Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider H. Con. Res. 15, which was received earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con. Res. 15 be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 25, following the prayer and pledge; further, that Senator Ayotte be recognized to deliver the address, and that following the conclusion of the reading, the Senate proceed to morning business under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it has been suggested that the Senate should not move forward with Senator Hagel's nomination, alleging he has not complied with requests that he produce speeches. In fact, the standard committee questionnaire requires nominees to provide a copy of ``any formal speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years of which you have copies.'' Senator Hagel complied with this requirement before his hearing 2 weeks ago.

Before the hearing, a number of requests were received from Republican Members that Senator Hagel seek and obtain and provide to the committee some transcripts of additional speeches. In fact, hundreds of pages of transcripts were, in fact, supplied to the committee before the hearing, in addition to those he had submitted in response to the committee questionnaire.

Since then, we have received two additional requests for specific speeches, and in each case we forwarded to Senator Hagel the requests. He sought and provided transcripts of speeches for which he had no prepared remarks and of which he had no copies. So he has responded to those requests, and where he was able to obtain a transcript or a video of the speech from the organization he addressed, he provided a copy. Where no such materials existed, he told us that was the case.

Senator Hagel was informed that a video of his remarks existed in one of those cases but that the organization had been unable to find it. The organization has now located the video, and it will be provided to the majority and minority staffs of the committee today.

In the last few days there has been some finding of transcripts or videos that have surfaced on the Internet--a handful of 2008 and 2009 speeches that Senator Hagel did not recollect. So I ask unanimous consent that a list of links to the Web transcripts or Web videos and a list of Senator Hagel's potentially relevant Senate speeches that are a part of the Congressional Record from 2008 be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. President, Senator Hagel stated in his financial disclosure that he received $200,000 from Corsair Capital, which is a private equity firm, and he was a member of its advisory board. It has been alleged that Senator Hagel failed to provide complete financial disclosure, despite the admitted lack of evidence of any kind, and a highly negative innuendo was dropped by one of our colleagues which said that, and I quote, ``it is, at a minimum, relevant to know if that $200,000''--referring to those fees from Corsair Capital--``that [Senator Hagel] deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, [or] . . . from North Korea. . . .'' Without any evidence of any kind, that kind of innuendo has been dropped here. It is inappropriate, unfair, untrue.

Senator Hagel has provided the same financial disclosure and met the same conflict of interest standards that the committee requires of all previous nominees. As I explained in a February 8, 2013, letter to my ranking member, Senator Inhofe:

Our committee has a well-defined set of financial

disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all

nominees for civilian positions in the Department of Defense.

. . . We have applied these disclosure requirements and

followed this process for all nominees of both parties

throughout the 16 years that I have served as Chairman or

Ranking Minority Member of the [Armed Services] committee. I

understand that the same financial disclosure requirements

and processes were followed for at least the previous 10

years, during which Senator Sam Nunn served as Chairman or

Ranking Minority Member.

And I added:

During this period, the committee has confirmed eight

Secretaries of Defense (Secretaries Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin,

Perry, Cohen, Rumsfeld, Gates, and Panetta), as well as

hundreds of nominees for other senior civilian positions in

the Department. . . . The committee cannot have two different

sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees--one for

Senator Hagel and one for other nominees.

As required by the Senate Armed Services Committee and by the Ethics in Government Act, Senator Hagel has disclosed all compensation over $5,000 that he has received in the last 2 years. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has received letters from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and the Acting Department of Defense General Counsel certifying that he has met all applicable financial disclosure and conflict of interest requirements.

As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has answered a series of questions about possible foreign affiliations. Among other questions, the committee asks whether during the last 10 years the nominee or his spouse has ``received any compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government.'' And Senator Hagel's answer was ``No.''

I will be happy to.

The Senator is correct. A number of our colleagues have made that demand, and it is simply not something on which we are going to set a precedent. It is not the way to proceed in this body.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Vermont.

Just to complete my statement on the financial part, this is relative to the fees he received when he was on the advisory board of Corsair Capital.

This is a company he does not control. He is not in a position to require that it disclose anything. The other members of the advisory board--all of whom are identified, by the way, on the company's Web site--include the chairman of JPMorgan Chase International, who is a laureate of the 2002 Israel Prize in Economics and a recipient of the Scopus Award from Hebrew University. Other members of the advisory board: the former director of investments for Yale University and the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, which is responsible for regulating the insurance industry in the United Kingdom. So the innuendo that Corsair Capital is somehow a puppet entity that is funneling tainted money to members of its advisory board is unfair. It is totally inappropriate.

Senator Inhofe said yesterday that he is not filibustering this nomination. He is just insisting on a 60-vote requirement for Senate approval. And he said it is not unusual to insist on 60 votes for the approval of a nominee and this was done during the Bush administration for the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be EPA Administrator and the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.

Well, the Senate rules do not provide for 60-vote approval of nominations or any other matter. These rules establish a 60-vote requirement to invoke cloture and end debate. If 60 votes are required here, it is because there is filibuster. There is no 60-vote requirement for the approval of a nomination, and the two examples cited by Senator Inhofe actually prove this point. On the nomination of Stephen Johnson, cloture was invoked by a 61-to-37 vote on April 29, 2005. On the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne, cloture was invoked by an 85-to-8 vote on May 26, 2006. But--and this is the point--after the debate was ended by those votes on cloture, the nominations were confirmed by regular votes of this body. And those regular votes are either a voice vote or a majority vote on a rollcall vote.

So that history is, again, an example of how the Senate operates. Sixty votes is not required to approve a bill or approve a nomination. If a matter is being filibustered, 60 votes is required to end the debate, and then, if the debate is ended, there is a vote on a nomination or a bill.

No nomination for the position of Secretary of Defense has ever before been filibustered. This filibuster breaks new ground. The filibuster of a nomination for Secretary of Defense is the first one under any circumstances, and it is unwise. The Department is facing a budget crisis that was described as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So a filibuster at this time of a budget crisis is exceptionally ill-advised. Leaving the Department of Defense leaderless at a time when we are in an Afghan conflict, when North Korea has just exploded a nuclear device is exceptionally ill- advised. And perhaps most important, having a Department of Defense that does not have a new Secretary confirmed is unfair to the men and women in uniform. It sends them exactly the wrong message, as it does to our friends and our adversaries around the world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object because of the assurances of my three friends from the other side of the aisle stating that they plan on voting for cloture. They obviously said they will not vote for cloture today, which is, I think, too bad because there has been more than enough time in the last 2 days to read the additional speeches that have been coming in.

