Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think it is obvious to the world around us that the atmosphere here is hardly one of comfort or satisfaction. The public does not see the agony of the debate that is taking place, as we watch how dysfunctional the discussion about the national debt has been.

We feel the threat to America's world financial leadership that is lurking around here, and it is not very satisfying to those people whose homes are close to foreclosure or the people who need to be assured that health care is going to be there for them or that their child who can learn can get an education without mortgaging their future or cannot even get a mortgage on that.

So we look around and we watch and we listen and we see that the Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate are in a search for political gain regardless of the cost to our society and our Nation.

I do not make this statement casually. But after months of watching and listening to the targeted goal of politics over the pain that could follow a default, no other conclusion may be drawn. We want to consider the evidence. By way of example, Vice President Biden convened a bipartisan working group to find solutions to get the national debt problem over with, get it resolved, and let us go on to our normal and needed debate and business. After that, Republicans walked out. Walked out.

Next, President Obama offered Republicans what he called a ``grand deal'' that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. Republicans ran away. Now our majority leader, Harry Reid, has proposed a plan that includes more than $2 trillion in spending cuts, $1 in cuts for every dollar the debt limit is increased--and not even insisting on a dollar of revenues, which has been suggested several times.

But there is no way of getting through the obstinacy on the other side. Republicans turn their back time after time. Democrats in this Senate and in the White House have offered the Republicans compromise after compromise. But they do not see their target. Their target is to do damage to the Obama administration so that it hurts sufficiently to discount the progress that has been made for our society under President Obama.

Time and time again the Republicans have changed their demands to find reasons to say no. Are we asking the Republicans to do something radical, something that has never been done before? That is certainly not the case. Over the past half century, the debt ceiling has been raised 75 times, almost two-thirds of those occasions under Republican Presidents. In fact, the debt ceiling was increased 18 times under President Reagan, and 7 times under President George W. Bush.

Our country has never defaulted. So the question that must be raised is: What is different about today? Why, at a time when we already face a real jobs crisis in this country, would Republicans plan for another economic crisis? Why would they do that? Will destroying the economy help Republicans win seats next year when people across our country are already expressing their dissatisfaction with the deadlock they see being displayed?

We heard the minority leader say his No. 1 priority is stopping the President from winning another term. What a goal that is. He is our President, elected by the people of the country. He has a term of 4 years and will be up for reelection. We hope and we pray that he continues to be the President of our country. What good does it do to target the system?

Make known what it is they stand for. So far we have seen that they stand for nothing that is helpful to the average American. So what we need is a chance to have an honest discussion. Insecurity reigns as people grow more and more conscious about their inability to afford the basics of life, jobs, health care, education. They see prices being raised around them as their purchasing power shrinks. Look at the price of gasoline. You see a perfect example of what is happening. We had one Republican Presidential candidate who was asked: ``Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up your chances of winning office also go up?''

Do you know what her answer was? She said, ``I hope so.'' Hope so. What an outrageous thing to say from the halls of government, the high halls of government. I hope so. I hope that unemployment goes up, says she, so she might have a chance to win office. How cruel that statement is.

Make no mistake, if the United States Treasury runs out of cash next week, the principal burden will fall on middle-class families. But the effects on our total economy will be devastating as well. We may not be able to send out Social Security checks to seniors, benefit checks to veterans, the people who serve the country. Let's stop paying them? Or paychecks to the men and women who now bear our country's uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sorry, we cannot pay you. Is that what we are going to say?

Interest rates could rise almost immediately, greatly increasing the cost of mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, you name it. If middle-class Americans think their 401(k) plan suffered during the Wall Street crisis a few years ago, imagine what will happen to the markets if the U.S. Government cannot pay its bills, or redeem bonds that are ordinarily turned in for cash.

A default will lead to increased job losses at a time when we are still emerging from a recession and 14 million people are now out of work. And those are the relatively short-term impacts. A default crisis will damage our reputation, our credit standing around the world. It will call into question America's credibility, stability, financial leadership. It will make our bonds and our currency less attractive to investors, and we may never recover the exalted status of our financial instrument.

But in response to this looming crisis, our friends, the Republicans, are digging their trenches deeper and offering little but circuitous routes to avoid a more serious plan to resolve this situation. Their latest trick is to propose a short-term debt limit. That increase will leave us in the exact same position 6 months from now so they will have another opportunity to make political mischief.

Imagine. Imagine. All types of tricks, all kinds of devices to try and cut short something that can be dealt with and left behind. Let's continue trying to solve the serious problems that our country has.

The Boehner plan poses the same grave risk to our economy as default. CNN reported that the Boehner plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of the United States credit rating. Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading at Jefferies and Company, said--he is an authority:

From the markets' point of view, a two-stage plan is a non-

starter. . . . There is significant risk of a downgrade with

a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few

months down the road.

It is time for the Republicans to remember that all of our citizens are entitled to be heard, not just the wealthy ones, not just the millionaires, the billionaires, the tea partiers and the powerful, because they have positions that get attention when they make phone calls here.

Inherent in our responsibilities is our obligation to preserve our strength as a democratic society. It is time to get serious. No more sleight of hand. Honest discourse is essential. The other day we were reminded--I describe my own reaction. Shock. They had a picture of lovely looking young people walking away from daddy's airplane that they had--whether it is a charter or owned I do not know--to go to camp. I did well in business. I ran a big company. I got there because I got the GI bill to help me. The GI bill helped me start a company with two other fellows that now has 45,000 employees--45,000 jobs-- because I was able to get an education under the GI bill. It was fantastic. So when I see what is being prized as a front-page picture in the New York Times of this child, looked like a lovely child walking to camp from daddy's airplane--and to me, I do not object to that. If they make their money the legal, responsible way, they can spend it any way they want. But why in the devil would they not want to contribute something to the underpinnings of this country? I do not understand it. Why is there resistance from those who have made so much that they can have yachts and airplanes and this and that? It is said sometimes here class warfare is what we are witnessing. Class warfare.

