Floor Statements

Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. That vote will be on the confirmation of J. Paul Oetken to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I rise to speak about the budget and deficit issues that are facing us. The first point, which is becoming clearer and clearer to the American people, is how bad a default would be.

The bottom line is very simple: America has never defaulted on its debt--nor should any country, particularly the greatest country in the world--debt that is a promise of expenditures that have already been made. When we raise the debt ceiling, we are simply saying we are going to pay our bills.

The bottom line is that every family in America has to do that. If you own a mortgage, you can't say, after you have signed the mortgage and lived in the house: I am not going to pay my mortgage unless ABC happens.

If you have credit card debt and you have incurred significant debt, you can't say to the credit card company: I am not going to pay that debt unless you do ABC.

Yet some of our colleagues on the other side--and particularly in the House of Representatives--seem to say that. It would lead to disaster. It would lead to disaster for the government. In August America has $306 billion--this government, this Federal Government, has $306 billion in obligations and $172 billion in income. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we are going to have awful choices: Do we pay the Social Security recipients and not the veterans? Do we pay the veterans and not those to whom we owe money? Do we say we will pay veterans but not pay people who inspect food or guard our borders? The choices are awful, and choices the American people should not have foisted on them by an irresponsible Congress that says we will not raise the debt ceiling.

It will also hurt American homeowners and debtors. If you are a mortgagor, your debt will go up. If you have a variable-rate mortgage, and we don't raise the debt ceiling, you will pay perhaps hundreds of dollars more each month. If you have credit card debt, which most Americans have, the rates are likely to go up.

Overall, at a time when we need jobs and the economy is so precarious, it could send us back into a recession and perhaps even worse, according to some economists. So not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on our debt is not an option.

Yesterday, Senator McConnell realized that. The substantive good news here is that the plan Mitch McConnell offered, for all its faults, makes the likelihood of our not paying our bills, of not raising the debt ceiling less likely. However, the plan has a good deal of fault to it. It seems to be a political document. It says what we care most about is two things: It says we want to throw the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling to the other side, and it says the Republican Party cares more about preserving tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate America than actually bringing down our debt.

All the talk about deficit reduction, all the talk about getting a handle on our debt has been thrown to the wind, all in an effort to say: We know if we raise the debt ceiling there will be trouble. Senator McConnell is well aware--he is very smart when it comes to the politics of it--that had the debt ceiling not been raised, the blame would have fallen on the party that has been saying they don't care about raising the debt ceiling.

Hundreds of members of the Republican Party throughout the country-- scores in this Congress both in this House and the other--have said: We are not going to raise the debt ceiling. Senator McConnell, realizing the consequences of doing that would fall on the party that doesn't believe it is important to do so, had to act. But at the end of the day, where is the debt reduction? Where is the deficit reduction we have heard about in speech after speech after speech from the other side?

The bottom line is very simple: Again, when President Obama offered a plan that would remove tax breaks from the rich, that would close corporate loopholes, the other side said: We can't tolerate that, even if it means debt reduction. The McConnell plan shows what the other party, the other side of the aisle, cares about: preserving tax breaks for the rich and preserving corporate loopholes much more than reducing our deficit and bringing down our debt.

Having said that, as I said, Senator McConnell has at least recognized, even if partially politically, the gravity of the situation, and he joins the other leaders in Washington in doing that. President Obama has as well, and that is why he put out his $4 trillion plan. Speaker Boehner has also. That is why he was willing to entertain--until the rug was pulled out from under him--a big plan. Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi have constantly talked about their views and ways we can reduce the deficit and avoid default. There is only one person who hasn't come up with a plan, who hasn't compromised, and who hasn't reached out to the other side in an effort to move forward, and that is the majority leader in the House, Mr. Cantor. He is the only one

who still says: My way or the highway. Every other leader has said they are willing to make certain concessions--even though they do not like them--to avoid default.

The Nation, and, of course, this Congress is waiting for Leader Cantor to step to the plate in a similar way so that maybe we can come to a compromise that actually avoids default and, at the same time, gets a handle on the debt and deficit problems and reduces both of those.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first let me thank the Senator from New Mexico for his heartfelt remarks. I know how much he cares about his constituents and our country. We too at the opposite end of the country thank our soldiers for their sacrifice and also the families of those who make the highest sacrifice to our Nation.

Madam President, I rise to speak about a subject that is foremost on my mind and the mind of my Democratic colleagues here today; that is, the danger of defaulting on our debt.

In the entire history of this great country, we have never once defaulted on our debt. America has always kept her promises. But an alarming number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem content to reverse that proud record.

Time after time, they have rejected sensible compromises to avert default. Late last year, all the House Republicans voted against the Simpson-Bowles commission. Then a key Republican walked away from the Gang of 6. Then Leader Cantor abandoned the Biden-led talks. Most recently, Speaker Boehner balked at President Obama's grand bargain- style offer because of pressure from so many in his party. It is an obvious and unsettling trend.

In each of these instances, the Republican retreat was precipitated by one thing and one thing only: an ideological quest to ensure that tax breaks for the richest few are protected. They have insisted we can't raise a single dollar from millionaires and billionaires, no matter how wasteful the tax break or how generous the subsidy.