The only argument that was raised beyond that, that I know of, has to do with a payment from an equity fund. That was received. It has been fully explained. It is a highly reputable fund that Senator Hagel was an adviser to, similar to many other very reputable people. So I think the continuation of what amounts to a filibuster, since 60-vote votes are required to end debate, is too bad when there is a Secretary of Defense who is leaving to go back to California, and we very much need to have our new Secretary of Defense in place, given the circumstances in this world.

We have a budget crisis in this country. Our sequester is confronting us. That sequester will have a damaging effect on the Defense Department, on the men and women in uniform, and on programs, the equipment, the training they need to be ready for any kind of a contingency.

So the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me, is a mistake, and we ought to approve the ending of the debate today so we can get on with the confirmation vote, which will be a majority vote. After there is a cloture vote, debate is finally ended in this body, the final passage of a bill or the vote on the nominee is a majority vote, not 60 votes. So I am hoping there will be 60 votes today so we can get on with approval of this nominee, hopefully shortly thereafter, and fill this spot which is sitting there waiting to be filled.

We have North Korea exploding a nuclear device. We have a war going on in Afghanistan. We need to have a Secretary of Defense in place. So I hope there is not a delay. Following the vote today, I hope we do invoke cloture, because I think there has been more than adequate time. Surely, there has been time on the floor when we have had hour after hour go by with no one who seeks to be recognized to speak.

I do hope that if the unanimous consent proposal is agreed to, there will be 60 votes today. But if not, then there will be no alternative but to have the vote when we come back. At that point, we would, of course, look forward to the support, at least on cloture, of the three Senators who have just spoken, our friends on the other side of the aisle.

That is the best we can hope for. But that is my hope. I will not object because of that.

If the Senator from Arizona would yield for 1 minute, I do not believe Senator Tower was filibustered. There was a delay in getting to that vote. But I do not believe there was a requirement--I may be wrong on this. I do not believe there was a filibuster for the Secretary of Defense nominee at that time, and many Secretary of Defense nominees have been approved in a matter of days, just the way Senator Kerry was approved in a matter of days.

So circumstances differ nominee to nominee. I again will not object, based on the statements which we have heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Reserving the right to object.

How much time remains on our side?

I assume the 12 minutes the Senator referred to would be counted against their time?

No objection.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Madam President, how much time does the majority have?

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield time to the Senator from California. How much time does the Senator wish?

I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First of all, the questions which have been asked of us to provide materials of the nominee have fallen into three categories: The first one is to the White House about Benghazi, and those questions have been answered. There have been requests for Senator Hagel's speeches, and those speeches have been provided. Relative to financial disclosure, additional financial disclosure, disclosure which is required by the rules, that has been provided.

The statement that was made by one of our colleagues about Corsair Capital is a statement which, frankly, is out of bounds. It is inappropriate for anyone to be asked about that when he is an adviser to a perfectly legitimate equity fund and has perfectly legitimate members on the board. There is no evidence--and the person making the innuendo acknowledged that there is no evidence--that the funding came from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any other inappropriate place.

So as for the information that has been provided, it is probably more information than probably any nominee--at least in recent memory--has had to provide. We have done everything we possibly can.

Now in terms of the qualifications for Senator Hagel, this comes from former Secretaries of State, National Security Advisers, National Secretaries of Defense, including Secretary of State Albright, National Security Adviser Berger, Secretary of Defense Brown, National Security Adviser Brezezinski, Secretary of Defense Cohen, Secretary of Defense Gates, National Security Adviser Jones, Secretary of Defense Laird, National Security Adviser McFarlane, Secretary of Defense Perry, Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Powell, Secretary of State Schultz, and National Security Adviser Scowcroft.

This is what they said, and this is the validation: We, obviously, know Senator Hagel. We trust Senator Hagel. We believe in his qualifications.

These people are Democrats and Republicans who are outside of this body, and here is what they say: From his

time as the Deputy Veterans' Administrator managing a quarter of a million employees, to during the Reagan Presidency, to turning around the financially troubled World USO, to shepherding the post-9/11 GI bill into law as a United States Senator, and most recently through his service on the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon and as cochairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense.

I have already put into the Record many of the statements that have been written by veterans organizations in support of Senator Hagel.

Senator Inhofe said when no one talks about his position on Iran, well, yes, we do. Here is what he says:

Iran poses a significant threat to the United States, our

allies and partners, and our interests in the region and

globally. Iran continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program

that threatens to provoke a regional arms race and undermine

the global non-proliferation regime.

He is fully committed to the President's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. All options must be on the table to achieve that goal. And relative to Israel, he has said he is a strong supporter of Israel. Even more importantly, the Deputy Minister of Israel said he is a good friend of Israel, and, indeed, in the words of Danny Ayalone, said he believes--and I am now talking about Senator Hagel--Hagel believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States and is proud of the volume of defense relations between Israel and the United States which are so important to both countries.

Now the only question that remains is what we are voting on. What we are voting on is to end the filibuster. My good friend from Oklahoma says it is not a filibuster, but the definition of ``filibuster,'' under our rules, is you are going to continue to talk unless there are 60 votes to end debate. That is what we are voting on. It is called cloture.

If we get cloture today, then there will be another vote on the nomination of Senator Hagel. The proof of that is that we have three Republican Senators who stood up today and said that while they are going to vote against cloture today, they are going to vote for cloture a week from this Tuesday. That is a procedural vote if I ever heard it. They are still going to vote against his nomination, but they have decided that they will vote for cloture a week from Tuesday. That is the difference between the vote to end debate and the vote on the nomination itself. What we are deciding here today is whether a filibuster will continue. That is not just me talking; that is the rules speaking. That is what the rules provide for, that we need 60 votes to end debate.