The warfare comes from the top down, because average citizens, those who work for a living, those whose jobs right now are often insecure, those who watch their 401(k), their precious savings maybe dwindling as a result of a negative change in the marketplace--saying to young people and their families, sons and daughters who have the capacity to learn: I wish that I could afford--says dad or mom--to send you to the right kind of a school that your ability suggests you can handle, but we cannot afford it--we do a disservice to that family. We do a disservice to country when those things happen. So I do not understand why those who have so much, made not by their own ingenuity exclusively but made by the fact that we have a foundation in this society of people who want to go to work every day and do the right thing. That is what holds up this facility of ours. I am not talking about the building, I am talking about the facility this country has.

You cannot build a house from the ceiling down, from the chimney down, and you cannot build a society from the top down. You need the underpinnings. You need those people who bring their skills daily to work and hold out hope for their children to succeed. That is what we need. We need a regeneration of the spirit in this country of ours.

But it is not going to happen when the Republicans' dominant view is: No, let's get Obama. That is what we have to do. Foul play. It is almost like desertion. I wore the country's uniform proudly, and that is what we are talking about, loyalty to country. It says we need everybody to participate. We are not going to get it with the foul schemes that are being proposed.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 237 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, there are so many things here we can disagree about, but I wish to say thank you to all of my colleagues. One hundred of us have joined together in overwhelming numbers to support this historic legislation which creates a national moment of remembrance to commemorate the tragedy of 9/11.

Few events, if any, have done more to change the course of American history as much as the horrifying terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001--nearly 10 years ago. It was one of the worst days in American history on our soil--a day that placed a permanent cloud over America and the free world. Few, if any, Americans can forget where they were that fateful Tuesday morning when our country was gripped with shock and disbelief and it felt as though our world had turned upside down.

I was traveling at the time. I was in the Middle East. When the news came that an airplane struck the trade towers, the first conclusion I came to was it was a stray airplane from a nearby airfield, and that was it. But the news

kept coming, and people in the streets of the city I was in were tearing at the terrible news about what happened to America.

Almost 3,000 people, including more than 700 people from my own State of New Jersey, were brutally massacred in that attack. That is more American lives lost than on D-day when thousands of Americans stormed Normandy.

Many of the victims were hard at work. On a typical weekday, 50,000 people worked in the Twin Towers, with another 200,000 passing through as visitors. It is impossible to believe that these towering facilities, with their huge infrastructure, could be burned, melted, and brought to the ground. Many of the people who lost their lives lost them saving others, including 343 firefighters, 60 police officers, and other first responders, as they answered the call of others who desperately needed their help. Some became heroes that day, such as those on United Flight 93, who took on the hijackers who were in the aisles to try and bring that airplane to its target. But the people stood up and fought against them--heroes, brave and courageous--to prevent that airplane from reaching its intended target.

Tragically, a decade after the Twin Towers fell, the toll of 9/11 is still climbing. More than 85,000 first responders, cleanup workers, and community residents are dealing with the aftermath of this tragedy. There are victims who are being monitored or receiving medical treatment after breathing the toxic fumes and the dust at Ground Zero.

As we all know, the wounds that came from 9/11 are not just physical. witnesses of the tragedy saw people jumping from high stories of the buildings because they could no longer stand the heat, the smoke. The witnesses of the tragedy, the thousands of survivors who narrowly escaped the attacks, and the families of the victims who will never see their loved ones again still bear the scars of that awful day.

Life changed in countless ways for all Americans on September 11, affecting every move we make. All of us are reminded of 9/11's legacy almost every day as we wait in line to present our ID when we travel, go to work, or when we hear news of further attempts on the lives of Americans.

There are approximately 50,000 baggage checkers and screeners working every day to keep us safe at airports across the country. In fact, the Federal Department of Homeland Security--created in the wake of 9/11-- has more than 230,000 employees and spends more than $40 billion each year protecting us from similar onslaughts.

As is Pearl Harbor, 9/11 can be described as a day that will live in infamy. With Pearl Harbor, with all of its pain and sacrifice, an end to that conflict finally came and normalcy was restored to our country after some years. But our enemy today continues its search for ways to bring pain and suffering to Americans. They keep searching for technology and weapons, and 10 years later we are still fighting them.

As we near the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is important for us to remember what brought us to this point. That is why I am so proud and grateful to see the Senate unanimously approve this legislation, which--as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11--calls on our country to pause on September 11 for a moment of remembrance. What is planned is that at 1 p.m. eastern time that day, all Americans will be called upon to cease all work and activity and spend a moment in silence reflecting on what happened on 9/11, 2001. Our local, State, and national institutions--from sports teams and railroads to broadcasters and places of worship--will be called upon to mark this minute with church bells or sirens to recall the honor of those victims. This will be a striking symbol of American solidarity, signaling to the world that we remain united against those who threaten our freedom. It will also be a powerful nationwide expression of America's patriotic spirit and our refusal to forget the thousands of innocent lives we lost in the destruction of 9/11.

Many of us recall the love of country we experienced in the days and weeks and months after the attacks in 2001. During that period, it seemed as though everywhere we turned, we saw an American flag. As a nation, we were willing to set aside our differences to mourn our losses and mourn the losses of friends and acquaintances and neighbors, and we decided to work together to defeat those who threaten our way of life. I believe the national moment of remembrance can help us recapture that spirit of unity and remind everyone how strong we are when we stand together.

I thank my colleagues for the outpouring of support for this legislation and hope they will be able to encourage their constituents to participate in this moment of remembrance. Every Member of the Senate joined together as cosponsors to create this moment of remembrance, representing all political views in every corner of this great Nation. We want everybody to participate, including State and local governments, the military, veterans organizations, the news media, houses of worship, and sports teams.

The 9/11 Moment of Remembrance will be a way to pay tribute to the lives lost and forever changed by the events in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon, and at Ground Zero. Let there be no doubt: 9/11 changed our country forever, and a tragedy of this magnitude demands memory and vigilance. As a nation, we must keep alive the memories of the many courageous Americans we lost that day. We must be vigilant on behalf of the thousands of families who suffered incalculable losses--losses that must never be forgotten. During the past decade, through our pain and sorrow has come the realization that this vigilance must be maintained so nothing like that can happen again.

