Floor Statements

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority the second 30 minutes.

As a reminder to all Senators, cloture has been filed on the Cordray nomination. That vote is expected tomorrow morning.

Madam President, 70 years ago today the attack on Pearl Harbor changed our country forever. It also hardened our resolve to become a better, stronger nation, and that we have become.

An example is the USS Nevada, a great battleship that epitomizes the resiliency of our country. While in the port of Oahu on December 7, 1941, the battleship Nevada was hit by many bombs and a torpedo. Sixty American sailors died. Less than a year later, that great battleship returned to service and served valiantly for our country during World War II.

Today we honor the living Pearl Harbor veterans for their courage and sacrifice. Here in the Senate we refer to our Medal of Honor winner Dan Inouye, and Senator Akaka, and Frank Lautenberg. All three served in World War II.

We also remember the nearly 2,400 Americans who lost their lives that day and the hundreds of thousands more who made the ultimate sacrifice during World War II. These servicemembers are heroes. They set a fine example for the men and women who protect our freedoms today, and none of us will ever forget their courage.

Madam President, the Republicans like to claim they are the party of the tax cuts, but as Democrats propose more tax relief--we propose it every day for working families--Republicans every day are showing their true colors. They only support tax cuts that benefit the rich.

Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell say they agree with Democrats, that we should prevent a $1,000 tax hike on middle-class families. A person running for President, Mitt Romney, agrees that we should extend the payroll tax cut. The former Speaker who is running for President, Newt Gingrich, says we should extend the payroll tax cut. But it has become clear that the caucus, led by the Speaker and by the Republican leader--that those they lead don't seem to be following them. Tea party Republicans oppose our plan to cut taxes for nearly every American family. But Republican leaders recognize that taking $1,000 out of middle-class pockets during these hard times is political suicide.

There are papers all over the country, but take this one as an example. ``GOP Is Split On Payroll Tax Cut. Objections To Surtax On Rich.'' Remember, the surtax is on the second million

dollars that people make. On the first million dollars, not a penny. On the second million dollars, the bill that we are going to vote on-- probably Friday here, maybe Thursday--has a surtax for people's second million dollars of income of less than 2 percent.

The headlines go on to say ``Opposition Could Give Obama a 2012 Issue.'' Obama doesn't need a 2012 issue. Middle-class Americans do not need a tax increase. That is what this is all about.

It is very clear that there is a bitter division in the House with House Republicans. As you know, they were supposed to send us a bill today--or was it yesterday? They finally acknowledged late yesterday they could not send us anything. They cannot get an agreement even among the Republicans. They don't reach out to the Democrats at all. They want to do it with a majority of the majority, and they cannot get anything done.

So it seems to me, faced with this rebellion in the two caucuses, Republican leaders have two options: They can work with us to forge a compromise that will pass or they can move even further to the right to appease the tea party, because that is what this is all about. As we have seen before, when faced with a choice between the middle class and the tea party, Republicans will choose the tea party every time. We have seen before, when faced with a choice between the middle class and the richest of the rich, the Republicans choose the richest of the rich.

Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on whether to move forward with confirmation of Richard Cordray, the nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is part of the Dodd-Frank bill.

The one thing that came out of that legislation--and certainly we understood with the financial meltdown that took place on Wall Street-- is the banks need more control, not less. We also learned during that long debate that the American consumer had no protection whatsoever. The legislation we passed created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

My Republican colleagues have signaled they are going to block Cordray's nomination but not because he is unqualified. You would think that if someone wanted to vote against him, it would be because he is too liberal, he is too conservative, he is too rich, he is too poor, he doesn't have the proper education, whatever you could come up with to find justification for voting against this man. That is not what they have done. For the first time I can ever remember--and my staff did research on this last night--for the first time in Senate history the Republicans are poised to block a qualified nominee solely because they don't like the Federal agency he will lead.

