Floor Statements

Mr. President, there will be at least one rollcall vote tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. on the Paul amendment to S. Res. 64.

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

Madam President, I appreciate very much my friend from Iowa allowing me to proceed.

I would just note for the record that I have only had two U.S. Senators visit me in my home in Searchlight. He is one of them.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, March 4, 2013, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 15 and 16; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, March 5, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 20, S. Res. 64; that the only amendment in order to the resolution be a Paul amendment striking provisions relative to the National Security Working Group; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the Paul amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on the Paul amendment; that upon disposition of the Paul amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended, if amended.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate complete its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each; further, that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. President, at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, there will be up to two rollcall votes on confirmation of the Chen and Failla nominations, both U.S. district judge nominees for New York.

Madam President, there being no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business for 1 hour. The Republicans will control the first half, the majority the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the American Family Economic Protection Act.

At a time to be determined today, there will be two cloture votes on the motions to proceed to S. 388 and S. 16, which are the Democratic and Republican sequestration bills. Senators will be notified when the votes are scheduled. I will work that out with Senator McConnell.

Mr. President, today the Senate says goodbye to a valued and accomplished staff member, Rick DeBobes, who is retiring after 10 years as staff director for Senator Levin in the Armed Services Committee.

Rick came to the Senate more than two decades ago, after a distinguished 26-year career as a judge advocate in the U.S. Navy. He spent his entire Capitol Hill career with the same committee--that committee being the Armed Services Committee--a rare occurrence in the Senate. He worked first for Chairman Sam Nunn and then Chairman Carl Levin.

For the last decade, Rick has led the committee's oversight of two of our longest running wars ever--Iraq and Afghanistan--working to reward the dedication of military personnel and their families.

Under Chairman Levin's guiding hand, he has also filled the staff of the Armed Services Committee with the next generation of national security professionals.

Rick's expertise, integrity, and commitment to public service will be missed by Democrats, Republicans, and our country. On behalf of the Senate community, I thank him for his service and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. President, Rick's departure from the Senate Armed Services Committee comes during a trying time for our Nation's military, as deep across-the-board spending cuts are set to strike hundreds of thousands of civilian employees at the Defense Department who will be furloughed in the coming weeks and months. Families and businesses across the country are also bracing for the pain of deep cuts in programs that keep our food safe, our water clean, and our borders secure.

But it is not too late to avert these damaging cuts, and cuts for which the overwhelming majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted--174 in the House, 28 here in the Senate. We believe we have a balanced plan to remove the threat of the sequester, fully paid for.

Our proposal would reduce the deficit by making smart spending cuts, and it would also close wasteful tax loopholes allowing companies that outsource jobs to China or India to claim tax deductions for doing so.

Our plan would stop wasteful subsidies to farmers, some of whom don't even farm anymore. That is right, there are some farmers who grew rice decades ago, who still get payments from the Federal Government for rice they do not grow. Chairman Stabenow

has led the effort to make sure that won't happen anymore, and that is part of our legislation.

Our bill would also ask the wealthiest among us--those making, for example, $5 million a year--to pay a minimum of 30 percent in taxes. I don't think that is too outrageous. It is called the Buffet rule because that multibillionaire said he should pay as much in taxes as his secretary, which he doesn't. So this legislation would make it more fair in that regard.

Almost 60 percent of Republicans around the country favor this balanced approach, revenue from the richest of the rich and continuing with governmental cuts. This proposition would ask millionaires and billionaires and wealthy corporations to contribute a tiny fraction more, as I have already indicated.

And everybody agrees--Republicans around the country and about 80 percent of the American people agree--it is the right thing to do. Almost 60 percent of Republicans around the country agree it is the right thing to do. The only Republicans in America who don't agree are those who serve in Congress.

Republicans in Congress are going after our proposal because it goes after their special interests. Now, after days of infighting, Senate Republicans have announced their plan. But instead of replacing the pain of sequester with something smarter and more responsible, their plan would embrace these devastating cuts while abandoning any of the responsibility that goes along with them.