So once again I say thank you to my colleagues for supporting this measure. It will send a powerful signal to the rest of the world and remind us how strong America is when we all stand together.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are here trying to figure out where America goes in the near future, but also where it goes in the long term because the decisions we make here are going to have a long lasting effect.

What we hear and the American people are witnessing over TV is the Republicans are playing with fire, and millions of Americans are in danger of getting scorched. It reminds us some of those who played the fiddle while Rome burned. The Republicans are willing to allow our country to go into default rather than ask the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share.

The Republican side of the Capitol is clear. They say: Don't ask our millionaire friends to contribute anything more to keep our ship of state afloat. Yes, the ride is going to be bumpier for everyone, but that is life. Why shouldn't the middle class pay something, they ask. After all, there are so many of them.

In fact, a Republican Senator was on the floor this afternoon saying the wealthy are overburdened. It is not easy, I guess, to pick out a new car every year, maybe make sure your reservations for your trip abroad are made, and renovations for the house are in order. Life gets complicated if you are rich. These decisions do not come easy.

The Senator who spoke this afternoon complained that the poor and the middle class--and I quote him here--``need to share some of the responsibility.''

So there it is. It is the poor and the middle class who need to sacrifice once again, but not the wealthy. The fat cats sit purring on the front deck while middle-class workers are breaking their backs.

Middle-class workers should not have to explain to their kids why they cannot afford to help them get a college education. Democrats know the way to keep our country strong is to educate every young person capable of learning.

Now, what is the real cost of millionaire protection? This risk is an economic calamity for middle-class families across the country if we make a mistake here as we deal with the raising of the debt ceiling, as we deal with the problems of the budget.

It is time to stop protecting millionaires when so much is needed from everyone who can help this country regain its footing. If the Republicans force default on our debt, it could mean tens of millions of Americans might not receive their Social Security checks. Retirees and disabled Americans on fixed incomes depend on Social Security for survival.

But Social Security is only the beginning. If the Republicans insist on pushing the government into default, the men and women who wear our country's uniforms may not even get their paychecks. Right now there are 140,000 brave Americans risking death and injury in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we reduce our responsibility to them because Republicans do not want to burden millionaires?

Additionally, payments to doctors under Medicare and Medicaid could be suspended. Where do the seniors and needy Americans turn then in the event of an urgent medical problem?

At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are out of work and struggling to keep food on the table, unemployment benefits could lapse. We are talking about the possibility of people without incomes, people unable to sustain their basic needs. In addition to destroying the safety net for ordinary Americans, a default crisis would likely threaten America's position as the economic giant of the world, as we see the possibility of widespread panic on Wall Street and the damage to the credit markets that could lead to the loss of millions of jobs across the country.

The question has to be answered: Why are the Republicans willing to walk on this economic tightrope to win favor among wealthy contributors? It is because they do not sufficiently value the human infrastructure that enabled the millionaires to make their millions. They are insisting on protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

They want to keep subsidizing big oil companies to the tune of $4 billion a year in tax breaks. I look at what our leader, the majority leader, has proposed. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a commonsense resolution introduced by Senator Reid.

The resolution says: Americans who earn $1 million or more a year should pick up the shovel and help their country dig its way out of the disaster instead of just playing politics.

The American people see through the Republican games of protecting the rich, while middle-class families lose jobs, homes, and the belief that their children have a chance of success that their forebears dreamt about. In poll after poll, survey after survey, they say we should ask the very wealthy to pay more to reduce the deficit. Yet the Republicans refuse to close outrageous tax loopholes for oil companies that are rolling in profits. We cannot ask them to sacrifice.

Look at what the CEOs of these companies are being paid. ExxonMobil, they made over $11 billion in a quarter. The CEO made, in 2010, $29 million. ConocoPhillips, their CEO made $18 million in 2010. Chevron, the CEO was paid $16 million in 2010.

The facts are clear and so are the Republican priorities. They do not want the giant corporations and the wealthy to lose their lucrative tax loopholes. The Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pick up an extra $6,000 a year for their health care. The question has to be asked: Why are the Republicans trying to slow the economic recovery? Why run the risk of financial collapse just 3 years after the last one? Do they believe destroying the economy now will help them during next year's election? What a terrible thought that is. We heard the minority leader say his No. 1 priority is stopping this President from winning another term.

Our No. 1 priority ought not to be to destroy lives for political gain. It ought to be about restoring our economy, restoring jobs, making sure all Americans can share in what this great country has to offer.

The question lurks: What is it that propels this unyielding refusal to ask those who make $1 million a year or more to participate some in restoring our economic viability? The bottom line is, avoiding a default crisis requires all to participate or we could witness the failure of a nation that has survived for more than 200 years--200 years as a beacon of freedom, liberty, and democracy--with great risk of substantial failure in the future if we do not raise the debt ceiling.

The Democrats feel the need to protect the basic values that have made this dream heard only in America, over centuries, a reality. Going forward into the future, we have to continue to protect the values we treasure in our society.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Finance Committee meets tomorrow at 9 a.m., it be authorized to meet during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, July 7; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 93, S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that at 10 a.m., the Senate conduct a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1323.

Mr. President, there will be a vote tomorrow morning at approximately 10 a.m.

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

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

Mr. President, I want to be sure where we are now. Are we in morning business at this point in time?

Mr. President, I ask that only so I have some recognition of what the time availability is. I do not plan to take too long.

Mr. President, I wonder what the American public thinks about when they see an empty Chamber, hear mutterings about class warfare. What puzzles me is, which class is making war against which class and where are the casualties? As we look around, I ask the question, Are we picking on the poor rich folk, those with abundant wealth, those who earn over $1 million a year, those who have been fortunate enough to have been able to bring their talent, their ability, to the world's most important stage? Are they immune from taking a bit part on the stage of human concerns once in a while because they are being asked to make an extra contribution to the well- being of our country? I don't think so. I don't think so. I am one of those who are fortunate and feel lucky enough to succeed because of a government action. Few of us--certainly not me--who served in the military achieved the status of a hero like our friend, Dan Inouye, who sacrificed so greatly for his country and has the highest medal awarded for bravery America can give. But because I did my duty, I was serious about it, and I served overseas, I was rewarded with the GI bill to pay my college education and even given a little stipend with that. It turned my life around. It enabled me to be one of three founders of a company called ADP, a company employing 45,000 people.