Has there ever been a requirement before by opponents of a nominee that there be 60 votes to end debate? Has this ever happened in history? Not for a nominee for the Defense Department, no; Secretary of Defense, no. For other Cabinet officers, there have been in the past requirements set by opponents that to stop talking we are going to have to get 60 votes. But that only means what the rules say it means, which is that under the rules of this body, conversation or debate does not end if the opponents insist on it until there are 60 votes. That is the definition of a filibuster and that is what I hope we could bring to an end today. If we don't bring it to an end today, then there will be another vote a week from Tuesday.

I hope we don't have to do that. This position is too important. The dangers in this world are too severe to leave this position in this ambiguous state between now and a week from Tuesday, or whenever the final vote on approval of this nomination is. The world is too dangerous to have this period of uncertainty. There is no need for it. We have provided the documents which have been required. The information relative to the financial situation of Senator Hagel has been provided. It is time for us now to bring the debate to an end, require 60 votes and then, hopefully, if we can get 60 votes today, then vote on the final approval of this nominee. But, again, if 60 votes aren't there today, the majority leader has made it clear he will then, of course, reconsider the cloture motion for a week from Tuesday. Either way, it is critically important that Senator Hagel's confirmation take place and that we fill this position of Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, I don't know if there is any time left but, if so, I yield it back.

Mr. President, as President Obama reminded us in his State of the Union Address this week, 2 months have passed since the heartbreaking school shooting in Newtown, CT. Since then, we have mourned the loss of the 20 wonderful children and 6 extraordinary adults who were murdered that day. Their lives were taken by a mentally deranged individual who easily obtained a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle with a high capacity ammunition magazine.

It has been estimated that there are currently 18 million assault weapons in circulation around the United States. If no action is taken, this number will continue to grow. Across our Nation, any dangerous individual can walk into a gun show and walk out with the same type of weapon that the perpetrator in Newtown used to murder so many innocent people. These weapons, along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, can easily escalate confrontation into murder, petty crime into tragedy, and a killing of one or two people into a massive slaughter.

The weight of evidence shows that since Congress allowed the Federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, the use of military style assault weapons in crime has surged around our Nation. For example, a 2010 study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that since the ban lapsed, 37 percent of police agencies have reported increases in criminals' use of assault

weapons. A separate Washington Post analysis revealed that the ban was associated with a 60 percent decline in the number of guns with high- capacity magazines recovered at Virginia crime scenes between 1998 and 2004. But since the ban expired in 2004, the number of guns recovered with high-capacity magazines has more than doubled. A Department of Justice study of several cities found that high-capacity magazines are used in 14 to 26 percent of gun crimes and in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in the cities analyzed.

It is long past time to take concrete action to support our law enforcement communities and to prevent more of these massacres. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. By preventing the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault type weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, this bill would stop the flood of these weapons of war into our communities. It would support law enforcement officers across our Nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers armed with military weapons. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

Mr. President, we must face reality. We live in a nation trapped in an epidemic of gun violence. Where a day at the mall or a trip to the movies can become a nightmare. Where parents send their children to school and have to worry about whether they will come home.

Is this the Nation we want, or the Nation we want to leave to our children? We must not wait for the next madman to easily and legally purchase a military-style assault weapon and a high capacity magazine. I urge my colleagues to protect the American people by enacting measures to stem the tide of gun tragedies. It is long past time for this kind of violence to end.

Mr. President, now that the nomination of Senator Hagel is before us, I want to begin this discussion and debate with a few remarks about him. The committee approved this nomination and sent it to the floor of the Senate yesterday by a vote of 14 to 11.

Senator Hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior statesmen, defense, and foreign policy

organizations. At his January 31 nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee, Senator Hagel was enthusiastically introduced and endorsed by two former chairmen of our committee, chairmen who have huge bipartisan support and respect by everybody in this body and everybody outside of this body who knows them. Those two chairmen are Sam Nunn and John Warner.

Senator Hagel's nomination has been endorsed by five former Secretaries of Defense who served under both Democratic and Republican Presidents: Bob Gates, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry, Harold Brown, and Melvin Laird. He has been endorsed by three former Secretaries of State-- Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and George Shultz--and by six former National Security Advisers who served in that position for more than 20 years under six of the last seven Presidents.

Let me just share with our colleagues a few of the words of Senator Nunn when he introduced Senator Hagel to our committee:

I believe our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee for

Secretary of Defense with the character, experience, courage

and the leadership that Chuck Hagel would bring to this

position. First, Chuck is acutely aware that even in an age

of rapid technological advances, our military capability and

effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the

people who serve our Nation in uniform, as well as the

families who support them.

Continuing:

Chuck received two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and when he

returned home he continued to fight for veterans and for

Active-Duty military personnel. He knows that our people are

our strongest asset. Second, Chuck's experience in Vietnam

shaped his life and his perspective. War for Chuck Hagel is

not abstraction. I am confident, if confirmed, he will ask

the hard and smart questions before sending troops into

battle. Chuck Hagel knows the United States has vital

interests that are worth fighting for and dying for. He

also knows that war should be a last resort and that our

Nation must effectively use all of our tools, not limited

only to our military, to protect our important and our

vital interests.

Senator Nunn continued:

Certainly there is a tension in these values, but it is a

tension that we should welcome in the thought process and in

the advice that our Secretary of Defense gives to our

Commander in Chief and to this Congress.

From our service together on the Defense Policy Board in

recent years, I know that Chuck Hagel has a clear world view

and that it aligns with the mainstream of U.S. foreign and

defense policy, and also with President Obama. Chuck Hagel

believes that we must build and preserve America's strength

as a force for good in the world. He recognizes that

protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends,

as well as strong American leadership.

Senator Warner's extraordinarily powerful and warm comments included as follows:

There is an old saying in the combat army infantry and

Marine Corps. ``Certain men are asked to take the point.''

Which means to get out and lead in the face of the enemy.

Chuck Hagel did that as a sergeant in Vietnam. If confirmed,

Chuck Hagel will do it again. This time not before a platoon

but before every man and woman and their families in the

Armed Services. He will lead them and they will know in their

hearts that we have one of our own.

Senator Hagel has received a letter of endorsement from 11 retired senior military officers who say Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.

