Floor Statements

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 339, the Paying a Fair Share Act, which is S. 2230.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I hope I am not interrupting anything that cannot be restarted in a short time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and a substitute amendment

which is at the desk, which is the text of Calendar No. 320, S. 2101, the Iran Sanctions Accountability and Human Rights Act as reported by the Banking Committee, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, there being no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am terribly disappointed. There is nothing in the resolution that talks about war; in fact, it is quite to the contrary. It is unfortunate. I know, I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That is a strange version he just stated. I don't see that anyplace in the Constitution. So I am deeply disappointed the Senate was not able to enact additional critical sanctions against the Republic of Iran.

The sanctions that came out of the Banking Committee unanimously are a key to our work to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and threatening Israel and jeopardizing the U.S. national security. It is a bipartisan bill which passed unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee. It would have had much needed new sanctions put in place right now, as we speak. We could pass this legislation this minute if the minority would drop their opposition. We can't afford to delay these sanctions or slow down this process in any way. I am willing to move this bill without amendment also at any time.

I say to my friend, whom I respect, I say to my friend, if there are additional things that should be done--I was told this morning that Republicans want to offer amendments to this unanimous consent request. I said, no, because Democrats want to also. But we are satisfied with where we are. This is a wonderful piece of legislation, done on a bipartisan basis in the Banking Committee. If people, such as my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, want to do more, as do my friends from this side and the Republican side, let's come up with something else. But I think not to do this is unfortunate.

We are slowing down these sanctions. This is not a declaration of war or even anywhere within the neighborhood of that. We are slowing down these sanctions. That I believe is the way to avoid war. I am willing to move this bill without amendments, at any time, I repeat. I am hopeful my Republican colleagues will see the light and realize how important it is to advance this measure and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, at 2:45 p.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Renewable Energy Tax Incentives: How have the recent and pending expirations of key incentives affected the renewable energy industry in the United States?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, 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 March 27, 2012, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative: A New Community Development Model.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on

the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy and the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2012, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 406 to conduct a joint hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on EPA's Work With Other Federal Entities to Reduce Pollution and Improve Environmental Performance.''

Mr. President, following any leader remarks the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. today. Following that morning business the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2204, the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act. At 5:30 p.m. there will be up to two rollcall votes. The first vote will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2204. If cloture is not invoked, there will be a second cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the postal reform bill.

Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading. I would like the clerk to report them if you so order.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with regard to these three pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, tens of thousands of bridges--70,000, to be exact--and millions of miles of roads across the country are in a state of disrepair. But rather than putting Americans to work fixing these roads and bridges--and, of course, repairing the crumbling train tracks, highways, and sidewalks across this country--House Republicans are pandering to the tea party. They cannot do a bill. They cannot do a bill. They have tried. They cannot do a bill. They are now not fighting us, they are fighting among themselves. As if putting the tea party ahead of efforts to repair our Nation's crumbling infrastructure was not bad enough, House Republicans are risking almost 3 million jobs in the process.

I was very disappointed last week to hear that the House Republican leaders hope to pursue a 3-month extension of the highway bill. That is, at this stage, without any suggestion that they would go to conference with us. It would seem to me that is the most practical thing to do--have a short-term extension and during the process work to see what we can come up with, working together. I know this is foreign language to what has gone on in the House in the last year and a half, but that would be a good idea--to try that, to work together to come up with a bill, a 2-year bill, a 3-year bill. Working together, we could do that on a bipartisan basis, as we did here. Their short-term bandaid bill is no solution. Communities and contractors need certainty-- especially going into the summer construction season. We want to make sure projects do not grind to a halt in 3 months because the House once again refuses to act.

The American people certainly know at this stage whom to blame because of the problems over there. It is a crisis. It is a chaotic place we find over there. They are looking to cost us 3 million jobs. One week remains until these projects around the country lock their gates and lay off their workers. It is time for House Republican leaders to do what is responsible: take up the Senate-passed Transportation bill and pass it. The American people are watching and time is wasting.

Mr. President, while House Republicans are squandering precious time and risking American jobs, the Senate will now move forward with a bill to repeal billions in subsidies to big oil companies.