Instead, they would rather balance the budget on the backs of middle- class families. They think giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires creates jobs. What about all those dollars that sit there in vaults and bank accounts? Isn't it true that taking away money from middle-class people hurts the job effort? It is a one-sided ideological quest to help the most privileged few among us.

This morning, The Hill newspaper reported that Majority Leader Cantor made a proposal at the White House yesterday that outlined $353 billion in health care cuts. Among the cuts listed by Leader Cantor were approximately $250 billion in reductions in Medicare. According to The Hill, several of his proposals ``would raise costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.''

That would protect the wealthiest among us--the millionaires and billionaires--and hurt the average middle-class senior citizens.

This is the tradeoff Leader Cantor and the Republicans wish to make: protect millionaires and cut Medicare benefits instead. This approach is not balanced, it is not fair, it is not moral, and it will not be accepted.

The proposal by Leader Cantor is very troubling, but we can't ignore it because, according to press reports this morning, Leader Cantor is now the leader of these negotiations for the Republicans. It was reported that he did the plurality, if not the majority, of the talking on the Republican side at the meeting yesterday.

Leader Cantor will need to approach this set of negotiations better than he did the last one. During the Biden-led talks, Leader Cantor bolted the room as soon as it was time to make tough decisions he didn't like.

Let me read from the front page of the Washington Post this morning. This is the Washington Post story, not my words:

Cantor thinks the way to win this haggling session--one of

Washington's most important in years--is by walking out of

it.

I will repeat that from the Washington Post front page:

Cantor thinks the way to win this haggling session--one of

Washington's most important in years--is by walking out of

it.

Leader Cantor cannot repeat that maneuver again this time. We are too close to the debt limit deadline, and there is no margin for error.

This is crunch time. The clock is ticking. If we don't reach an agreement in the next few weeks, we risk roiling the financial markets, and our Nation's fragile economy will suffer a serious setback. Middle- class families will see their mortgage rates and credit card rates go up. Even a technical default--the failure to pay interest on our debt for just a few days--will cause the GDP to contract and jobs to be lost, in all likelihood. It doesn't just affect the government. It is not just something far away. It affects every family with a variable rate mortgage or credit card debt. That is why it is time for my GOP colleagues to jettison their ideological blinders and get down to pragmatic problem-solving that will allow us to avoid default and its aftermath.

We have had debt ceiling renewals on our desks for decades. No one has ever played brinkmanship like this. No one has ever said our Nation will not live up to its obligations--this great Nation, which always has, from the days of the Founding Fathers and Alexander Hamilton.

On this side of the aisle, we are working in good faith to reach a deal. Over the past few months, we have worked diligently to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, many of which are just as painful to our caucus as taking away tax breaks to millionaires are to the caucus on the other side. It can't be just one way. We have put these difficult cuts on the table because, on this side of the aisle, we recognize our deficit is unprecedented and bold comprehensive action needs to be taken.

Let me say this: A budget agreement cannot be considered bold and comprehensive unless it asks millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations to contribute to deficit reduction. They

don't have to do the whole thing, but they have to do their share. That is why we want to repeal tax breaks that serve no purpose whatsoever, other than to bloat our budget deficit. We want to make sure that at this time of fiscal restraint there is shared sacrifice.

Let's face it, middle-class Americans and working-class Americans depend on government programs in ways the wealthy do not. If you are a millionaire or billionaire, you don't need Pell grants to send your kids to college. You don't need to go to a community health clinic to have your teeth examined when they ache. You don't have the high cost of prescription drugs to be a barrier to you, and you don't need help to pay them.

If we are going to scale back vital spending programs, which go right to the core of middle-class, hard-working American families, we must also scale back special interest tax breaks that benefit only the wealthiest few, such as tax breaks for yachters and corporate jet owners.

I wish to make something clear. I have nothing against those who have made a lot of money. I think that is great. I think that is America. I know lots of people like that. Most of the ones I know say: Yes, I should pay my fair share. But somehow there is a small group that seems to feel they should not pay almost any taxes. Those people are running the show on the other side of the aisle.

If we are going to bequeath the American dream to future generations and ensure that the American dream continues to burn brightly in the American breast, then we need to institute some shared sacrifice.

In normal times, this would be a consensus, middle-of-the road position. It is a position Ronald Reagan took. It is a position George H.W. Bush took. As David Brooks and other commonsense Republicans have noted, Republican Presidents and leaders have long supported coupling increased revenue with spending cuts to reduce deficits.

But today's GOP has, unfortunately and sadly, been dragged so far to the right by its ideological fringe that they now reject this balanced approach out of hand. They would sooner end Medicare as we know it than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little more in taxes. That is the nub of it. They would sooner end Medicare as we know it than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little more in taxes.

How many Americans agree with that? Certainly, our political system, for all its faults, at the end of the day has truth at the bottom of it. This position will not help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. When either party moves too far to the extreme--Republicans too far to the right or Democrats too far to the left--they ultimately lose. That is what is happening to the Grand Old Party in this Chamber.