He has received a letter of endorsement from nine former Ambassadors who worked with him on Middle East issues. That letter says, in part:

Each of us has known the Senator over the past 20 years and

has found him invariably one of the best informed leaders in

the U.S. Congress on the issues of U.S. national security. .

. . Senator Hagel's political courage has impressed us all. .

. . Time and again he chose to take the path of standing up

for our nation over political expediency. . . . He has

invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a

two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would

undermine or threaten Israel's security. We can think of few

more qualified, more nonpartisan, more courageous, or better

equipped to head the Department of Defense.

That is from nine former Ambassadors who worked with Senator Hagel on Middle East issues. Let me read who those Ambassadors are: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and to Egypt; Samuel Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel; William Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Tom Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; and Frank Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Egypt and to India.

Senator Hagel's nomination has been supported by the major groups of American veterans, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the American Legion. He has received support from the Military Officers Association of America, Foreign Area Officer Association, and the Non Commissioned Officers Association.

Senator Hagel has been endorsed by numerous newspapers, including USA Today, which stated:

Many of the supposed weaknesses that Republican Senators

hammered him on are actually proof that Hagel takes

thoughtful positions and doesn't bend easily to pressure.

I would like to read just a few quotes from those organizations of veterans who have endorsed him. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says the following:

It is not the place for America's oldest and largest combat

veterans organization to advise or recommend to the President

who he should nominate for cabinet positions. However, the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States considers Chuck

Hagel, twice wounded Vietnam War veteran, war infantryman,

and former two-term United States Senator from Nebraska, to

be uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense.

That is signed by Robert Wallace, who is executive director of the

Mr. President, the Department of Defense right now needs its new leader. Its current leader, who has done a great job, has announced he is leaving and has set a time for that departure.

We face a budgetary challenge of immense proportions--not just in the Department of Defense but in all of our agencies. Our military is engaged in combat operations overseas. North Korea has exploded a nuclear device--highly provocative, highly objectionable--and must be countered. The absence of senior leaders in the Department of Defense will harm our national defense, will harm our men and women in uniform, and sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our adversaries around the world.

If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve as Secretary of Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations a Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the commitment of U.S. troops overseas but also with respect to the day-to- day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure our men and women in uniform and their families receive the support and the assistance they need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our marines in harm's way around the world to know that one of their own holds the highest office in the Department of Defense and that he has their backs.

The President needs to have a Secretary of Defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. Senator Hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications and he is well qualified to lead the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The senior Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for one moment, without losing his right to the floor.

Before the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine leave the floor, I just want to commend them for their statements, for their conversation. It is so critically important we avoid sequester. The more Senators and the more Members of the House who look for ways on a bipartisan basis to avoid it, the better. We only have 2 weeks left to go. With the kind of energy and creativity that these two Senators bring to this body, it makes me a little bit more hopeful that we are going to be able to avoid this unbelievably bad outcome.

So I just want to thank both Senators and thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding for a moment.

Mr. President, one-half century ago this month the residents of Portage Township made a significant and lasting decision. They voted in February 1963 to incorporate, becoming the city of Portage. This decision provided many opportunities for this nascent, vibrant community to grow, enabling city leaders and residents alike to chart a course for future prosperity. This milestone will be commemorated in a number of ways throughout the year, including at Portage's city council meeting last night.

The city of Portage is a part of Michigan's rapidly evolving story. Historically, residents and community leaders relied on fertile farmland for agriculture production. In fact, in the late 1880s and early 1900s, this area was known as ``Celery City.'' Today, it is home to thriving businesses, welcoming neighborhoods and abundant natural beauty. The population of Portage has more than doubled in the past half century, and a number of new businesses, large and small, have helped to transform the city's economic base.

As part of the celebration, Portage recently unveiled its new motto, ``A Natural Place to Move.'' It speaks to the city's continued commitment to preserving its many parks, lakes, and trails in a way that encourages residents to stay active and healthy.

It is fitting that the celebrations planned this year include a mix of activities. A commemorative newsletter in February will highlight the city's rich history; a half-marathon and 5K road race later this month will showcase the city's extensive and impressive park system; volunteer opportunities spread throughout the year offer residents a number of ways to give back to their community; and a 50th anniversary concert this summer as part of the 2013 summer concert series will bring families and friends together to celebrate this important anniversary.

The city of Portage and its residents have much to be proud of. Together, they have steadily moved forward. This year is a moment to pause and reflect on the past, and to ensure that the next 50 years continues to be marked by growth and progress.

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, as a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important measure.

The issue before us is not partisan. It is not of importance to just one State or region, or to a single group or interest. It is manifestly in the interest of every American to reauthorize these important programs that have made such a difference in the lives of women and families across this country.

Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has provided comprehensive support to survivors of domestic and sexual violence and to the Federal, State and local agencies that confront this scourge every day. The original legislation passed in 1994 laid a strong foundation that helped establish a coordinated response to violence against women. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 strengthened that foundation. Today, through violence prevention grants, services to survivors of sexual assault, legal assistance, transitional housing grants, assistance to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and other efforts, VAWA has made an enormous difference.

Deaths due to violent acts by intimate partners have decreased significantly. And according to a cost-benefit analysis, VAWA saved nearly $15 billion in its first 6 years of existence by avoiding the high social costs violence against women exacts on our Nation. William T. Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, calls VAWA ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country.''

I had hoped the Congress would act to reauthorize VAWA last year. There is no reason that today we cannot pass this legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. Doing so will make an enormous difference in protecting women from domestic abuse and other forms of violence. And it will make a strong statement that the Senate is united in our desire to ensure that our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters will continue to receive that protection.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

I thank my good friend from Rhode Island, who has done good work in trying to increase revenues, to close some of the egregious loopholes which have allowed the draining of revenues to the Treasury.

A few moments ago, the Senator made reference to the offshore tax havens as a way to avoid paying taxes. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal--I don't know if my friend saw this article--about pharmaceutical companies that were transferring intellectual property to Ireland to avoid paying taxes.

