Floor Statements

Madam President, H.R. 359 is at the desk and due for a second reading, I am told.

I object to any further proceedings at this time, Madam President.

Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes today to talk about a friend of Nevada's and a friend of mine. This man is from the other side of the world. His name is Manny Pacquiao. He is in Washington today. Every time I visit with him, I come away more impressed than the last time.

Although those of us who serve here are close with our colleagues in the U.S. Congress--and some even achieve celebrity status inside the beltway itself, the so-called beltway bubble--few of our names and faces are recognizable beyond our shores.

Senator Ted Kennedy was an exception to that rule with fame he earned through the decades he and his family dedicated to public service. So was Senator Clinton--and in her current role as Secretary of State, even more of the world recognizes and respects her. I traveled to Europe with Senator John Glenn. He was a rock star all over Europe. He was a global hero because he orbited the globe.

But no one in our national legislature comes close to the level of worldwide fame of the Congressman from the

southern tip of the Philippines, Manny Pacquiao.

The bond between the Philippines and the United States is deep and strong. During World War II, when the Pacific nation was a commonwealth of this country, brave and patriotic Filipino troops served under the American flag. With the leadership of Senator Dan Inouye, who acted so heroically in the Second World War, we fought in the legislative branches of our government to give those troops, those Filipino troops, the well-deserved and long-overdue pensions they earned during a time of war.

Now Congressman Pacquiao is a Member of Congress from the Philippines. He is also a boxer who holds many other titles than that of Congressman. He holds the title of Super Welterweight Champion. He is the only person in the history of boxing to hold eight world titles. He is the first person in history to win 10 world titles in 8 different weight divisions. He started out being a champion at 106 pounds.

He has fought them all. He has fought people who outweighed him 35, 40 pounds. He has been declared the fighter of the decade and three times the fighter of the year. He is rated the No. 1 pound-for-pound best boxer in the world. From Flyweight to Light Middleweight Champion, Welterweight Champion, Lightweight Champion--no other boxer in history has achieved what he has achieved.

He is an ambitious young man with a closet full of championship belts and the start of a promising political career already under his belt. I am most gratified, as I mentioned, that he is a friend of Nevada's, where his sport is a major player in our economic arena. He is someone I really admire.

Manny Pacquiao and I come from opposite sides of the globe, but in our hearts we come from the same place. Manny grew up with nothing. He was just a kid when he had to leave his home and live in the streets. He started fighting in the streets and went into the ring where he certainly has been one of the all-time greats.

He fought for money when he was a mere boy. He has done so well in life. He has fought to get an education he was not able to get as a young boy. He is married to a wonderful woman named Jinkee. They have four children. He is a devout Roman Catholic. When he stepped into the ring for the first time, it changed his life.

He is a fighter. I have talked about that. There is near unanimous agreement he is the best pound-for-pound fighter on the planet today and perhaps ever, and that takes into consideration some great fighters--Sugar Ray Leonard, Sugar Ray Robinson.

He is a man who is so fun to watch. In his last fight--I watched that fight--he was outweighed by some 30 pounds. He won the fight. He won every round of that fight, and the man he fought had been a champion. But he knows it is not enough just to fight for yourself--and he does that very well--or to be a world champion many times over. You have to be a champion for others. That is what he believes.

He is very tough--we know that--not because he can take punches as forcefully as he gives one but because he fights for those who cannot fight for themselves.

The large and vibrant Filipino community in Nevada looks up to Manny, as do Filipinos and fight fans all over the world. He sets a welcome example of an athlete who does good for many. He is someone who is not in public service for fame or glory or money but because he knows his people need his advice and need his voice.

He is a friend, I repeat, of Nevada's, a friend of America, and--I am happy to say--a friend of mine.

Madam President, when President Obama released his budget yesterday, he made one thing very clear: getting our economy back above water will require shared sacrifice.

Few documents are more intricate and complex than our national budget. But beyond the numbers, what I found deep in this budget is an affirmation of our principles. Among those values is a commitment to recognize and adapt to reality--investing in what works and changing what does not.