More than 40 Republicans, unfortunately--40 in the House--have vowed to vote against any increase in the debt limit no matter how much deficit reduction accompanies it. I am not aware of a single Democrat who has drawn such a dangerous, Draconian line in the sand. Remember, it is not future spending you are voting against. You are voting against paying your bills, paying your debt. Every American family has to do it. Every American worker has to do it. To say the government should not do it is unprecedented.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reevaluate their position. It is time for Republican leaders to do some much needed soul searching. Are they willing to risk an economic cataclysm to mollify an extreme wing of their party and score political points against the President? Do they want us to be remembered in the history books as the first generation of Americans to renege on our obligations? Will they put their country before party, come to the bargaining table, and forge a bipartisan path forward?

Similar to most Americans, I am a natural optimist. Sure, I don't have much evidence on which to base my optimism, when Republicans walk out on negotiations time after time when they don't get their way. But I nevertheless possess an innate belief that at the end of the day, we will do what is best for our country and our economy; we will raise the debt limit, pass a far-reaching deficit reduction package that includes both spending cuts and repeal of tax breaks for the richest few among us. As the President recently put it--and he was, whether intentionally or not, quoting a great thinker from ancient Babylon--``If not now, when?''

Let us hope we arrive at an agreement soon. Time is, unfortunately, not on our side.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, first I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota, Senator Franken, for leading this debate here today, the subject of course being the potential of default by the U.S. Government, a subject many of us thought we would never have to discuss. I hope people who did not get a chance to see his speech--I am sorry, I had hoped to be here but we had the final vote on the free trade agreements in the Finance Committee, but I hope people will look at the speech. It is a very erudite, thoughtful, and compelling document. It is on a subject that deserves that kind of attention, which is the danger of default. In our entire history we have never defaulted on our debt. America has always kept its promises. But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to make us the first generation of Americans that does not pay its debts, that does not keep its promise. Earlier this week the President said we should reach a deal within 2 weeks in order to avoid roiling the financial markets. We Democrats are working in good faith. We are committed to making sure our Nation does not fail in meeting its obligations. My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle are working diligently to find spending cuts, many of which come from programs we strongly believe help this country, in order to come to a final agreement. We are also identifying tax loopholes to close.

But I must ask, what exactly are my Republican colleagues doing? They are stalling, they are demagoging. They walked out on bipartisan budget negotiations and are continuing to insist that we cannot raise a single dollar in revenue, no matter how wasteful the tax breaks or how generous the subsidy. The shocking truth is that our Republican colleagues seem to be willing to tank the economy simply to help out the very most privileged, who are already doing well.

Let's face it, middle-class people, poor people, depend on government programs. But if you are wealthy you do not need government spending. You don't need help to send your kid to college. You don't need to go to a clinic to have your teeth looked at in case they are falling apart and you cannot afford high-priced, fancy dentists. But if you are wealthy, how do you get breaks? You look into the Tax Code and lobby Congress, whether you are a corporation or individual, to get those breaks. That is how the high-end folks benefit, in terms of this government.

To say all those are off limits is not class warfare, it is a simple fact of life. It is a fact of life that the well-to-do, whether they be corporate or individuals, benefit from tax expenditures, whereas middle-class and poorer people benefit from spending expenditures. Yet our Republican colleagues say one whole side is off limits. That is putting politics over the economy.

In fact, these actions seem to indicate they might be deliberately tanking, or want to deliberately tank, the economy to harm the President's reelection chances. That is a tough thought. I shudder to believe it. But when you look at the evidence, it leads in that direction.

These are not actions of leaders. Forcing the United States into default to score political points is playing with fire. You risk undermining the future credit of the United States and do enough damage to the global economy that it could cause another financial crisis not unlike the one we saw in 2008 from which we still have not recovered, all to score political points, all to help those, the one segment of society which, God bless them, has done very well in the last decade.

I also want to talk today about a subject that is often ignored in debates over the debt ceiling. These debates can seem very abstract and the potential consequences very remote. That is why my colleague from Minnesota decided to lead a debate in this regard. In fact, the consequences would affect every American who wants to take out a mortgage; every parent who needs to take out student loans to send their kids to college; every American with a credit card. It would even affect the price of gasoline and the price of food. The impact of a default will not just be felt on Wall Street or in the mythical world of bond markets, but in every town, every household in the Nation.

The consequences will not be short lived. The repercussions of a default will stay with us for years or even decades. J.P. Morgan estimates that even a technical default, the failure to pay interest on our debt for a few days, would result in the cost of U.S. treasuries increasing by 50 basis points.

What does that mean to the average household? Most households do not speak in terms of basis points. Mortgage rates are often set at 150 points above U.S. Treasury. That means 1.5 percent above U.S. treasuries. If the rate on treasuries goes up 50 basis points, it goes up another half percent. So the cost of a mortgage for a family with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage

worth $172,000, just that alone, that little few days where the United States does not pay its debt, costs $19,000 to that family.

The cost of interest on a credit card would also increase. A family carrying a modest balance, $3,300, would pay an estimated $250 more in interest every year.

In total, a default or even a near default could end up costing American households $10 billion in increased borrowing costs every year.

The same J.P. Morgan study tells us that a 50-percent increase in the cost of U.S. treasuries will decrease our GDP by 1 percent. Leading economists estimate a 1-percent contraction in the GDP would result in 640,000 jobs lost. These are jobs we cannot afford to lose.

In addition, the stock market would also go down significantly, costing all Americans who are investing for their retirement or saving to send a child to college. The typical American would lose $8,000 to $12,000 in his or her retirement account.

