Floor Statements

Madam President, there has been a lot of talk in the last 24 hours about so-called dueling plans to raise the debt limit and avert a dangerous default to this nation's financial obligations. As far as I can tell, the only dueling going on in Washington today is between the Republican Party's multiple personalities--and there are quite a few.

Last night I introduced an amendment that I thought was fail-safe. It would prevent default using only proposals Republicans have already supported. Yet House Republicans had harsh words for the Democrats' plan yesterday--odd, considering every bit of our proposal was taken from the Republican playbook. Let me explain the plan.

It would avert default while cutting $2.7 trillion from the deficit in the next decade. It would cut more money, more quickly, than the competing proposal introduced by Republican leaders yesterday, and it would last for a long time, not just a few months so we would be back in the trenches doing the same thing at Christmastime we are doing now.

The proposal includes no revenues, as House Republicans insisted it must not. It holds harmless even the most wasteful of tax breaks and giveaways to big oil companies and billionaires, which Republicans have vowed to protect even if it costs our economy in the process.

It establishes a joint congressional committee to find additional savings this year and guarantees that the committee's recommendations will be an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, no amendments, no filibuster, yes or no. We have done this before. It worked well with our base closing legislation a few years ago.

Every single spending cut in the proposal has already been endorsed by Republicans. I repeat: Every single spending cut in the proposal has already been endorsed by Republicans. The cuts have already been voted for by Republicans in both Houses of Congress.

In short, it is everything the Republicans have demanded wrapped up in a

bow and delivered to their door. But now Republicans say their demands, which have been met in full, are not enough. They insist instead that we pass their plan, a similar plan in many respects, save for several crucial details.

Their plan also raises the debt ceiling but for only a few months. It cuts spending and includes no revenue increases. These are the major differences: It does not cut as much from the deficit as the legislation I introduced last night--in fact, not nearly as much. It is a short-term fix that Republicans know is untenable to Democrats and the White House and Congress. In short, the Republican plan they know will not pass the Senate of the United States.

Not long ago, it was untenable for the Republicans. This is what Speaker Boehner said about short-term measures in May. Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner said this in May:

I am not really interested in a short-term increase in the

debt limit. Our economy won't grow as long as we continue to

trip it up with short-term gimmicks from Washington.

House Majority Leader Cantor echoed the sentiment in June:

I'm not sure how if we're not willing to make tough

decisions now, we'll be willing to make them later. . . . It

is my preference that we do this thing one time. . . .

Putting off tough decisions is not what people want.

We agree. We agree. Certainly we agree.

This is what the Washington Post said about Republicans' bizarre about-face yesterday: ``It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Democratic plan gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short-term deal followed by another a year later, something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.''

In fact, rating agencies have said as late as last night that the plan that I introduced will not cause a downgrading of our credit. The one the Republicans introduced will.

The Republicans are insisting we relive the endless negotiation and partisan wrangling of the last 6 weeks again 6 months from now with no good outcome guaranteed. I have said a short-term solution is no solution at all. It puts us right back in this untenable position a few short months from now. It gives the markets no stability, it gives the American people no certainty, and it gives the credit rating agencies no choice but to downgrade U.S. debt, a move that would cause interest rates to rise and effectively increase taxes for every American--every American.

Market analysts and credit rating agencies have said a short-term fix would risk many of the same effects as a default, and that is a risk our economy cannot afford. If Republicans continue to oppose the reasonable proposal I brought to the floor last night--and which we will vote on here in the Senate soon--it will be for political reasons driven by the ideological tea party. It will be crystal clear that Republicans do not care if we default on the debt. That is sad but true. After all, we have given them a plan that should, by all rights, be guaranteed to pass the House, and with Senate support here, which we should have, it should pass both Houses. Yet they have trashed it right out of the gate.

Yesterday, the Washington Post called this debate over whether to default on the full faith and credit of the United States of America ``surreal'' and ``bizarre.'' Those were their words. This commentary is valid. Reasonable Republicans have been offered absolutely everything they have asked for. Still they refuse to take yes for an answer, all because of a cadre of unreasonable tea-party-driven House Republicans. That is too bad.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 o'clock and that I be recognized at 5 o'clock and that Senator Sessions be recognized for 10 minutes at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three interns in Senator Bingaman's office, Nick Crismali, Rosy Ortega, and Emma Ruben, be granted floor privileges during today's business.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 111, S. 846.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I note that this courthouse is going to be named for our long-term colleague Kit Bond. That is very nice. He is a fine man. He served his State in many different ways. He was a Governor, a very popular Governor. He served as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and served admirably.

One thing he and I talked about on a number of occasions, when he was Governor of the State of Missouri, he rescinded an order that had been given by his predecessor, a man by the name of Governor Boggs, as I recall, which was an extermination order against all the Mormons who were in Missouri--extermination meaning to kill them all--and some of them were killed. But they worked their way out of Missouri. But that extermination order remained in effect until Kit Bond came along. Of course, they were not trying to exterminate the Mormons, but as a matter of principle he thought that was the wrong thing to do.