Last year, Big Oil raked in $137 billion in profits--more than ever before--but still received billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways. It does not make sense. Even with domestic oil production at its highest level in almost a decade, prices at the pump are rising. Oil companies are making money hand over fist.

When the price of a gallon of gas goes up by a single penny, quarterly profits for the five major oil companies go up $200 million. I heard on the news this morning that the price of gas in the last couple weeks has gone up 12 cents. Well, that is more than $2 billion for the oil companies.

This country continues to give taxpayer dollars to some of the most profitable corporations in the world--not some of the most profitable, the most profitable. They are doing better than Google and Microsoft and all of them. They are the No. 1 profitable corporations in the world. It is time to end this careless corporate welfare.

The only real way to bring down prices at the pump is to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. That will take additional responsible domestic oil production and smart investments in clean energy technology.

The Senate will vote this evening to advance the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act. This legislation ends more than $2 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil, and it invests the savings in the clean energy industry, where it will grow our economy and create jobs.

Repealing wasteful subsidies will not cause oil prices to go up. Repealing wasteful subsidies, I repeat, will not cause oil and gas prices to rise. But reducing America's dependence on foreign oil will cause prices to fall for sure. But if Republicans continue to follow in lockstep to the drums of oil companies making record profits, one thing will be obvious: Republicans care less about bringing down gas prices than about helping oil companies that do not need help. Congress should pass this legislation and do it quickly before another taxpayer dollar is spent on wasteful handouts to Big Oil.

How do the American people feel about this? Of course, by an overwhelming margin, they agree with us.

The Senate must also quickly move to reform our postal system, and in the coming weeks, we also must reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, pass additional job-creation measures, and take up the crucial cybersecurity bill.

The Pentagon says passing cybersecurity legislation is the single most important action Congress can take to improve national security. That is why I will bring a bill to the floor very soon. Bipartisan efforts to craft comprehensive cybersecurity legislation have been ongoing for years. It is now time to act. It is time for Republican colleagues who have been involved in this effort from the start to sit down and help us move this matter forward. We are going to move this bill onto the floor. We have had hard work done by Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. It is a bipartisan bill. I would hope both parties would agree this legislation is a priority. I hope so.

As always, Mr. President, I hope Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together to forge a path forward on these most important issues.

Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half.

Following that morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the capital formation bill.

The filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the motion to concur with respect to the STOCK Act is 10:30 this morning.

At about 12:30 p.m. today, there will be seven rollcall votes, including completion of the IPO bill, the STOCK Act, and three judicial nominations.

Mr. President, I was disappointed to see in the newspaper this morning and hear on the news that Republicans in the House have decided to not mess with our highway bill--a bill on which we spent 5 weeks. The highway bill is a piece of bipartisan legislation that will save a great 2.8 million jobs. The House of Representatives is so disorganized and in such a state of disrepair that they can't even extend the highway bill. I don't know what is in their minds.

This program was started by a radical liberal Dwight Eisenhower, who decided after having brought--as a major under orders from his commander--a caravan of military vehicles across the country that the roads were awful. So he remembered that all during his military service. When he became President of the United States, he decided something needed to be done about that. The Interstate Highway System was the brainchild of Dwight Eisenhower. Now the Republicans in the House are talking as if it is some socialist program that was developed at Harvard or some other radically liberal place. I can't imagine what their mindset is.

Barbara Boxer, one of the most liberal Members of this body, and Jim Inhofe, one of the most conservative Members, came together on a bill that we passed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. The vast majority of the Democrats voted for it, and the vast majority of Republicans voted for it. It is a good bill that will save or create 2.8 million jobs. But over in that big dark hole we now refer to as the tea party- dominated House of Representatives, they couldn't do it. They couldn't agree on it. They couldn't agree even on their own bill. They destroyed their own bill. Now they will not even agree to take up our bill.

The funding for our highway system terminates at the end of this month. I am not inclined to go for the short-term extension they are going to send to us. They are going to have to feel the heat of the American people--they meaning the tea party-driven House of Representatives.