J.P. Morgan also estimates that the value of the dollar would decline 5 percent to 10 percent as a result of a default.

There are significant consequences for the future of the dollar if this happens. We should all be asking ourselves, what happens if the dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency? But even if my colleagues across the aisle do not want to consider that, they should certainly think about the impact of a depreciated dollar on their constituents. Higher borrowing costs to the government would also increase the deficit, exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do.

So when they cavalierly say ``let's default because we have a huge deficit,'' it is actually an internal contradiction. The defaulting will make the deficit worse. According to a J.P. Morgan analysis, the deficit would increase by $10 billion a year in the short term, $75 billion in the long term.

The worst part is this: All of these costs would be self-inflicted wounds. We are fully capable of paying our debt, as we always have. But some are threatening to intentionally default. To borrow a phrase from the President's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, ``This would be the first default in history caused entirely by insanity.''

Let me say this. Every American family has debt, just about. Most of us have mortgages. Let's say we have a mortgage on our house, we have a house and we are living in it. If all of a sudden we say to our bank I am not going to pay my mortgage unless you do A, B, and C--you have already signed to pay that mortgage--what happens? You are not living up to an agreement you made. Your house is foreclosed upon and you lose it.

The analogy is the same here. For the U.S. Government to default on purpose would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and hurt the citizens of this country.

I say to my Republican colleague, how do you plan to explain this to your constituents? Do you think they will believe the political games are worth the increased costs? I sincerely doubt it. I want to say to my Republican colleagues, because so many of you have trifled with the idea of not paying our debts, if, God forbid, it happens--I hope it doesn't, for the good of the country, but if it does, you will bear the blame. Not a single Democrat I am aware of has said we want to default. Many Republicans have said they want to default. So you do not have to be Albert Einstein or a Ph.D. in biophysics to know who is risking default, who is trifling with default, and who would cause default if, God forbid, we cannot come to an agreement.

Many on our side have said we are willing, if it comes to it, to raise the debt ceiling if we cannot come to an agreement because the consequences are so horrible. Not the other side--no. They are leveraging the default as a means to assert their beliefs, sincerely held. That is so wrong. But the good news is that the American people, and certainly the people who are following this issue, realize that. As we get closer and closer to the day of August 2 they will know who is willing to risk default to achieve political goals. They will know it is not the people from our side of the aisle. They will know it is the people from the other side of the aisle, and that will make problems Newt Gingrich faced in 1995--I believe it was when he shut down the government--look like child's play. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rethink their position. The time has come for a little soul searching on the other side of the aisle. You must decide if you are willing to create another economic crisis to mollify an extreme wing of your party and score political points against the President. You must decide if you want to go down in history as the first generation of American leaders to renege on promises already made by Presidents and Congresses, Democratic and Republican alike. In the coming weeks my Republican friends will have to make a very serious decision. Are they going to get serious about working with us to find a bipartisan solution to our debt crisis or are they going to put partisan politics above the good of the country? Are they going to say it has to be our way, all the way, 100 percent, no revenues, or we are going to force the country to default? Or will they put the good of the country and compromise above narrow, ideological, often fear-driven politics?

In conclusion, I am an optimist. I believe my colleagues will come around and join us in finding a bipartisan way forward. I don't base that on anything that has been said. I wish I could. I base it on my innate optimism that Americans, at the end of the day, are practical, problem-solving people, not people who look for self-destructive solutions. I ask my colleagues to come around, join us in a bipartisan solution. We are willing to give some. You should be willing to give some, but I can tell you, my friends, time is running out. I can only hope, the American people can only hope, you don't wait too long.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before I begin on my time, I would like to ask my colleague from Louisiana if he would answer a question.

I thank my colleague.

My colleague is right. We should move on this, this year. We certainly agree with that. Of course, the balanced budget amendment wouldn't take effect for years to come. But my colleague just voted for the Ryan budget, which actually increased the deficit. Not only did it not move deficit numbers down, but it increased the deficit. So how can he reconcile all this nice, grandiose talk about a balanced budget amendment with voting for a budget that actually increased the deficit?

I would note, for my colleague--reclaiming my time--the Ryan budget is not a dramatic step in that direction. The Ryan budget, as I understand it, does not do a thing in the first decade to reduce the deficit. It cuts a lot of spending, but it also cuts taxes and it raises defense spending.

Please.

I thank my colleague.

I would say it is time to walk the walk, not talk the talk. Whenever folks refuse to step to the plate to actually balance the budget--the last President to do so being Bill Clinton--they start talking about a way distant, future balanced budget amendment. This balanced budget amendment they talk about is not going to solve our problem in the next 5 years. We have to get to work right now, and that is what we are trying to do on this side, with a fair and balanced approach.

The balanced budget amendment my colleague speaks about would, if we look at the amounts--18 percent GDP--cut deeper than the Ryan budget. It would end Medicare as we know it. It would mean things we take for granted, such as food safety inspectors and flight inspectors, would have to be cut, and then it makes it impossible to close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. It is not a balanced budget amendment; it is an unbalanced budget amendment because it simply reflects an ideological view that my good colleague and friend from Louisiana has but does not reflect the views of either a majority of this Chamber or certainly the American people.