Our parents were poor. We worried about meals on the table. We couldn't afford the right kind of clothing. We couldn't afford a bicycle that my mother bought me for my birthday. My father argued about whether it had to be taken back because it was $1 a week and we couldn't afford it.

Mr. President, 45,000 people. ADP is one of America's most successful companies. I don't want to dwell on this, but it's one of the companies with the longest growth record in profits, 10 percent each and every year, for 42 years in a row--42 years in a row. A kid from the back of the candy store.

So I look at our country, and I look at what it is we are trying to do, and it is hard to figure out. What happened? Why are we looking at these drastic cuts in programs that can help people? Why are we not engaged in ways to help people, to continue to provide help and assistance to help them get along in life and to be prepared to take over the leadership of the future.

Are our friends on the Republican side willing to end Medicare as we know it, decimating one of the most successful programs in the history of our country? They are willing to unravel the very fabric of our Nation and critical services that helped families struggling to give their kids a decent education, good health, a future, a job opportunity? What is it they want to take away with these cuts?

I can tell you, as a businessman for a long time--30 years before I got here--I am accustomed to looking at business sheets and financial statements. And one doesn't have to be an accountant or executive to understand that on a financial statement there are two parts, two significant parts: one is expenses, costs; the other is revenues. Revenues is the income you have to get in order to be able to afford to pay the expenses. If all you want to do is just cut expenses, then you are cutting the sinew and the flesh and there is not much left.

Here is what ought to happen--we should be saying to those who are the wealthiest: living with wealth is a pleasure, but that doesn't mean you don't have an obligation to the country and to have to do something a little different. Instead, they are making the wealthy wealthier, the most privileged more privileged than they have been, and that is true.

When you look at the big oil companies pocketing $4 billion a year each and every year, those are tax breaks that are unconscionable. But when you look at this--and I think about a period of time when I was growing up, and I look at a time during the war, World War II, and we had a program called the Excess Profits Tax. We said those companies are making so much money, they have to do their share and be helpful to the country at large and to make certain they pay some share of what the country is going through.

I just checked because I wanted to be sure. To date we have lost 4,400 Americans to the war in Iraq. We have lost over 1,600 to the war in Afghanistan. Those are homes that are without a son, a daughter, a brother, a father at

home. Where is the sacrifice on the part of the others here? No, no. We have to take care of the rich. We have to make sure they are more comfortable than they are. Whether it is a bigger yacht or a bigger airplane or a bigger house, we have to protect those people. They don't need any protection. What they need to do is share in the pain America is going through, and this is a reminder for me.

Make no mistake, greed is the fuel that drives Big Oil, and it is time we end their free ride on the taxpayers' dime. The big five oil companies have made almost $1 trillion in profit in the past decade. That is quite a reward for these folks. BP, $7.1 billion in the first 3 months of 2011 as they ground out the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine, $7.1 billion. ExxonMobil, $10 billion in a quarter. Shell, $8 billion. These are rounding numbers in a quarter. They don't need help. What they need is to help their country work its way through the crisis that we are in now.

But then we see what is being asked by those on the other side: They want us to have sympathy, have sensitivity toward the wealthiest among us because they cannot afford extra money. They cannot afford it--no, they cannot afford it because the other people are doing the sacrificial work and they don't want to help those kids get an education. They don't want to help those families to be able to provide a future for their children. They don't want to be able to help the families who need health care for the job market. That is not what they are about. So why should we use some of the money to invest in America, take down our debt, prepare young people for responsibilities for the future.

Big Oil's greed is helping to inflate our deficit and every day Americans are footing the bill, going up to the gas station. When somebody has to spend $40 to $50 to fill up a tank of gas, very often it is at a sacrifice for other things in their lives. It is terrible. And you see this all over.

We have a Republican Governor in the State of New Jersey right now, who is doing major cutting, and the result is that a family who makes $24,000 a year now, family income, will have to spend over $1,000 a year more for their health services. Mr. President, $1,000 to a family making $24,000 gross. A family who earns $60,000 will have to spend over $3,000 to pay for their health care.

Why wouldn't my colleagues on the other side--there are a lot of intelligent people, and I am sure they are sympathetic people--want to put a stop to this madness? Why wouldn't they say: Time to run up the flag, and we are all proud to be Americans, and we are grateful for what has happened to us? Instead they are saying: You have to have more. If you make $10 million a year, you have to have more. If you make $20 million or more--whatever it is--you need more. It is an outrage.

Big Oil is doing everything in its power to protect its subsidies, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to help them. Last month 45 Republican Senators voted against ending these wasteful subsidies and using the money to reduce the deficit. Last week they chose to walk out on deficit-reduction negotiations rather than even considering putting a stop to Big Oil giveaways.

Making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes is not going to hurt the industry. It just means Big Oil executives might have to do with a smaller swimming pool or wait a little while longer to buy a bigger yacht. It is clearly offensive, and they are not helping. They are not helping lift the spirit of America. People are discouraged. They are worried about losing their homes. They are worried about their kids not be being able to get an education that they are emotionally, intellectually qualified for because they don't have the money because it is not available to them.

When we look at what has happened here--and you have to be fair. When this poor guy, the CEO of Exxon, is earning only $29 million a year, come on. Give him a break. He has to have a chance to preserve more of that income. Why should he pay to help this country weather the storm, weather the wars, weather the recession?

ConocoPhillips, he is not doing as good as the first guy. He only made $18 million in 2010. The third one, Chevron, their CEO only made $16 million. You know how the money gets to them? Through nickels, dimes, quarters, and dollars at the gasoline pump. That is how the money gets to them. How else can this CEO pay be afforded except from those who pull up to the gas station and say they have to buy 10 gallons of gas. Mr. President, 10 gallons of gas around here is about $45. It is a lot of money.