The initial public offering legislation will be on the floor and debated for the last time in just a short time. It will pass. The bill is far from perfect, but it is a good bill. It will help capital formation, and I am glad we are able to pass it on to the House. I am hopeful, with the good work done by Senator Merkley, Senator Warner, Senator Bennet and others, the minority will wrap their arms around this and pass it. I hope they will agree to pass the

Reed amendment. We will soon know about that. The bill is going to be gone and sent to the President soon if the House agrees to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, 2 years ago tomorrow President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. It was the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable quality health care for every American, regardless of where they live or how much money they make.

Millions and millions of Americans have already felt the benefit of this law. Seniors are saving money--millions and millions of dollars-- on their prescriptions and their free checkups. The doughnut hole is rapidly disappearing because of this law.

Insurance companies can no longer set arbitrary lifetime caps on benefits, putting millions of Americans one car accident or heart attack away from bankruptcy. People think they are in good shape; they have a health insurance policy. Then they get into a car accident or they get cancer or some other dread disease and they are in the process of being taken care of and they are told their bills are not going to be paid anymore; their limit is $10,000 or $50,000 and insurance stopped paying the benefits.

Under this legislation that can no longer be done. That is why the President signed the bill. Under this legislation that is now law, children can no longer be denied insurance because they have preexisting conditions. The protection will soon extend to all Americans, and in 2 short years--in fact, less time than that-- virtually every man, woman, and child in America will have access to the health insurance they can afford and the vital care they need. They will have the same kind of insurance the Presiding Officer and I have-- basically the same insurance. People rail against this plan of President Obama's. I haven't seen a single one of the Republicans rail against this law saying: We don't want our insurance because it is government insurance.

Every Member of the Senate has the same insurance that we are by law giving to everyone in America. So my Republican colleagues who berate this bill, let them drop their government insurance. If they hate this coverage so much that we are trying to give to the American people, they can drop what they have because it is the same thing basically.

No longer will hundreds of millions of Americans live in fear of losing their insurance because they lose their jobs, and no longer will tens of millions rely on the only care they know exists--an emergency room. The most expensive care in America is an emergency room visit. Some people go without care because they have no insurance at all.

This is not just a story I have heard from other people. There are people today who have no insurance just like my family had no insurance when I was growing up. We didn't go to the doctor. We had no insurance. The only time I can remember going to the doctor was when I was deathly ill--literally deathly ill.

My parents had no car, and I had something wrong. I had been sick for a long time. My brother had somebody visit him, and my mother asked if they would be good enough to take us over to the hospital, which was 50 miles away. They did, and I had a growth on one of my intestines. I was very, very sick.

There are many people today just like I was as a little boy; they have no insurance, and they may have the same situation I had, with no transportation and having a visitor take them to the nearest emergency room. That is what happened to me. In my case, the emergency room was 50 miles away.

Unfortunately, Republicans continue to target the rights and benefits guaranteed under that law. If Republicans have their way, insurance companies will once again be allowed to deny care to sick children because they have asthma or diabetes or some of the other situations young people get. In Nevada, thousands of children with preexisting conditions would once again be at the whim of insurance companies that care more about making money than about making people better. If Republicans have their way, young adults just out of college will be kicked off their parents' insurance plans. That is also something I know exists today.

In the little town of Searchlight, where I have my home, a young man named Jeff wanted to go to school. He started at community college and was doing pretty well when he got pain in his groin. At first it started out as a little ache, and then it got to the point that he couldn't take it anymore. But because he was at an age where he was no longer able to stay on his parents' insurance policy, he didn't know where to go. So he went to the so-called county hospital, indigent hospital. He was diagnosed with having testicular cancer. He had been on his dad's insurance policy, but he arrived at an age where he was no longer eligible. His parents certainly did not have much. His mother worked part time in a post office, and his dad worked at a steam- generating plant 50 miles away from Searchlight. So they begged--I am stretching a little bit--but they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to take care of his two surgeries, a number of hospital visitations, chemotherapy. They paid for that--thousands and thousands of dollars that they had to find a way to pay for for their boy.