So let's walk the walk. Let's not just talk the talk. I think that is very important to note. Cutting spending, which is done in the Ryan budget, is not going to work in terms of balancing the budget. It just can't, unless we decimate programs, such as Medicare, without revenues.

That is what I am here to talk about today. I rise today in support of the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice.

The clock is ticking. Time is running short to reach a deal on reducing the deficit and raising the debt ceiling. We are walking the walk and not simply talking the talk about some ephemeral balanced budget amendment that is unbalanced and will not pass.

Yesterday, the President said we needed to reach a deal within 2 weeks in order to avoid roiling the financial markets. Democrats are working in good faith, identifying spending cuts and tax loopholes to close. And what are our Republican colleagues doing?

Well, since stalking out of the negotiations 2 weeks ago, they are now sticking to their blind ideology and playing political games, such as inviting the President to come to the Capitol, when they know he can't, to deliver a message he has already heard. The Republican leader has continued to insist that we can't raise a single dollar in revenue, no matter how wasteful the tax break or how generous the substance.

Madam President, here is what it is coming down to. In the home stretch of negotiations, our Republican colleagues seem to be willing to tank the economy rather than end a single tax subsidy. Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit and getting our Nation back on a sensible fiscal track, but we know everyone must pay their fair share. We know there has to be compromise to get things done. We can't just draw a line in the sand and say: My way or no way; it will lead to fiscal Armageddon.

So over the past several weeks, we have offered a number of wasteful tax breaks that should be ended as part of the debt ceiling deal: ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry making record profits; the ethanol industry, which 36 Members on the floor, including the majority leader, supported, to their credit, and corporate jet owners, will save us tens of billions of dollars.

Now, paradoxically, our Republican colleagues are now arguing that tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners are too small to consider ending. They have argued that because they will only save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. They say that is not enough and so we shouldn't be discussing them now.

Well, I disagree. Tens of billions of dollars that we can save on wasteful subsidies are certainly worth pursuing.

But let's turn our attention to the matter at hand, one of the biggest of all taxpayer giveaways that Democrats are trying to end: tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

I rise today in strong support of the Senate resolution that says, simply, instead of ending Medicare as we know it, instead of cutting college scholarships and cancer research, instead of balancing the budget solely on the backs of the middle class, let's end some breaks. Let's end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Let me repeat that because that is the essence of our dispute, of our disagreement. You can't varnish it any other way. I know the other side tries to say we are raising taxes, trying to imply that we want to do it on middle-class people. We don't. We are not going to touch a person whose income is below $250,000. Some of us would even go higher, $500,000, $1 million. But every one of us on this side says: If you are a millionaire, you should share some of the sacrifice. The other side resists, and then they try to hide by saying it is raising taxes. It is not raising taxes on average folks. It is not raising taxes at all. It is simply going back to the level under Bill Clinton where we had record prosperity, record jobs, and record income growth for the highest end people as well as for middle-class people who got income growth as well.

So let me repeat the nub of this and why we have this resolution on the Senate floor. Here is what it says: Instead of ending Medicare as we know it, instead of cutting college scholarships and cancer research, instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, let's end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. This would save over $100 billion a year and hundreds and hundreds of billions in the long run. It is not just a small amount.

I ask my Republican colleagues, is that savings significant enough to at least merit discussion and not just take it off the table?

The GOP budget would end Medicare as we know it to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. The resolution says, simply: Don't let that happen.

Let me say this: I respect people who have made a lot of money. There are many of them in my State. They work hard. God bless them. But many of them, when you talk to them, are the first to say they should share in the sacrifice. There are some who would say no, but I don't think they represent mainstream America or mainstream American opinion.

In normal times this would be a consensus opinion, the fact that we shouldn't end Medicare as we know it to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest Americans. In normal times that would be a consensus position.

Republican Presidents and political leaders have long supported raising revenue combined with cutting spending to reduce deficits. Ronald Reagan, for instance, because he wanted to shrink government, but he was fiscally responsible. But the Republican Party has been dragged so far to the right by an ideological fringe that they now see this balanced approach as an extreme position.

What it comes down to is this: Would Republicans rather end Medicare than end tax breaks for billionaires? It is a simple choice, and this resolution will make the answer to that question clear.

Again, will Republicans do anything, even risk default, to protect tax breaks on the highest income people, millionaires and billionaires? And would they rather end Medicare and solely rely on cuts that hurt the middle class than admit that some tax subsidies, such as those for big oil companies and corporate jet owners, are a waste of taxpayer dollars? Well, Madam President, we will soon find out.

I yield the floor.

I believe I am the next speaker. I ask unanimous consent to cede the Senator from Oregon 3 minutes of my 10 minutes.

First, Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. Once again, he is forthright, he is courageous, he is on the money, and people should listen to him because he says a lot of good things about a lot of subjects, including this one. I appreciate what he has said.

After weeks of stops and starts, we are now approaching crunch time in the debt ceiling talks. I believe a grand bipartisan bargain is possible but only if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take off their partisan blinders. Neither side can afford to cling to their ideological positions any longer.