There was an earnings call by the chairman or the CEO of the Gilead company. He was telling investors and stockholders that there is a significant reduction in their tax liability because they had transferred the intellectual property rights to a compound to deal with hepatitis C. He announced that the rights of the hepatitis C compound are now domiciled in Ireland. It is not that his company is domiciled in Ireland, it is that the intellectual property has been transferred to a company they own in Ireland. The intellectual property they used to own--it is still owned by them, of course, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary, but the hepatitis C compound is now domiciled in Ireland. So intellectual property is now shipped around the world to various domiciles.

We have had hearings in our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the way in which tax revenue is lost to the Treasury and tax responsibility is avoided by these transfers of intellectual property to those wholly owned shell companies that perform no economic function except tax avoidance. We have to end it, and we can end it. If we do end it, it will provide a significant amount of revenues for our Treasury.

Today, with Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act, or CUT Loopholes Act, which is S. 268. This bill outlines what I believe is a crucial element to the solution to our fiscal problems. It would raise revenues to reduce our deficits and preserve critical programs by cutting loopholes in our Tax Code that allow multinational corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Now, we are just a few weeks away from sequestration, and the Presiding Officer has spoken very eloquently about what would happen if sequestration hits. This collection of mindless, across-the-board cuts is going to severely hurt our economy, it is going to undermine our national security, and it is going to threaten programs vital to seniors, children, middle-class families, workers, and businesses. These cuts, if they occur, will hurt every single American.

I have said repeatedly for more than 2 years that any deficit reduction effort must pass the test of balance. Balanced deficit reduction requires three elements: cuts to discretionary spending, additional revenues, and entitlement reforms. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, we have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reductions. The vast majority of the deficit reduction achieved so far--more than $1.7 trillion--has come from spending cuts. So while further cuts may be necessary, we must renew our focus on the other two categories: additional revenues and entitlement reforms. The CUT Loopholes Act can help us produce the required revenue. According to estimates in the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation would yield at least $189 billion in deficit relief.

I hope no Member of this body doubts the damage sequestration would do to our Nation and to our people. The Congressional Budget Office warned us just last month that the enactment of these cuts would likely reduce GDP growth by 1.25 percent. George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller has estimated that these cuts in this year alone would reduce GDP by $215 billion and cost the jobs of over 2 million American workers.

Tomorrow the Armed Services Committee is going to meet to hear from Defense Department officials and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential effects of sequestration on our national security. Just last week, in his final appearance before our committee as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta warned us of a ``readiness crisis'' that would impair our forces' ability to respond to crises. Sequestration will also prevent investments needed to protect us in emerging areas of concern, such as cyber security. It will threaten our ability to keep faith with the most important national security asset we possess: the men and women of our military and their families.

Secretary Panetta has pointed out that sequestration's ills will not be limited to defense. In a speech last week, he said:

It is not just defense, it's education, loss of teachers,

it's child care . . . It's about health care, 700,000 women

and children will no longer receive nutritional assistance.

It's about food safety, it's about law enforcement, it's

about airport safety.

Today we are introducing the CUT Loopholes Act to protect those and other important priorities.

Over the last 50 years, Federal revenues have averaged approximately 18 percent of GDP. Over that time, our budget has been balanced only a handful of years. Each of those years that had a balanced budget, revenues exceeded 19.5 percent of GDP, but in recent years revenues have fallen off to about 15 percent of GDP.

One significant factor in our revenue shortfall is a massive plunge in the share of the stocks burden borne by corporations. Corporate tax revenue amounted to as much as 7 percent of GDP in the 1950s, 2.7 percent of GDP just 7 years ago, and in 2012 it amounted to just 1.2 percent of GDP. Corporations today pay an average tax rate--a real effective tax rate--of 12 percent. How is that possible when the statutory tax rate on corporations is 35 percent? Through loopholes in the Tax Code is how it is possible.

One of the key abuses is when companies use these various gimmicks and tax loopholes to shift their assets offshore. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent more than a decade investigating offshore tax loopholes. We have shown how companies such as Enron used offshore schemes to avoid billions of dollars in taxes. Just last year we showed how companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett Packard used tax rules to avoid taxes on billions of dollars in income. These gimmicks cost us that much income even on products developed in the United States and sold in the United States to U.S. customers. They often do this by transferring intellectual property rights and other intangible property developed in the United States to wholly owned subsidiaries and tax havens, thereby avoiding U.S. tax.

How big is the problem? According to the Congressional Research Service, American multinationals in 2008 claimed to have earned profits in Bermuda amounting to 1,000 percent of Bermuda's GDP. Multinationals reported earning more than 40 percent of their offshore profits in five tax haven countries, despite the fact that just 4 percent of their overseas workforces and 7 percent of offshore investments were located in those five tax havens.

The CUT Loopholes Act will end abuse of so-called ``transfer pricing'' agreements. It will allow companies to transfer revenue for products developed in the United States to tax haven countries. It would strengthen enforcement tools so our tax authorities can investigate and rectify tax avoidance offshore. It would end the taxpayer-funded subsidy to corporations for expenses in moving jobs and operating facilities overseas.

It would stop corporations from manipulating rules on foreign tax credits to avoid taxes. It would end the ``check

the box'' loophole that allows multinationals, by a stroke of a pen, to cloak offshore income from taxation.

Here at home, the CUT Loopholes Act would eliminate a loophole that allows large corporations to exploit what is in effect a Federal subsidy that helps pay for the compensation awarded to their executives. When companies award stock options to their top executives, they are allowed under law to record that expense in two totally different ways--one for their books and one for tax purposes. They report one amount to their investors on their annual financial reports, but they can report a much larger expense--often orders of magnitude larger--to the IRS and claim a tax deduction for that much larger claimed expense.

One company, Facebook, used this loophole as part of its initial public offering last year. Facebook will use this loophole to claim a $16 billion tax deduction. It would then seek a $\1/2\ billion tax refund for taxes paid in past years, and then avoid taxes for up to as many years into the future. That is just one company. The amount it showed in its books for that same cost for executive compensation was about 5 percent of what it told Uncle Sam the cost was, and then it was able to deduct a much larger cost--20 times as much of its income taxes. So this legislation would end that. By the way, that was just one company.

This legislation would also end two Wall Street tax loopholes. It would end the derivatives blended rate loophole, which gives preferential tax treatment in the form of long-term capital gains rate for speculative trades in certain derivatives--derivatives sometimes bought and sold in fractions of a second.