Under the law that is now in existence, young people can stay on their parents' insurance policy for 3 or 4 years more, allowing many who are finishing college to go find a job while staying on their parents' insurance policy.

In Nevada, thousands of children with preexisting conditions would, once again, as I have indicated, be without the ability to be taken care of when they are sick.

Almost 23,000 young adults in Nevada would once again have to defer their dreams to take a job or, as I just indicated, go to college or risk going without any care.

If Republicans have their way, our seniors will pay for more prescriptions and checkups. We have had about a quarter of a million Nevada seniors who now get wellness visits, cancer screenings, and other preventive services. If this goes away, it will not happen anymore.

Tens of thousands of seniors who saved millions and millions of dollars in Nevada alone on prescription drugs last year will once again be forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. If Republicans have their way, taxes will increase for small businesses. So will the deficit. Repealing health care reform would add almost $1.5 trillion to the Federal debt--not billion, trillion. But when Democrats undertook health care reform, it wasn't just about saving money, it was about saving lives, and we did that.

While the numbers I have just discussed are very important, there is one number that matters more than all the others: 45,000. In the year 2011, 45,000 Americans died because they lacked health insurance. That is almost 1,000 a week. That doesn't include the tens of thousands more who are sick or dying because they have health insurance but still can't afford the care they need.

After the rest of the affordable care act has taken affect over the next 1\1/2\ or 2 years, no American will have to bear what President Lyndon Johnson called ``the injustice which denies the miracle of healing to the old and to the poor.'' President Johnson knew that living in a country with the best medical care in the world doesn't matter if people can't access that care.

That is why almost 47 years ago he signed Medicare into law. On that day in July, President Johnson celebrated an American tradition that ``calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair. It commands us never to turn away from helplessness. It directs us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance.''

So we saved $500 billion in wasteful programs and other things in Medicare, we extended the life of it for a dozen years, and gave seniors the things I have talked about today: Filling the doughnut hole, prescription drugs, wellness checks, and all the other things that are so important to them.

The affordable care act continues the tradition President Johnson celebrated because it calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair, commands us to never turn away from helplessness, and directs us to never ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance.

The law makes certain that the richest Nation in this great world of ours never again turns its back on the despair, helplessness, and many times hopelessness and suffering of the least among us. It guarantees no insurance company will ever again be putting a pricetag on human life.

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

There are many important issues facing our country today and solutions will require bipartisan cooperation. The STOCK Act has enjoyed overwhelmingly bipartisan support because it addresses a key issue, namely government accountability to the American people.

Members of Congress and those we employ must be held accountable to the same standards and laws as the citizens we represent. We owe a duty of trust and loyalty to the American people to conduct our private lives with the highest integrity and to never abuse our office to gain unfair or unethical financial advantages. I am pleased that we have voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that closes any loopholes, real or perceived, in this regard.

I would note specifically that the STOCK Act requires that Members of Congress and their staffs abstain from profiting on any nonpublic information derived from a person's position or gained in the performance of official responsibilities. The bill also makes absolutely clear that Members and staff are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

However, and I think my distinguished colleague from Connecticut will agree, the STOCK Act should not be interpreted as limiting government transparency in any way. Discourse with the public, whether privately or publicly, is vital to maintaining a healthy democratic society.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his comments. With regard to the Chairman's last remark, I would like to point out that my office has fielded concerns from multiple sources that the duty language may be interpreted by the SEC as creating liability for public officials and their staff when communicating privately with constituents. There is concern that a threat of this would have a significant chilling effect on government transparency. I understand however that in conversations with my leadership staff the SEC has explicitly clarified that it does not view the STOCK Act as creating new limitations on the disclosure of Congressional information in conversations with constituents. I also understand that leadership staff has been assured by the SEC that any case brought under the insider trading prohibitions would still require the SEC to prove that a Member of Congress or their staff acted with scienter, which means acting corruptly, knowingly, recklessly or in bad faith.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that Section 11 of this bill is not intended to override the authority of the President to exempt from public availability the financial disclosure reports of individuals engaged in intelligence activities, which is contained in section 105(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act. As to the executive branch, section 105(a)(1) applies to all of the public availability requirements of this bill.