So for that and other reasons, I have fond memories of our friend Kit Bond.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1406 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1309 be discharged from the Committee on Banking and that it be returned to the House of Representatives pursuant to their message of July 25, 2011, requesting its return.

Mr. President, I am told there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30, July 27; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for an hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

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, following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 this afternoon. At 3:40 p.m., the Senate will conduct a moment of silence in memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the U.S. Capital Police who were killed 13 years ago defending this Capitol against an armed intruder.

At 4:30 p.m., the Senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of Paul Englemayer to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York and Ramona Manglona to be District Judge for the Northern Mariana Islands.

At 5:30 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Englemayer nomination. The Manglona nomination is expected to be confirmed by voice vote.

Additional rollcall votes are possible this evening.

Mr. President, every day people from across this great Nation around the globe come here to visit the Capitol--to see the seat of American democracy. Every day, those of us who are fortunate to have been elected by our home States to serve in Congress also come here to represent this Nation and the American people in that democracy. Every day a brave and dedicated group of men and women come here to serve as Capitol police officers, to ensure that whether we are here to work or to visit, we are safe from harm. In 1998, two of those dedicated police officers gave their lives protecting this Capitol and the people in this Capitol. They were Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut. Thirteen years ago yesterday, a man entered the House side of the Capitol building with a gun, shot officer Chestnut at point-blank range.

Agent Gibson warned tourists and staff to take cover and then confronted the gunman. Although Agent Gibson was also shot, he prevented anyone else from being killed. Both officers died that day. They served a combined 36 years on the force, protecting their fellow men and women.

When I first came to Washington, I worked the night shift--the swing shift--as a Capitol police officer. That is why I feel a particular closeness to the Capitol police. When I worked, I was never in danger. I was never called on to put my life on the line. I only hope I would have shown the bravery Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut displayed that afternoon they were killed.

I was a Member of the Senate when Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut gave their lives to save the lives of others. I know nothing can make up for the loss of a cherished loved one. We hope their families and friends take some comfort in knowing those of us who were here that day hold them in our memories and in our hearts. While I know it is little solace to their families, the tragedy of that day made the Capitol a safer place. It led to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center which prevents a madman such as the one who shot Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut from entering the Capitol. We are all grateful for their sacrifice, and we are grateful that every day devoted

men and women like them guard these hallowed halls.

Mr. President, some of those dedicated police officers stood guard Saturday and Sunday as we worked to reach an agreement to avert a default on our national debt. Leaders in both parties were here throughout the weekend. Differences still separate our two sides, but work toward an agreement continues.

This afternoon I will put on the floor a proposal that I hope will break that impasse. This legislation would put to rest the specter of default. It would cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. It would not raise any new revenue or make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. All the cuts included in this package have previously been supported by Republicans. The proposal provides everything the House Republicans have said they needed from an agreement to avert default and cut the deficit. I hope my colleagues on the other side will still know a good deal when they see it. I hope they will remember how to say yes.

The tea-party-led House of Representatives has held up a resolution of these negotiations for weeks because they did not want oil companies, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and millionaires and billionaires in their corporate jets to pay their fair share. If they now oppose an agreement that meets every one of their demands, it will be because they have put politics first and the good of this Nation and the economy last.

I hope they will not continue to insist on the kind of short-term fix they opposed a few short weeks ago, and they know Democrats in the Senate will not pass and President Obama will not sign.

Economists have already said a short-term solution is no solution at all. It will not give the markets the certainty they need. The credit rating agencies have said a short-term Band-Aid could have many of the same effects of default: downgrade of U.S. debt, soaring interest rates, and an effective tax increase for every American family and business.

The financial markets do not trust the rightwing tea-party-led House of Representatives. They do not believe they should hold this process hostage, and they do not want them to do it again in 6 months. We need to make the right decision now, and we need to do it because the economy is on the line.

This is what one market analyst said about a plan to avert for only a few months. ``From the markets' point of view, a two-stage plan is a nonstarter because we now know it is amateur hour on Capitol Hill and we don't want to be painted in this corner again.''

The markets need certainty; America needs certainty; the world needs certainty; and an agreement that provides that certainty is within our grasp. Democrats have done more than just meet Republicans in the middle. We have met them all the way. Now we will see whether Republicans are against any agreement at all or whether they remember how to say yes when the compromise on the table gives them everything they have demanded.

We have an unusual situation. It looks nice outside today. The Sun is shining. But earlier today, if someone looked out the window, we had some violent storms. They are all over the area. We have Senators stuck in airplanes trying to get out of New York. We have one Senator traveling from the Midwest stuck in Richmond, VA, now. I think it would be in everyone's interest--and I apologize to people who worked hard to get back here today--but I think it is in everyone's interest that we not have a vote tonight. We have a lot of people who simply would miss the vote unless we keep it open for a matter of hours. I again apologize to people who came here to vote, but I think this is the best thing to do. I have spoken to the Republican leader and this is what we should do.

I ask unanimous consent the votes scheduled for tonight be vitiated, and that on Tuesday, July 26, at 12:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nominations, Calendar Nos. 83 and 84, that there be 2 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 Calendar Nos. 83 and 84, in that order; 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; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. We will be in morning business until 7 o'clock tonight.