But instead of being fiscally responsible by ending the Big Oil big windfall, Republicans have another idea. They want to cut the deficit by ending Medicare as we know it, the most successful program in American history, perhaps, next to Social Security.

Seniors are struggling, Big Oil certainly is not. I don't think these fellows are struggling. I don't think they are doing without anything. I wish the other side would listen a little more closely to what the American people want. Almost three-quarters of the Americans want us to stop giving billions of tax breaks to big oil companies each year. The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, ineffective, and basically immoral.

We should take the $4 billion we give away to Big Oil each year and use that money to pay down our deficit. That is a good idea. If we can do that, then it starts to make things a lot easier to continue to provide the services that are critical, essential to the average family.

We cannot restore fiscal sanity here until we start paying more attention to the revenue column in our ledger. As I said before, I was a CEO for many years, 30 years before I got here, and I know you cannot run a company or a country without a good, strong revenue flow. So I call on my colleagues, please, listen to what your country needs. See what you can do to make the country stronger. If our middle class, our modest-income class starts to fail along the way, we will not be able to conduct business as usual. It is for your own protection. Get with it. Make sure they understand that you cannot just get more of what is coming out; that you have to give something back to this great country of ours.

I call on my colleagues: Get Big Oil off the Federal welfare roll. Let's invest in our country's future and not have larger windfalls for oil industry lobbyists and lawyers. We have to make sure our children and our grandchildren inherit a country that is fiscally sound, morally responsible, able to provide health care, able to provide an education, able to guarantee that a child can prepare to be a leader in the future. We have to make sure that everybody sees a chance for themselves to succeed, to not be dependent on government programs, but at least be able to have those programs to get them started in life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is a distinct honor for me to have the opportunity to fulfill the constitutional commitment that each of us has to assure the public at large that justice is being administered as it should be. We fulfill this commitment by making sure vacancies on the Federal bench are filled with individuals who have the proper experience and will provide the kind of fairness and balance in decisionmaking that confirms America's basic tenets.

Mr. President, during a 2-year hiatus that I took from the Senate, I was honored with the naming of a Federal courthouse in Newark after me, and I was so pleased to have that association with the justice administered in our society. Before the building was dedicated, I asked that an inscription that I authored be placed on the wall. It reads exactly as I labored to write it. It says:

The true measure of a democracy is the dispensation of

justice.

As a matter of fact, when I shared that moment with my dear departed colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, who questioned whether I wrote it because he knew I wasn't a lawyer, we joked about it, and I confirmed it. That is the way I saw things.

The sentiment behind that quote underscores how seriously I take my role in recommending New Jersey District Court nominees to President Obama. That is why I am so proud to come to the floor today and urge my colleagues to confirm President Obama's nomination of Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Esther Salas to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. Both are well qualified for the court, having devoted their careers to upholding the rule of law.

Throughout her career, Judge Cecchi has demonstrated her ability to navigate complicated legal matters and manage complex cases. During the confirmation process, she showed her temperament and diligence, she let us know something of her candor, and displayed the kind of character that she brings to the bench.

For the past 5 years, Judge Cecchi has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey, where she has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal cases.

Before joining the bench, Judge Cecchi spent 14 years in private practice, focusing on complex civil litigation. One of her passions is to encourage young people to pursue a career in the law. She has hosted Bring Your Child to Work Day programs in the district court, as well as a mock trial for

a local sixth grade class, to let young people have some understanding of what goes into making sure justice is fairly served in the Federal courts.

Judge Cecchi's community spirit is pronounced in her activities. She has volunteered for the Junior League, Orphans with AIDS, the Human Needs Food Pantry, and the Salvation Army, to name just a few.

She graduated from Fordham University Law School, and cum laude from Barnard College at Columbia University. Before being appointed to the bench, she was a partner at two New Jersey law firms, and she was an assistant corporation counsel for the City of New York.

Like Judge Cecchi, Judge Salas has earned the respect and admiration of New Jersey's legal community--first as an accomplished litigator and, for the past 5 years, as a U.S. magistrate judge. She was the first Latina in New Jersey to serve as a magistrate judge.

In a newspaper profile a few years ago, Judge Salas recalled how, when she was 10 years old, her family lost everything in a fire in the apartment building where they lived. The judge's mother said to her:

Things are going to be fine. We've gotten this far, and we

are going to make it.

What determination that showed. I like to tell this story because I believe it demonstrates how Judge Salas's experiences have shaped her life and her career. She has known hardship, but she has also known great success as a member of New Jersey's legal community.

Before Judge Salas became a magistrate judge, she served 9 years as an assistant Federal public defender in Newark, representing indigent clients in a variety of cases. In addition, Judge Salas has worked in private practice, handling appellate work for a New Jersey law firm. She is a graduate of the Rutgers University School of Law, and she clerked for New Jersey Superior Court Judge Eugene Codey.

Additionally, Judge Salas has served as the president of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, an organization to which she has devoted countless volunteer hours throughout her career.

As I shared with the Judiciary Committee when I introduced Judge Cecchi and Judge Salas in March, I am not a lawyer, but I have a deep and abiding respect for the law. I was pleased to recommend Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Esther Salas because both are unquestionably qualified to serve on the district court, and they will bring honor to the people of New Jersey and our country.

I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will agree and vote overwhelmingly to confirm their nominations.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I rise with deepest hope that we are going to be able to defeat the House budget plan on which we are about to vote. This Republican budget is a scheme that would endanger the quality of life for millions of Americans who now struggle to get by. Just look at the gas pump and you will see what I am talking about.

The Republicans want to make sure the wealthy get wealthier with a new trillion-dollar tax cut and put the burden on seniors, the middle class, and young people to pay for it.