The Senate Republicans have no problem with Mr. Cordray. He has bipartisan support and a long history of fighting unfair practices by financial predators. Instead, Republicans are trying to cripple the new consumer agency altogether by depriving it of a director. Their attempts to hamstring the consumer watchdog will leave Americans vulnerable to scams and rip-offs that are going on as we speak and have gone on in the past. It is shameful that Republicans would leave consumers in the dark about the risk they face when making financial decisions, and they are doing it only to try to change a law that is the law of this land.

Finally, my first elected job, many years ago, was to an organization called the Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital. It was the largest hospital in the State. It was the largest hospital district. People ran at-large from Clark County, the Las Vegas area, and I was elected to that. It was my first elected job. When I took that job, there was no Medicare. In that hospital, when someone came who was old and did not have money, someone had to sign for them--a husband, a wife, father, mother, brother, sister, neighbor; someone signed. If that person did not pay after agreeing to pay, we had a large collection agency and we would go after those people. It was very difficult sometimes to collect that money, difficult in the sense it was hard to do, but, more importantly, it was difficult to do because you hated to go after people to pay these large hospital and doctor bills.

Medicare came into being before I left my job. It changed. Prior to Medicare, 40 percent of the seniors who came into that hospital had no insurance, and that is where they had to look to their friends and neighbors and relatives to take care of that bill. Today, after Medicare is the law of the land, virtually every senior citizen has the ability to go into a hospital anyplace in America.

For all of these many years, going on five decades, Medicare has been improving and extending the lives of seniors. The Affordable Care Act, legislation that my Republican colleagues tend to denigrate, Obamacare--let's talk a little bit about Obamacare today, the Affordable Care Act.

One thing that bill did is it extended the life of Medicare for 12 years. Medicare would stay strong for future generations and for retirees. That is one reason we passed that legislation.

Health care reform today is helping seniors by beginning to close the doughnut hole, the infamous doughnut hole for prescription drugs for seniors. This year; that is, 2011, because of the legislation we passed, Obamacare, more than 2.5 million Medicare recipients, including thousands of Nevadans, saved about $600 each on prescription drugs. That amounts to about $1.6 billion, thanks to this legislation. For some seniors on fixed incomes, those savings prevented difficult choices between literally food and medicine.

We also had a provision in that legislation that people could get wellness checks, screenings, and a checkup. More than 24 million seniors this year got free physicals because of health care reform. That is progress of which America can be proud.

I ask that we now move to morning business.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 251,

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I ask unanimous consent that we resume morning business under the previous order; further, that morning business be extended until 6 p.m. this evening with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, would my friend yield for a brief statement.

Mr. President, I, like my friend from Arizona, compliment my friend from Hawaii. But I think it speaks volumes to hear Senator John McCain talk about a hero. It is a hero talking about a hero. Far too rarely do we recognize these people whom we have the opportunity to serve with here in the U.S. Senate.

When I came here with Senator McCain--we came at the same time--we had a lot of people who were war veterans. It is not the case anymore. But I so appreciate John McCain--a certified, unqualified hero-- standing and talking about Dan Inouye being a hero. This says, I repeat, volumes coming from someone who is a hero himself.

I have such admiration for both of these men. For someone who has never served in the military, to have the pleasure of being able to serve and work together with these two men will be something I will remember the rest of my life.

Mr. President, I appreciate the humility of my friend. I have heard him say words to this effect before. The fact is, what he did after the plane went down is what we all will remember. As long as our country is the country it is, we will always remember what happened after that plane went down, what John McCain did, setting an example for the world and certainly his country.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. this morning. The majority will control the first half and the Republicans will control the second half.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that the order be changed to allow both sides a half an hour.

Following morning business, the Senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. At noon there will be a cloture vote. I want to make sure that the consent I asked doesn't change that at all. There will be a little less time to debate that, but I think it will be sufficient. So at noon there will be a cloture vote on Halligan.

Following the vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 this afternoon to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

I understand that S. 1944 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation.

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

Madam President, would the Chair announce morning business, please.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 413, and I send a cloture motion to the desk. In fact, it is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.