and we could go on to taking care of the fiscal cliff. Mr. President, my friend protesteth too much. The Senate is broken, it needs to be fixed, and we need to change the rules. We change them all the time. Last year we changed the rules. Why? Because of what they were doing--the Republicans--just to stop and slow down everything. After two cloture votes--and remember that takes a long time, to file two cloture motions, a couple of days and then 30 hours. So after 60 hours, you would think the debate would be all over. Oh no. What they decided to do was to suspend the rules and have more votes. We put up with it for a while--a couple here, a couple there. I think the last time they had 15 or 16 motions to suspend the rules. That was enough. They overruled the Chair. They can't do that anymore. What the Republicans have done is they have brought the Senate to its knees, and that is unfortunate. We need to be able to have the Senate operate the way it should operate, and we need to make sure people understand how dysfunctional we are and how we need to move forward. They can say all they want about ``we need more amendments.'' Nobody criticizes having more amendments, but when we spend 9 or 10 days getting on a bill, we have wasted all that time. Nothing happens during that time. We do nothing here in the Senate. Everything comes to a standstill. Yet they complain because they do not have time to offer amendments.