Paul Ryan, the House Republican Member who hatched this scheme, has said, ``This is not a budget; it is a cause.'' If you ask me, it is a cause for alarm. The other side wants to terminate Medicare, one of the most successful programs ever developed in America, and turn it over to private insurance companies where CEOs now make millions. Under the Republican plan, many seniors will have to choose between medication and food to get by, and seniors' out-of-pocket health costs will cost more than double the present rate, to $12,500 a year. The Republicans would hand seniors' health care over to insurance companies, where computers instead of doctors would decide which benefits they will receive. The Republicans also want to reduce Federal Medicaid spending by half, taking away vital services such as nursing homes for seniors and health services for expectant mothers. All told, the tea party Republican budget would rip away health care coverage from 50 million Americans.

But health care for seniors and other Americans is not the only place Republicans want to go to punish them. The House budget plan doesn't just protect the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it reduces them to even lower levels at the expense of working families.

Instead of more tax breaks for the wealthiest, we should be lifting up the foundation of our country--the middle class. In the past decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of workers has declined while prices for everything escalates, and the top 1 percent saw incomes go up by $\1/4\ million each. Imagine. The average incomes of the bottom 90 percent declined while the top 1 percent saw incomes go up by $\1/4\ million each.

This budget also cuts Pell grants which help reduce the cost of back- breaking tuition for millions of college students. I never would have been able to attend Columbia University without government help from the GI bill. It enabled me to cofound ADP, one of America's most successful companies, employing over 40,000 people today.

In the post-World War II era, we created the ``greatest generation.'' I say invest more in our people so they can create the next ``greatest generation,'' which cannot be done without our help in education. We need help for a more balanced approach to solving our fiscal problems, including asking the wealthy to carry their fair share of the load.

I was a CEO for many years. I learned that you can't create a great company or country without sufficient resources. This is no time, as we fight our way out of a recession, to penalize the middle class, the senior citizens, or the young. This is the time to invest in tomorrow without penalizing those who pay the largest price now for their very existence. Let those who can pay for the rebuilding of an America we all love. That is the way we ought to do it.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Ryan budget.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, as I stand here today, I am trying to figure out what our activities look like to the average American. They know we still have serious economic problems, though we are on a good track, and I think it is fair to say we are feeling a little bit better. But we were cautioned

by President Obama the other day--those of us who had a chance to sit in a room with him--that while things are looking up, there is still a long way to go before our people are back to work and before they can afford the basics they need to take care of their families.

While this is going on we have seen the most incredible courage, the most well-developed military plan imaginable, and the courage of our people who went in to apprehend Osama bin Laden. Thank goodness, nobody was hurt. It was a job well done, and the execution of a plan to bring to justice a man who helped kill almost 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and hundreds more in other attacks on American facilities--the Embassy in Tanzania, the Embassy in Kenya, the ship USS Cole--taking American lives. That is what they were determined to do.

President Obama, after lots of previous administrations looking at things, trying to figure out what to do to stop these terrorist attacks on America, had the courage to make a decision that would have rested so heavily on anyone in that governing position. He decided to take the risk knowing that our people were so well trained, so well committed that the chance of their failure was very slim but very real.

Good things have happened in America. Not only did this operation against bin Laden succeed in at least slowing down, if not eliminating, some of the terrorist threats in America, it also lifted the spirits of Americans across the country. We all felt better about it because we fought back against this terror threat.

But now I look at where we are and listen to the debate and look at what the House of Representatives has done with their majority. At this point in time, when we are still reeling from shock, having had perhaps the greatest recession since the Great Depression of the twenties and thirties, instead of trying to figure out ways to solve the problems, our colleagues on the Republican side are trying to figure out ways to punish the public. They would say to them: OK, so you don't have enough jobs--we are going to try to reduce the possibility that we will have enough, to reduce the possibility that a person who can learn but is not well off can get an education. They want to take away those opportunities. They want to take away programs that have succeeded.

We look back at our history in the last 90 years and ask: How did we get here? How did we get where we are? Mr. President, 400,000 Americans were killed in World War II. Then we saw growth in our country because of planning during President Roosevelt's days in the New Deal and the planning that President Johnson offered. We had Social Security developed, and then came Medicare, and then came Medicaid--programs that help people.

On a personal basis, for me, those years I am talking about were particularly significant. I was born to a poor family. My father found it very difficult to earn a living, as did millions of other Americans. He worked in a silk factory in the city of Paterson, NJ. He was a man very conscious of his health. But the problem was that the environment was such that he contracted cancer when he was 42. He died when he was 43 years old. His brother, working in the same type of facility, died when he was 52. My grandfather, who worked in the mills, died when he was 56 years old. That was life as I saw it. Things were bleak.

My mother was a 37-year-old widow, and she had to carry on through my father's sickness. They bought a store to make ends meet. It did not do very well, but it kept her going for a while. When all was over and my father died, I was already enlisted in the Army. My mother had no resources left. She owed doctors, owed pharmacists, owed hospitals. Every penny she had was gone. I looked at this experience and thought: Something is not fair. But I was lucky. I was able to get my education under the GI bill, as did 8 million other people who wore the American uniform during those dark days.

What happened? I got an education. I went to Columbia University. I was lucky. My tuition was paid for. I even got some money for books and some things I might have needed along the way were provided. It made a world of difference.

I was able, with two friends, to start a business. The company is fairly well known. It is called ADP. The three of us started with nothing, the two brothers with whom I was associated. Their father also worked in the factories of Paterson. They were immigrants as were my grandparents. But along came this educational opportunity, and with that came an opportunity to start a business. Today that company, ADP, is one of the four most creditworthy companies in the United States. They are listed as a three-star company.

ADP has 45,000 employees. They work in 21 countries. Most of the operation is in America but some of it is outside. It employs over 45,000 employees and helps businesses by taking over a particular part of their recordkeeping needs. It helps make things operate better in these companies.

Every month there is a labor statistic that is put out. It is done by ADP, my old company. The numbers are more reliable than those of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the data is fresher. Every week, some 35 million people get their paychecks and that is where the data comes from. I left the company when I came here 29 years ago.

From all these experiences, I saw an America that gave people like me a chance to do things and created what is called the greatest generation in the history of America. Now, Mr. President, I am beginning to see what I believe is a great generation developing--the number of people getting to work, fewer claims for unemployment insurance, more consumer spending, and retail sales are up. The signs are good.