Now, we have to understand the amazing part of that is these derivatives that are sometimes sold in one-millionth of a second-- bought and sold in one-millionth of a second--are given long-term capital gains treatment. We can imagine the amount of money that is involved in that and the loss to the Treasury.

Another loophole the CUT Loopholes Act would address is in the energy sector. Because of a three-decade-old IRS decision, oil produced from tar sands, as opposed to traditional oil extraction, is not subject to the tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, as residents along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan learned in 2010. Cleanup of that oil spill is still underway nearly 3 years later. Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills--ust like producers of other oil must do.

The CUT Loopholes Act also would tighten rules that combat tax- shelter promoters, stiffen penalties on those who aid companies or individuals who seek to shirk their fair share of the tax burden, strengthen our ability to collect taxes from tax avoiders when we catch them, and modernize the IRS tax lien process.

I know these issues can be complicated. But the American people are seeing through that complexity.

Americans support these reforms not just because of the great fiscal challenges before us. People recognize that these loopholes are not fair. They are wrong in every sense that a policy can be wrong--wrong fiscally, wrong economically, wrong ethically.

Even if one disagrees with the American people, and sees these egregious loopholes as somehow justified, how can one argue that preserving them is more important than avoiding the damage of sequestration? How are these loopholes more important than preventing a recession caused not by the ups and downs of the economic cycle or by the reckless behavior of financial speculators, but by sequestration?

I offer these ideas in the genuine belief that they can help bridge the gap, and in the urgent belief that we cannot leave that gap unbridged. I urge my colleagues to adopt them for the good of the millions of Americans whose prospects will dim if we cannot reach agreement.

I will close with this: There was a survey completed last month which shows that two-thirds of Americans believe corporations need to bear a larger share of the tax burden. Eight in ten say closing corporate tax loopholes should be an important priority for Congress. Seventy-three percent approves of efforts to stop corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes by shifting income offshore.

So this is what the survey shows:

Do you approve or disapprove of the following policies?

Prevent corporations from avoiding taxes when they award

executives millions in stock options: That is 73 percent. In

terms of closing loopholes, allowing corporations or the

wealthy to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting income overseas: That

is 63 percent.

By the way, that percentage applies across the board. Americans of all political persuasions agree with these points. Mr. President, 8 out of 10 Republicans--8 out of 10 Republicans--agree the amount of revenue which will be saved by ending these kinds of loopholes should go to either deficit reduction or to public investments, and only 11 percent believe the revenue should be used to reduce tax rates on corporations.

So I think we have to act to avoid sequestration. Senator Whitehouse's bill is directly aimed at that. Our bill, if we can get this passed and get some of these loopholes closed, will clearly help to avoid sequestration. There is some overlap between the bills, but the point is the same.

These loopholes are draining our Treasury. This is not like increasing tax rates, to say we ought to close these kinds of egregious loopholes. These loopholes shouldn't be there. If we had a surplus, we ought to close these loopholes. These loopholes have helped to shift the burden in this country to middle-income families from corporations, and these corporations that avoid these taxes, in many cases, are extremely profitable corporations. It is an absurdity that we allow money to be drained from our Treasury to go to these offshore tax havens where no or little taxes are paid.

We can end it. We can end that kind of loophole. We can close it, and we can do a lot of good for our country, both in terms of avoiding sequestration in the short term, as well as to help reduce our deficits in the long term.

I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse again for the leadership he has shown and continues to show in this area. Some of these issues are extremely complex. We know that. One of the reasons they are difficult to end is that these loopholes are very difficult to explain. So we just hope our colleagues will follow the instincts of the American people who know these tax havens are wrong.

We should put them out of business in terms of their drain on the American Treasury, and we can do so. In fact, then-Senator Obama was a cosponsor of much of this legislation when he was in the Senate.

So I am going to close here, but I will again thank the Senator from Rhode Island for the leadership he is showing for his bill, which I am proud to cosponsor.

I thank my good friend from Rhode Island, who has done good work in trying to increase revenues, to close some of the egregious loopholes which have allowed the draining of revenues to the Treasury.

A few moments ago, the Senator made reference to the offshore tax havens as a way to avoid paying taxes. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal--I don't know if my friend saw this article--about pharmaceutical companies that were transferring intellectual property to Ireland to avoid paying taxes.

There was an earnings call by the chairman or the CEO of the Gilead company. He was telling investors and stockholders that there is a significant reduction in their tax liability because they had transferred the intellectual property rights to a compound to deal with hepatitis C. He announced that the rights of the hepatitis C compound are now domiciled in Ireland. It is not that his company is domiciled in Ireland, it is that the intellectual property has been transferred to a company they own in Ireland. The intellectual property they used to own--it is still owned by them, of course, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary, but the hepatitis C compound is now domiciled in Ireland. So intellectual property is now shipped around the world to various domiciles.

We have had hearings in our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the way in which tax revenue is lost to the Treasury and tax responsibility is avoided by these transfers of intellectual property to those wholly owned shell companies that perform no economic function except tax avoidance. We have to end it, and we can end it. If we do end it, it will provide a significant amount of revenues for our Treasury.

Today, with Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act, or CUT Loopholes Act, which is S. 268. This bill outlines what I believe is a crucial element to the solution to our fiscal problems. It would raise revenues to reduce our deficits and preserve critical programs by cutting loopholes in our Tax Code that allow multinational corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Now, we are just a few weeks away from sequestration, and the Presiding Officer has spoken very eloquently about what would happen if sequestration hits. This collection of mindless, across-the-board cuts is going to severely hurt our economy, it is going to undermine our national security, and it is going to threaten programs vital to seniors, children, middle-class families, workers, and businesses. These cuts, if they occur, will hurt every single American.

I have said repeatedly for more than 2 years that any deficit reduction effort must pass the test of balance. Balanced deficit reduction requires three elements: cuts to discretionary spending, additional revenues, and entitlement reforms. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, we have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reductions. The vast majority of the deficit reduction achieved so far--more than $1.7 trillion--has come from spending cuts. So while further cuts may be necessary, we must renew our focus on the other two categories: additional revenues and entitlement reforms. The CUT Loopholes Act can help us produce the required revenue. According to estimates in the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation would yield at least $189 billion in deficit relief.