One of the Senators in our caucus we had on Tuesday said the Republican plan we thought was coming--and it did--would be like being told you have to have three fingers cut off, and their proposal is to send this to the President and have him decide which finger is going to go first.

Republicans call the plan ``flexibility.'' Let's call it what it is: It is a punt. They are punting. As President Obama said yesterday, it would simply raise the question: ``Do I end funding that helps disabled children or poor children? Do I close this naval shipyard or that one?''

The Republican plan is not a solution. And even members of the Senate Republican Caucus have questioned the wisdom of this proposal, and they have said so publicly. Why would the Republicans, part of the legislative branch of government, cede more power to the White House?

The Republicans should give Congress true flexibility--the flexibility to cut wasteful subsidies, the flexibility to close unnecessary tax loopholes, and the flexibility to ask the richest of the rich to contribute a little bit more. Instead, they have become completely inflexible, insisting we risk hundreds of thousands of American jobs as well as programs that strengthen families and small businesses across the Nation.

I am sorry to say that should come as no surprise. As usual, the Republicans have put the demands of special interests and protection of the richest of the rich--people making up to $5 million a year and not being asked to contribute 30 percent of what they make--over the needs of the American people, especially the middle class.

Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and will say just a few things.

Unless we act by midnight tomorrow, Friday, across-the-board cuts will kick in. They are going to start kind of slowly, but they are going to ramp up really quickly. So the question for us today is, Are we going to act to replace these across-the-board cuts?

The proposal we have put forward would prevent the cuts with a balanced plan. Our plan will protect air safety, our food supply and, most importantly, our national security. And frankly, Mr. President, air safety, which I mentioned, food supply--that is also part of our national security in addition to our military.

The alternative that has been put forward by my friend the Republican leader would not replace the cuts. As I said earlier this morning here on the floor, one of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus said at our caucus on Tuesday that he understood what the Republicans were going to put forward, and he said it would be like sending the President an order: We have already decided you are going to have to cut off three fingers, and we are giving you the alternative to decide which one you cut first.

The Republican alternative would not replace the cuts but would call for making the cuts in some different way. Republicans call their proposal ``flexibility.'' In fact, it is anything but that. Their proposal is entirely inflexible on one key point: not a single dollar of revenue, not a single tax loophole would be closed.

Now, remember, Mr. President, the one proposal we have forward says that if you make $5 million a year, you will have to pay 30 percent tax minimum. That is it. That does not sound too outrageous. That is why the American people agree--Democrats, Independents, and 60 percent of Republicans.

Now the Republican side seeks a third vote on the Ayotte amendment, which would replace the cuts with a parade of even more unfair cuts and penalties on immigrants, people receiving health care under ObamaCare, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, those kinds of things.

I also have trouble understanding, as I do--I frankly do understand why, as I read in the paper, Ayotte, McCain, and Graham do not like the Republican proposal--haven't we ceded enough power to the President?

So it is not our fault over here that the Republican leader chose to offer not the Ayotte alternative but instead chose the Republican alternative that we are going to talk about and vote on later today.

I return to my main question again briefly. Are Republicans really filibustering a vote on replacing the sequester? My question is, Would the Republican leader modify his consent to allow for simple up-or-down votes on each of the two alternatives? Would it make a difference if we allowed votes on three bills, including the Ayotte alternative? I would be happy to have three votes if the Republican leader would simply allow the votes to be held at majority thresholds.

So I have asked that. I can do it formally. I would be happy to do so if there is any taking of my request here. But this having been the case, if my friend the Republican leader says: Yes, why don't you put that in proper form--and I would be happy to do that--then we would have votes on all three, with a simple majority on each one of them. Not hearing someone say: Great idea, then I object to the request of my friend from New Hampshire.

Yes, I did that.

Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on my motion to proceed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans the final 30 minutes.

Yesterday, the Finance Committee reported the nomination of Jacob Lew to be Treasury Secretary. We hope to reach an agreement to move this nomination forward today.

In addition, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the American Family Economic Protection Act. If no further consent is reached, that cloture vote will be tomorrow morning.

I will now yield to my friend from Idaho. Senator Crapo.