So when I look at what is going on in the House of Representatives, I see the stubbornness of our colleagues who refuse to step in and say: Look, we have to keep the government strong, we have to make sure we supply the kind of energy to the government that can move America along. Their response is cut, cut, cut, when all the critical social programs I mentioned were a needed expansion of government services. I am not one of those who want to cut valuable programs. I am one of those who want to reduce the deficit.

Mr. President, when you look at a balance sheet, a financial statement, it carries two parts: One part is expenses--costs--and the other part is revenues. You can cut expenses all you want, but if the revenues don't improve, you go bankrupt. It is pretty simple. And that is where we are being asked to put our future on the line. Hold the debt ceiling as ransom? For what? For what? It will destroy the competence in America. It will destroy our ability to be the country we are, the country that still leads the world despite competition.

When I left home this morning, I passed an Exxon station that is fairly near my home. There was a sign on the pump that gave the price of their gas--$4.79 a gallon. For people who have any distance to travel, this is painful. This is painful. This is part of the income they can use for basic things that are needed.

But what do we see? We see major gasoline companies, and we ask ourselves: Whose side are our colleagues on? It appears they are on the side of the gasoline companies. I think we ought to be more conscientious about this and make sure the public understands we are there for them, for the majority of people in this country who are sick and tired of seeing the price-gouging we have seen from the gasoline companies.

There was a Finance Committee hearing today, and I watched and heard the heads of these companies--the five big oil companies--say what they are worried about. Well, they are worried about the prospect of losing $4 billion a year they get in subsidies. And there was even kind of a caustic comment that it might be un-American to take away the subsidies these people get. Mr. President, $4 billion a year in subsidies.

When you look at what is going on with these companies, you see astounding results. Make no mistake, greed is fueling their appetite, and the bigger it gets, the more they want.

During the years of World War II, there was an excess profits tax that said companies shouldn't be feeding off of the opportunity the war presented and taking advantage of the public. Well, we are at war, in case people have forgotten about it. Afghanistan is a

real war. We still have the remnants of the difficulties in Iraq, we have piracy on the seas, and we have all kinds of things we have to keep fighting for. So there ought to be some recompense for our country for the opportunity they have to make this kind of money.

These are their earnings during the first 3 months of 2011, which is still part of the recession time: Exxon, their end-of-quarter profits were over $10 billion. Shell, almost $9 billion. BP, $7.1 billion--that is after their foul mistake in the Gulf of Mexico that cost plenty of money. They still made that kind of money. And Chevron made $6.2 billion. Little ConocoPhillips only made $3 billion in that quarter.

When you think about it, the irony is how well BP has done--a company that spewed 200 million gallons of oil into the ocean last year. Why is our government shoving billions of dollars into the pockets of their executives, their lawyers? Why don't we use the money to invest in a stronger America and pay down our debt? I would like to see us doing that.

Big Oil's greed is helping to inflate our deficit. Every day, Americans are footing the bill. You would think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to put a stop to this madness, to step up for the average person. Well, so far we are not doing what I would like to see being done for the public, for the average citizen. Big Oil is doing everything in its power to protect its subsidies, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to help them. The Republicans say that eliminating these wasteful subsidies will raise gas prices. That is wrong. That is plain wrong.

Look at the compensation of the CEOs here. Now, they are not selling pretzels or making potato chips; they are dealing with a commodity that is essential to the functioning of our society, of mankind. The CEO at Exxon got $29 million; ConocoPhillips, $18 million; Chevron, $16 million. These are all in 2010, for the year just recently concluded. I want to make certain people understand that companies paying their fair share in taxes isn't going to hurt the industry. It just means Big Oil executives may have to make do with a smaller swimming pool or maybe smaller yacht, but no real pain or punishment there.

The fact is, the Big Oil CEOs aren't feeling this recession. But instead of making our government more fiscally responsible by ending the giveaways to Big Oil, the Republicans have another idea: They want to cut the deficit by ending Medicare as we know it. That won't save us any money in the long term. It will simply increase the expenditures, as many are forced to pay more out of their own pockets for their health. Seniors are struggling. The big oil companies aren't.

I wish the other side would listen a little more closely to the wishes of the American people. Almost three-quarters of Americans say we should stop giving billions in tax breaks to the big oil companies each year. The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, ineffective, and immoral. And it is not as if the oil industry is taking its annual $4 billion windfall and investing it in our country's future. No. In addition to going into the paychecks of the Big Oil executives, this money is being used to line the pockets of the industry's lawyers and lobbyists who are seen frequently and obviously around here.

I have seen this time and time again during my career in the Senate. I was the first Senator on the scene at the Exxon Valdez when it rammed into the Alaskan shoreline in 1989. Instead of being forthcoming and doing what they should have done, Exxon fought over every penny with the communities in Alaska--the families and the fishermen whose lives it destroyed. Instead of stepping up to pay the court-awarded damages-- $5 billion--Exxon said: To heck with that verdict. We will fight it. We will fight it all the way. And they did, for years. They knocked down the amount from $5 billion in punitive damages to $500 million. I guarantee you they paid a lot of money to the lawyers and lobbyists, but they would rather give it to them than to the American people. That is what that shows. In the end, it took more than 20 years for Exxon to pay for what it had done. Some victims died while waiting for the company to make things right.

So we should not be giving Big Oil $4 billion in tax breaks each year. Their profits, which last year exceeded $100 billion, are larger than lots of countries. We should be investing in ways to break our dangerous addiction to oil. We should be investing in innovative approaches to moving people and goods, including increasing funds for transit, creating a world-class high-speed rail network, and expanding the number of electric cars on our roads. We should also boost our country's promising clean energy industry, making sure we lead the world in the export of environmental products that are proudly stamped with the ``Made in the USA'' label.