To get the economy humming on all cylinders again and avoid a default crisis, we need to say goodbye to a few sacred cows. Yet, mere weeks after voting to repeal ethanol subsidies, the other side's leader, the Senator from Kentucky, has drawn a line in the sand against including any and all revenue changes in the debt deal. He has said that repeal of special interest tax breaks is ``politically impossible.'' Well, that is a curious idea given that the Senator from Kentucky and 33 of his colleagues are on record as supporting the end of ethanol giveaways. It seems Leader McConnell would rather end Medicare as we know it and force cuts to Pell grants and cancer research than institute a little shared sacrifice.

On this side of the aisle, we want to repeal tax breaks that have no purpose whatsoever other than to bloat our budget deficit.

Today, I want to highlight one of the most egregiously wasteful loopholes in the Tax Code: the tax break for yacht owners. Yes, believe it or not, Uncle Sam subsidizes the purchase of sprawling, luxurious, 72-foot Viking yachts. As long as your yacht has a place to sleep and a place to--how shall I put it--relieve yourself, you can classify it as your ``second home'' and claim the mortgage interest deduction. That's right. The deduction Congress helped create for middle-class families to realize the American dream of home ownership is helping millionaires and billionaires get a 35-percent discount on their yachts. In fact, how-to books on tax avoidance advise readers that ``if you're paying for your yacht in cash, you're paying too much.'' Millionaires who would otherwise write a six-figure check for their yacht without batting an eye instead take out a loan so they can claim the mortgage interest deduction. The IRS's only requirement is

that the yacht owner provide proof that they spend 14 days a year on the boat. If only Gilligan and the Skipper had taken a 14-day trip instead of a 3-hour tour, they could have expensed the cost to the S.S. Minnow.

There are tough choices ahead as we seek to achieve our dual goal of creating jobs and reining in the deficit. But repealing this insane tax break for yacht owners is not tough at all--not by a mile or, to put it in terms our nautical friends would understand, not by a league.

I want to make clear that I have nothing against yacht owners. God bless them. They are doing well for themselves, and in America we celebrate success and say: Enjoy your success. That is a great thing. But at a time when the government is tightening its belt and we are grappling with painful cuts to vital programs, it boggles the mind to continue to give boaters a tax break they do not need and never should have had in the first place.

It is a question of priorities. Both sides are for deficit reduction. If our side dug a line in the sand and said: No cuts to programs, we would be regarded as way off the deep end and not really wanting to compromise. Well, the mirror image is exactly true. Just as we must endure program cuts we consider painful, the other side must endure cuts they may consider painful on the tax side.

We will not get anywhere unless both sides compromise, and what we are doing here today--the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Illinois, myself, and many others--is we are showing that there is plenty of room on the tax side--these are small; there are larger ones--there is plenty of room on the tax side to eliminate waste, just as there is plenty of room on the spending side to eliminate waste, and we will not come to a compromise unless--we will not be able to raise the debt ceiling and get our fiscal house in order unless both sides give.

Lines in the sand do not help this country. I would plead with my colleagues, no more lines in the sand. There are just as many wasteful tax expenditures as there are program expenditures.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order for the votes to begin at 11 a.m., there now be 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the votes; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; finally, that all rollcall votes after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

Madam President, I will take the 5 minutes on our side.

Madam President, I rise and join my colleagues in strong support of the nominations reform package before us today. This bipartisan bill and resolution which we will vote on a bit later will effectively change the way the Senate does business, and it is long past time to do just that. It is not often that this body voluntarily takes steps to curb its own power. But for the good of our democracy, the Senate must become more efficient.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander, who has been a driving force behind this effort and has been steadfast in his resolve to make a change to this body. We have worked in a bipartisan way to resolve all the differences in a way that I would hope the Senate could work more often on more pieces of legislation.

I also thank the chair and ranking members of the Homeland Security Committee, Senators Lieberman and Collins, for their input and expertise in drafting this piece of legislation and moving it quickly and productively through committee. Their impact on this process cannot be understated.

I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Back in January, when we were negotiating the reforms to the body, they set up our working group to look into the problem of executive nominations, and they supported and were an active part of our effort.

The Senate has always been known as a cooling saucer, but as of late it has become a subzero freezer. Nominees of impeccable qualifications and indisputable support have been frozen out of the confirmation process, and the backup in nominations also gridlocks other important legislative business. That is why the Senate, often known as the cooling saucer, is too often now a subzero freezer.

Today, we will be taking a meaningful and important step toward changing this. The rapid growth of the executive branch has put unanticipated burdens on the Senate, whose job it is to confirm the President's appointees. There is nothing wrong with the Senate doing a little prioritizing of its pending business.

Today, about one-third of the current Senate confirmable positions will now either not require confirmation at all or will enjoy a streamlined confirmation. By now we all know what S. 679 and S. Res. 116 do, but what will their impact be?

In short, this package of reform will help our government function better. One example of this is the working group that the bill creates to examine a ``smart form'' to streamline the paperwork submitted by a nominee. A nominee may now, today, have to complete three separate financial disclosure forms for the executive and legislative branches. Hopefully, the idea of not having to fill out mountains of paperwork will be appealing to prospective government servants.

Additionally, this bill and resolution we are voting on will help the Senate focus more like a laser beam on issues affecting the average American, such as jobs. The less time committees have to spend on nominees, the more time they can spend on improving the everyday life of Americans.

Over the last several decades we have seen an amazing increase in the nominees we have had to confirm. It has gotten out of hand, and that is something on which both sides can agree.