I hope no Member of this body doubts the damage sequestration would do to our Nation and to our people. The Congressional Budget Office warned us just last month that the enactment of these cuts would likely reduce GDP growth by 1.25 percent. George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller has estimated that these cuts in this year alone would reduce GDP by $215 billion and cost the jobs of over 2 million American workers.

Tomorrow the Armed Services Committee is going to meet to hear from Defense Department officials and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential effects of sequestration on our national security. Just last week, in his final appearance before our committee as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta warned us of a ``readiness crisis'' that would impair our forces' ability to respond to crises. Sequestration will also prevent investments needed to protect us in emerging areas of concern, such as cyber security. It will threaten our ability to keep faith with the most important national security asset we possess: the men and women of our military and their families.

Secretary Panetta has pointed out that sequestration's ills will not be limited to defense. In a speech last week, he said:

It is not just defense, it's education, loss of teachers,

it's child care . . . It's about health care, 700,000 women

and children will no longer receive nutritional assistance.

It's about food safety, it's about law enforcement, it's

about airport safety.

Today we are introducing the CUT Loopholes Act to protect those and other important priorities.

Over the last 50 years, Federal revenues have averaged approximately 18 percent of GDP. Over that time, our budget has been balanced only a handful of years. Each of those years that had a balanced budget, revenues exceeded 19.5 percent of GDP, but in recent years revenues have fallen off to about 15 percent of GDP.

One significant factor in our revenue shortfall is a massive plunge in the share of the stocks burden borne by corporations. Corporate tax revenue amounted to as much as 7 percent of GDP in the 1950s, 2.7 percent of GDP just 7 years ago, and in 2012 it amounted to just 1.2 percent of GDP. Corporations today pay an average tax rate--a real effective tax rate--of 12 percent. How is that possible when the statutory tax rate on corporations is 35 percent? Through loopholes in the Tax Code is how it is possible.

One of the key abuses is when companies use these various gimmicks and tax loopholes to shift their assets offshore. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent more than a decade investigating offshore tax loopholes. We have shown how companies such as Enron used offshore schemes to avoid billions of dollars in taxes. Just last year we showed how companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett Packard used tax rules to avoid taxes on billions of dollars in income. These gimmicks cost us that much income even on products developed in the United States and sold in the United States to U.S. customers. They often do this by transferring intellectual property rights and other intangible property developed in the United States to wholly owned subsidiaries and tax havens, thereby avoiding U.S. tax.

How big is the problem? According to the Congressional Research Service, American multinationals in 2008 claimed to have earned profits in Bermuda amounting to 1,000 percent of Bermuda's GDP. Multinationals reported earning more than 40 percent of their offshore profits in five tax haven countries, despite the fact that just 4 percent of their overseas workforces and 7 percent of offshore investments were located in those five tax havens.

The CUT Loopholes Act will end abuse of so-called ``transfer pricing'' agreements. It will allow companies to transfer revenue for products developed in the United States to tax haven countries. It would strengthen enforcement tools so our tax authorities can investigate and rectify tax avoidance offshore. It would end the taxpayer-funded subsidy to corporations for expenses in moving jobs and operating facilities overseas.

It would stop corporations from manipulating rules on foreign tax credits to avoid taxes. It would end the ``check

the box'' loophole that allows multinationals, by a stroke of a pen, to cloak offshore income from taxation.

Here at home, the CUT Loopholes Act would eliminate a loophole that allows large corporations to exploit what is in effect a Federal subsidy that helps pay for the compensation awarded to their executives. When companies award stock options to their top executives, they are allowed under law to record that expense in two totally different ways--one for their books and one for tax purposes. They report one amount to their investors on their annual financial reports, but they can report a much larger expense--often orders of magnitude larger--to the IRS and claim a tax deduction for that much larger claimed expense.

One company, Facebook, used this loophole as part of its initial public offering last year. Facebook will use this loophole to claim a $16 billion tax deduction. It would then seek a $\1/2\ billion tax refund for taxes paid in past years, and then avoid taxes for up to as many years into the future. That is just one company. The amount it showed in its books for that same cost for executive compensation was about 5 percent of what it told Uncle Sam the cost was, and then it was able to deduct a much larger cost--20 times as much of its income taxes. So this legislation would end that. By the way, that was just one company.

This legislation would also end two Wall Street tax loopholes. It would end the derivatives blended rate loophole, which gives preferential tax treatment in the form of long-term capital gains rate for speculative trades in certain derivatives--derivatives sometimes bought and sold in fractions of a second.

Now, we have to understand the amazing part of that is these derivatives that are sometimes sold in one-millionth of a second-- bought and sold in one-millionth of a second--are given long-term capital gains treatment. We can imagine the amount of money that is involved in that and the loss to the Treasury.

Another loophole the CUT Loopholes Act would address is in the energy sector. Because of a three-decade-old IRS decision, oil produced from tar sands, as opposed to traditional oil extraction, is not subject to the tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, as residents along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan learned in 2010. Cleanup of that oil spill is still underway nearly 3 years later. Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills--ust like producers of other oil must do.

The CUT Loopholes Act also would tighten rules that combat tax- shelter promoters, stiffen penalties on those who aid companies or individuals who seek to shirk their fair share of the tax burden, strengthen our ability to collect taxes from tax avoiders when we catch them, and modernize the IRS tax lien process.

I know these issues can be complicated. But the American people are seeing through that complexity.

Americans support these reforms not just because of the great fiscal challenges before us. People recognize that these loopholes are not fair. They are wrong in every sense that a policy can be wrong--wrong fiscally, wrong economically, wrong ethically.

Even if one disagrees with the American people, and sees these egregious loopholes as somehow justified, how can one argue that preserving them is more important than avoiding the damage of sequestration? How are these loopholes more important than preventing a recession caused not by the ups and downs of the economic cycle or by the reckless behavior of financial speculators, but by sequestration?

I offer these ideas in the genuine belief that they can help bridge the gap, and in the urgent belief that we cannot leave that gap unbridged. I urge my colleagues to adopt them for the good of the millions of Americans whose prospects will dim if we cannot reach agreement.