Don't be fooled--drilling will not, in the final analysis, get us out of our energy problems. We use almost a quarter of the world's oil, but we sit on less than 3 percent of the world's reserve. So drilling is going to just quickly bring the end of our ability to produce oil. That will be the conclusion. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, even if we open every offshore drilling area in the continental United States, the average price of gasoline would drop by just 3 cents a gallon by the year 2030. Here, we see it: The benefit of increased drilling will save us 3 cents a gallon in two decades. That is not very promising for people who have to rely on the automobile for all kinds of things in their lives.

Continuing to subsidize oil companies only increases our dependence on dirty fuels. And even as our children pay a heavy price--with asthma victims and other respiratory problems--it keeps us on a dead-end road to sky-high energy bills, more oil spills like the one we saw in the gulf, and dangerous pollution levels. Investing in clean alternatives to oil, cars that go further on a gallon of gas, and smart transportation, such as mass transit, are the only realistic solutions to our energy challenges.

Beyond clean energy investments, we should take the $4 billion we give away to Big Oil each year and use that money to pay down our deficit. It is pretty clear that we cannot restore fiscal sanity to our government unless we start paying more attention to the revenue column in our ledger.

I was a CEO for many years. I know you cannot run a company or a country without a strong revenue flow. Ending the government's wasteful oil industry subsidies will not be enough to erase our deficit, but it is a good place to start.

I call on my colleagues, have a citizen's heart. Look at this as you would any other obligation you have in your life. Make sure our country is strong and that our middle-class and our modest earners can look ahead for a decent life for themselves, educating their children and protecting their parents with proper health care. Get Big Oil off the welfare rolls. Let's end the industry's tax breaks and end our country's addiction to oil and other dirty fuels.

Let's invest in clean energy and smart transportation--and cut the windfalls for the oil industry lobbyists and lawyers. I want to make sure--and I am sure all of us do, down deep--our grandchildren and children inherit a country that is fiscally sound and morally responsible.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are going to be voting sometime today. I am concerned about the tea party Republican assault on the health of American women because that is what we are going to be deciding. The focus on this has little to do with deficit reduction because better health automatically saves money. This assault is an attempt to change individual behavior to a standard that the tea party people see as proper for others exercising their own free will. It contains an element of unfathomable hypocrisy for those voting to kill Planned Parenthood.

As Members of Congress, we all have immediate access to first-class health plans. We never have to think about health coverage for ourselves or our spouses or our children--it is all in the package. There is no decision to make between paying a medical bill or paying the rent; no decision to make between buying medicine and buying groceries; no decision to make between going into a hospital or going into bankruptcy. Yet the Republicans here are trying to take health care away from women, children, and families across America. They want to completely defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been serving women and families in America for more than 90 years.

Today Planned Parenthood operates more than 800 centers that serve 3 million women each and every year. For many women, Planned Parenthood is a critical source of medical care. To women who cannot afford coverage, Planned Parenthood says don't worry, your health is more important.

They do not just offer counseling on family planning, they also offer lifesaving breast exams and cervical cancer screenings. Look at this. Eighty centers nationwide serve 3 million patients each year, provide 800,000 breast cancer screenings, provide 1 million cervical cancer screenings. That is so important. Cancer screenings save lives. Since the 1950s, cervical cancer screenings have cut mortality rates by more than 70 percent. Remember, treating cancer and other diseases early enough saves health care dollars in the long run.

But this is not just about sound fiscal policy or better accounting. No. No. They want to tell women, millions of them, if you cannot afford it, tough luck. Tough luck. This is about the tea party Republicans remaking America in their own image. Their real goal is to impose their radical ideology on American women.

They want to come into our homes, tell the women in our families how to live their lives. This issue is deeply personal to me. My wife and I have five daughters and eight granddaughters, and nothing is more important to me than their health, their well being, and their freedom to make choices that suit their needs.

If we kill funding for Planned Parenthood, millions of women will lose access to essential care. Those tea party Republicans claim that will help close our deficit of dollars. But it will leave us with a deficit of decency. It is not just women's health the tea party Republicans are after, it is also health care for middle-class families across America.

They want to stop the landmark health reform law dead in its tracks. This is the law that adds 32 million Americans on the rolls of the insured.

So here is what I say to colleagues on the other side: If you do not want ordinary people to have affordable coverage, then show some sincerity and throw in the coverage you have. Be honest. Vote no, and tell your constituents why you are doing this, and say you mean it when you say no, and I am giving up my coverage to prove it. I am talking to Senators on the side of taking away the funding, and talking to Members of the House of Representatives to say no and mean no.

The health reform law makes health care more affordable, more accessible, and more sustainable, and holds insurers more accountable. It makes medicine more affordable for seniors by closing the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit program.

The new law also allows young adults to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26, and it gives small businesses tax credits to help them provide their employees with medical coverage. Without this law, insurers could once again restrict benefits, rescind coverage when people get sick, and refuse care to children with preexisting conditions. I do not think we want to return to the days when insurers could turn their back and turn away sick children.

Life for me was upfront and personal when it came to my family's health care needs. I grew up in a working-class family in Patterson, NJ. My father worked in the local silk mills, and he died of cancer at age 43, leaving my mother a widow at age 37. Our family struggled in bankruptcy as my father's life ebbed away. My mother owed doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, money we did not have. After my service in Europe in the Army, because there was a government program, I was able to get my education through the GI bill. I joined two friends and built a company so successful that it is hard to imagine. It employs 45,000 people today, operating in more than 20 countries. Three of us from poor families. For me the GI bill made the difference. It is government stepping in when it was needed, and has put 45,000 people across this world to work.

That is what government is about. It is there to be helpful. This is not just an accounting office. It is not just a fiscal policy problem. Because of my success in business, I never had to worry again about whether I could provide health care for my family. I never forgot what it was like to be without health care.

We need the health reform law, because no American should ever have to make sacrifices to afford health care. Americans are beginning to experience the benefits of this law. Why now would we want to put the progress on hold?

I agree, we have serious economic problems in our country. But we are not going to solve them by taking health care away from American women and families. Do not take away this critical assistance for people who cannot afford the care they need. If we have fiscal problems, if we have debt and deficit problems, there are ways to solve them. But one way is not to take health care away from people who need it. It is an injustice, and we should not permit it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.