We are not abdicating our advice and consent duty, we are strengthening it. We are focusing on the positions that truly need it according to the Constitution.

This package represents the final piece to the reform deal that was set forth in January.

Last spring, motivated by the good work of Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, the Rules Committee undertook a detailed examination of the history and the application of the Senate rules, especially the filibuster.

After six hearings, and many conversations, we reached a historic point in January when something needed to be done.

Change happens slowly, we all know that, particularly in the Senate, and sometimes it is a product of compromise and deliberation. We all know this institution, as grand and wonderful as it is, could always benefit by change. Today, we have some of that change. Is it everything we want? No, far from it. But it will make a difference in the institution's effectiveness.

I wish, for a minute, to thank the chairs of our Senate committees and the ranking members as well. When we first spoke of this back in January to the introduction of the bill in March, through markup and now today, the chairmen have had a great impact on our efforts. We have listened to them and made changes they have suggested which, on reflection, we thought were worthwhile. We have listened to both the chairmen and ranking members, understood their positions, and wanted their ideas. All the while, however, they understood what we were attempting to do, and we appreciate their support.

In conclusion, before final passage of this bill, we will be voting on four amendments. It is our hope we can adopt Senators Portman, Udall, and Cornyn's amendment and Senator Toomey's amendment by voice vote. At the same time, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the two amendments offered by Senator DeMint. One of the amendments he has offered would have harmful consequences if passed and could disrupt how the IMF does business. The other, while couched in transparency, essentially removes legislative affairs and public affairs positions from the bill. We have already agreed to remove the legislative affairs positions. The Senate should have some say in determining who is going to give information the Senate and others need, but we don't think the public affairs positions should have to go through Senate confirmation. All of these spokespeople report to Senate-confirmed individuals, where we have oversight. So we don't agree with that half of Senator DeMint's proposal.

I wish once again to thank my colleague and friend Senator Alexander. I wish also to thank Senators Lieberman and Collins. In a few minutes, we will vote on final passage of S. 679 and S. Res. 116, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make a strong statement for more effective government by voting aye.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:10 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 521; that all other provisions of the previous order with respect to the Coburn amendment remain in effect; that upon disposition of the Coburn amendment, the managers' amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that following the disposition of the managers' amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended; that there be no other amendments and no other motions or points of order in order to the resolution other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; further, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that Mr. Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma, be given 5 minutes to speak on his amendment just before the vote.

Mr. President, if my colleague from Tennessee has yielded, I will read a brief statement about what we are voting on.

I encourage my colleagues to support S. Res. 116, which streamlines certain nominations through the Senate. Once again, I wish to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Alexander, for his hard work on this resolution and his insight into the nomination process. I am grateful he is the ranking member of the Rules Committee. I thank the chairman and ranking members of the Homeland Security Committee, Senators Lieberman and Collins, for their steadfast dedication to the efforts to reform the way the Senate conducts business. Additionally, Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell gave their support in time to work through this package.

Earlier today, we passed the first piece of the nomination reform package, S. 679, which eliminates certain positions from Senate confirmation. It is our hope this package thaws out this institution. The resolution passed through our committee, the Rules Committee, unanimously back in May--this resolution did--and it is a bipartisan effort. Now we are considering the corresponding resolution which streamlines other nominations. For certain nominations, once received, they will be placed in a new category of the calendar. At that point, the chair will send out the questionnaire. Once he or she certifies it has been returned, the nomination will move to a second new category on the calendar. It will sit there for 10 days. If there are no objections, the nomination will then move directly to the Executive Calendar, with the presumption that these noncontroversial positions would be passed by unanimous consent.

At any time while the nomination is in either of these two categories, anyone can object, including the chair, and have that nomination referred back to the full committee, as with any other nominee. We hope this will clear the way for confirmation of these positions.

Additionally, this resolution will allow committees to turn their focus to issues that affect the American voter. Time spent on nomination hearings and markups can now be spent on other nominees or on other legislation to improve the condition, for instance, of our middle class. As I said earlier, we are in no way abdicating our advise and consent duties, we are enhancing them.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution. I encourage them to vote against the amendment of our good friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. With this resolution, the Senate and our committees can turn our attention to pressing issues that affect us all.

I yield the floor.

At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

In the agreement, the vote is to occur at 6:10 p.m.

No. We need it at 6:10 p.m. So if the Senator wants to speak beyond 5 minutes, that is OK with us.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Madam President, the last thing we need when we are trying to get back on track is a default crisis that would grind our economy to a halt and bury us under even more debt. Yet the latest round of Republican politicians threatening to default on our debt has made their priorities clear: They would rather stop paying our men and women fighting overseas, force deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and throw even more Americans out of work than tell big oil companies and corporate jet owners to pay their fair share.

Clearly our Republican colleagues are serious about politics, not deficits. You cannot be serious about deficits and at the same time recklessly jeopardize our economic standing in the world in order to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Yet that is what leaders such as Mitch McConnell seem to be saying. Yesterday my Republican colleague drew a line in the sand on cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code, calling elimination of special interest giveaways politically impossible. Politically impossible? Really? Just two weeks ago 34 Senate Republicans joined Democrats in passing the repeal of subsidies to ethanol companies. Politically impossible? The landmark budget agreements of the 1990s brought us into balance and ushered in surpluses that took a balanced approach and created prosperity and job creation such as we have not seen in this decade.