I will close with this: There was a survey completed last month which shows that two-thirds of Americans believe corporations need to bear a larger share of the tax burden. Eight in ten say closing corporate tax loopholes should be an important priority for Congress. Seventy-three percent approves of efforts to stop corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes by shifting income offshore.

So this is what the survey shows:

Do you approve or disapprove of the following policies?

Prevent corporations from avoiding taxes when they award

executives millions in stock options: That is 73 percent. In

terms of closing loopholes, allowing corporations or the

wealthy to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting income overseas: That

is 63 percent.

By the way, that percentage applies across the board. Americans of all political persuasions agree with these points. Mr. President, 8 out of 10 Republicans--8 out of 10 Republicans--agree the amount of revenue which will be saved by ending these kinds of loopholes should go to either deficit reduction or to public investments, and only 11 percent believe the revenue should be used to reduce tax rates on corporations.

So I think we have to act to avoid sequestration. Senator Whitehouse's bill is directly aimed at that. Our bill, if we can get this passed and get some of these loopholes closed, will clearly help to avoid sequestration. There is some overlap between the bills, but the point is the same.

These loopholes are draining our Treasury. This is not like increasing tax rates, to say we ought to close these kinds of egregious loopholes. These loopholes shouldn't be there. If we had a surplus, we ought to close these loopholes. These loopholes have helped to shift the burden in this country to middle-income families from corporations, and these corporations that avoid these taxes, in many cases, are extremely profitable corporations. It is an absurdity that we allow money to be drained from our Treasury to go to these offshore tax havens where no or little taxes are paid.

We can end it. We can end that kind of loophole. We can close it, and we can do a lot of good for our country, both in terms of avoiding sequestration in the short term, as well as to help reduce our deficits in the long term.

I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse again for the leadership he has shown and continues to show in this area. Some of these issues are extremely complex. We know that. One of the reasons they are difficult to end is that these loopholes are very difficult to explain. So we just hope our colleagues will follow the instincts of the American people who know these tax havens are wrong.

We should put them out of business in terms of their drain on the American Treasury, and we can do so. In fact, then-Senator Obama was a cosponsor of much of this legislation when he was in the Senate.

So I am going to close here, but I will again thank the Senator from Rhode Island for the leadership he is showing for his bill, which I am proud to cosponsor.

Mr. President, first I want to thank my dear colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. We have worked so closely together on Michigan issues. She is one great partner, and I am proud to represent Michigan with her at my side and her as a partner.

Talking about partners, my wife Barbara has been married to me for 51 years, and she is my lifelong--excuse me. I have to straighten this out. My brother is my lifelong best buddy. He was there when I was born. I have to modify what Senator Reid said. For the last 51 years, my wife has been my best buddy, and my brother has been my second-best buddy, but I am blessed with family. I would like to thank everyone for mentioning my family.

I am blessed with a staff that is led by David Lyles. I have great friendships here in this body and there is no substitute for the kind of friendships and relationships which make this body work. Even when it doesn't appear to be working, it is working. I know the public gets frustrated with us at times, but this is an extraordinarily resilient body.

Many times during the 34 years I have been here there have been periods when we have been frustrated in terms of getting our work done, but we pull through in this wonderful, noble institution. This venerable institution is being protected here by people who love it, and I cherish those relationships with the people who do cherish this body and what it uniquely stands for in the world. There is no other body like it in the world. I only wish that people such as Robert Byrd and Danny Inouye could live forever to help protect this body, but that is not the case.

I want to mention one other thing. I am very grateful to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their comments. I wanted to speak about something Senator McConnell referenced.

A few weeks ago this body did something which was very bipartisan and very essential to its health and its survival, and that was to make sure we continue to protect the minority but not to overprotect the few Members if those Members take excessive advantage of our rules.

Eight of us got together. Senator McCain and I pulled together three Democrats and three Republicans. For many weeks we worked together, without staff, and came up with an alternative which the leaders used to work through this complicated situation we found ourselves in relative to the rules.

On the Democratic side, we had Senator Schumer, Senator Cardin, and Senator Pryor, and on the Republican side we had Senator Alexander, Senator Kyl, and Senator Barrasso join Senator McCain and me. I believe it was one of the most important things we have done in recent years here, which was to change the procedures. They were not working. They were being used to frustrate efforts to get legislation to the floor.

We had to do that. We had to do something to change the rules which were being misused in terms of postcloture hours. There were judges who were going to be approved by votes of 95 to 1 or 2, and those postcloture hours were being used to stall the Senate. We took care of that situation. We acted on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully that spirit of bipartisanship, which is so essential to making this place work, will continue and be given a boost not just by what the leaders essentially did in accepting our recommendations on these procedural changes but will now apply and work with other efforts that will be underway in this Congress.

I want to mention that because eight of us, on a bipartisan basis, did something which we believe very deeply about as a way of avoiding what was called the nuclear option. If that were used, it would have led to a change in a way which was not provided for in the rules. Under the rules, this is a continuing body. If that were used, it could have gone around the rules and essentially put the Presiding Officer in the position of ignoring the advice of our Parliamentarian and saying that we could, by majority vote, do something which our rules say could only be done by two-thirds of us. That would have done severe, long-lasting damage to this institution. We were able to avoid that, Democrats and Republicans--well beyond the eight of us--including the Presiding Officer, who was so helpful to me in working through this idea and giving me suggestions. I am very grateful to him for the kind of suggestions and conversations we had. We were able to work through an issue on a bipartisan basis and then the body came together and about 80 or more voted for these procedural changes. I thought it was a great day, personally. I know that. I know the eight of us feel very strongly about the important contribution we made to this body, working together. So we feel very good about it. I hope over time some of the people who were critical of it will see it as being a significant advance in making this body work better, allowing us to work our will. I wanted to mention that because it was mentioned by one of our leaders--Senator McConnell--and I know Senator Reid worked so closely with him and his staff, and they helped us through a very difficult situation which would have, if not resolved on a bipartisan basis, created some real problems for the ongoing operations of this body.

So I thank our leaders. I thank Senator Reid, of course, who is such a dear friend, and I thank him for not just mentioning my beloved wife Barbara but also my brother Sandy.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.