Politically impossible? Right now in America middle-class families are living paycheck to paycheck while Senator McConnell and his colleagues are going to the mat to protect billions in tax breaks to oil companies. They say two things--Senator McConnell says two things: He says he is not raising taxes. He wants the average American to think it is your taxes. No one wants

to raise taxes on people below $250 million--many of us, people below $1 million. But when oil companies get big giveaways, when corporate jets get huge deductions, a greater deduction than Delta gets when it buys a plane for commercial use, that should be on the table. We should ask Senator McConnell and the press should ask Senator McConnell: When you say no taxes, do you mean some of our largest corporations should pay no taxes? When you say no taxes, should no taxes be on the table? Are you saying we should not close corporate loopholes? Are you saying people who are making $1 billion should not sacrifice and all the sacrifice should be the middle class? Because that is what Senator McConnell is saying.

Again, we do not wish to tax and will not tax average middle-class people. That is the President's pledge and that is our pledge. The question is: When you tell an average teacher or cop or firefighter you have to sacrifice, are you going to tell the millionaire they have to sacrifice too? Not because we dislike them, but because it should be shared across the board, and Senator McConnell has said: No, the millionaires should not sacrifice. Because the only way they are going to sacrifice is closing loopholes in the Tax Code. They don't need loans to help their kids get to college.

One other thing: Senator McConnell says we should take anything about corporate loopholes, about taxing wealthy people off the table. His ``my way or the highway'' approach is what is standing in the way of getting an agreement. The person standing in the way right now is Senator McConnell. You have not heard such strident language from the other leaders. He says: Take everything we want and nothing you want or we will not get an agreement. That is what he is saying.

The bottom line is very simple. Senator McConnell, cutting Medicare benefits will not make us stronger; Firing teachers will not make us stronger; rolling back investments in innovation and research and high- tech jobs of the future will not make us stronger, but ending wasteful tax subsidies that do nothing but contribute to the deficit for oil companies and corporate jet owners will make us stronger. Meet us part of the way here. Don't say my way or no way because that is too risky, and that is telling the world we will not fulfill our obligations the way every family in America has to fulfill theirs.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to hear testimony on the nominations of Gineen Bresso, Thomas Hicks, and Myrna Perez to be members of the Election Assistance Commission.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the vote in relation to the Vitter amendment No. 499 occur at 12:30 and the vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 510 occur at 2 p.m, with the remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

It has.

Mr. President, it is our intention to work on setting up additional votes this afternoon following the vote on the DeMint amendment No. 510.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter. As you know, the underlying bill is the product of a bipartisan gentlemen's agreement reached earlier this year that seeks to streamline and otherwise improve the efficiency of the Senate's confirmation process. The Senator from Maine, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Connecticut, and myself, as well as the leaders, Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, have been heavily involved in this process.

The amendment offered by Mr. Vitter runs counter to the spirit of comity behind this important bill. It is a poison pill designed to handcuff the President's ability to assemble a team of topflight advisers and aides. The amendment is nothing new. It has been introduced several times in several iterations.

Now is the time to move forward. It is one of those moments when we can bridge the partisan divide and make the Senate a more efficient body. It is not the time or place to relitigate old and, frankly, silly political battles about so-called czars.

It is our constitutionally mandated duty as Senators to ensure that the most important positions in government are confirmed in a timely manner. With the underlying bill, we finally begin to break the logjam that holds up senior positions by taking midlevel, nonpolicy positions off the docket.

I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I also rise now because of the change in the time schedule to speak against the amendment offered by Mr. DeMint. Like the Vitter amendment, this amendment is opposed to the great spirit of comity behind the underlying bill.

I would like to remind my colleague from South Carolina that the bipartisan working group labored over every decision we made. Far from lifting our index fingers to the wind, we carefully debated the nuances of the changes that were ultimately proposed.

The change the Senator from South Carolina finds fault with involves the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Let me tell you about this position. The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports to the Senate- confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, who then reports to the Senate-confirmed Associate Attorney General, who then reports to the Senate-confirmed Deputy Attorney General, who--you guessed it--reports to the Attorney General, also confirmed. How much more oversight do we need for one man? Is four levels of congressional oversight not enough?

It is clear to me that this amendment is really designed to hamper our goal of improving the way the Senate functions. After all, there are four similar positions at the Department of Justice with parallel lines of reporting that we plan to remove from Senate confirmation, but the Senator from South Carolina does not take aim at those. Simply put, this is a prime example of the type of amendment that slows the Senate down, the type of amendment that is really aimed at preventing the passage of this bill.

The number of Senate-confirmed positions has increased by hundreds over the last few decades. As you know, this proliferation has slowed the confirmation process to a near standstill. What used to be a flowing, functioning faucet now trickles.

This position is one of those midlevel positions that should be removed to free up our process so we can focus our time on the positions that are more senior, that do not report to so many other levels of Senate-confirmed positions. Removing Senate confirmation for this position does not in any way weaken our constitutional advice and consent power or give any extra power to the President. This power was given to us to be used to confirm the most senior policymaking positions, and the President has power to appoint his midlevel and lower level appointees.

I oppose this amendment, which will be voted on after our respective lunches, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.