I appreciate the President's call for shared sacrifice and living within our means and, more than that, his willingness to do more than just talk but actually lead toward fiscal responsibility. He did not just talk about tough choices, he made them. I do not agree with all of his choices. I disagree with some of his cuts. But I cannot deny that by making the difficult decisions he showed leadership.

I also found in the President's budget the recognition that we are not in a competition to determine who can cut the most; rather, we need to cooperate to discover where we can cut the smartest.

This budget proposes a long-term plan to responsibly cut the deficit in half in President Obama's first term. It does not do that by blindly chopping zeros off bottom lines or eliminating programs wholesale. It invests in that which will grow our economy--such as education, such as innovation, and such as infrastructure.

It does not buy into the partisan talking point that there is no difference between spending and investing, because there is. In other words, it recognizes we can lower the deficit not just by subtraction but also by addition. When we invest in education, we create a smarter and stronger workforce. When we invest in innovation, we create jobs before the rest of the world beats us to those jobs. When we invest in our infrastructure--from the interstates to the Internet--we lay the foundation for prosperity.

I am disappointed the congressional Republicans seem to have learned nothing from recent history. They are again trying to slash the programs that keep us safe and eliminate the programs that keep us competitive. They are still fighting for billions in special breaks for oil and gas companies, the insurance industry, and billionaires.

In the last few days, the former president of Chevron oil said: We don't need those subsidies. But yet Republicans are fighting for subsidies for oil companies when the oil company executives say they do not need them.

We have already tried it their way. They are fighting and substantiating billions in special breaks for oil and gas companies, the insurance industry, and billionaires. We tried it. It does not work. That is why we are in the mess we are in. But the Republican reaction to the President's budget has been an attempt to go back in time.

If they want to time travel in search of fiscal responsibility, they should not stop at President Bush's failed administration; they should keep going to his predecessor's, when we balanced the budget with President Clinton.

We live in the present and we budget for the future. We have spending challenges before us. We cannot afford to forget those challenges will not be solved by extreme rhetoric or unrealistic idealism. They will be solved only when reasonable partners are willing to come to negotiate with responsible proposals that find a critically important balance: one that brings down our deficit while keeping our economy moving in the right direction.

When we find that middle ground, we will leave the next generation with an economy they can count on, with the confidence we seek in our future, and with the knowledge that when difficult decisions need to be made, Americans do not shirk that responsibility; when presented with a tough choice, we make it.

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 the consideration of Paul amendment No. 21; that there be 100 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Paul and Rockefeller or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the Paul amendment; that there be no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if we have quorum calls during this period of time, the time be charged equally.

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 disposition of the Paul amendment occurs, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 514, which was received from the House and is at the desk; that the Reid-McConnell substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that there be no further amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to everyone involved. It has been a difficult issue, but I will put on the record what I have told a number of Senators personally, and that is that we will, prior to this expiration occurring, bring up the PATRIOT Act and have an opportunity for an extended period of time--a week at least--to offer amendments and do whatever people feel is appropriate on this bill.

I have talked to a couple of Senators who have told me specifically that they want to offer amendments. Although I didn't agree I would support their amendments--one was a Democrat and one was a Republican-- I said that is what we should be able to do, to set this up so they can offer their amendments. And I will do whatever I can to make sure we move forward on this legislation in ample time so that we can pass this PATRIOT Act for a more extended period of time, which is so important to the security of this country. I know people have problems with it, and that is why we are going to have the amendment process.

Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 21 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk, and I ask it be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorums with respect to the cloture motions be waived.

Mr. President, I am told the managers of this bill have some business they still need to transact on this matter tonight.

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the FAA authorization bill. I have spoken to the chairman of the committee. I have spoken to the Republican leader. We are going to do everything we can to move this matter forward as quickly as possible. Those who have amendments should offer them. We will try to set up the votes for those that are already pending at the earliest possible date. We could do some of them in the morning. We may even be able to get a number of them out of the way tonight, if we can work something out on that. At 4:30, we will turn to executive session to consider the nomination of James Graves of Mississippi to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit and Edward Davila of California to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California.

At 5:30, there will be a voice vote on Graves and a rollcall vote on Davila. Senators should be prepared for additional rollcall votes this evening relating to amendments to the FAA bill.

For the information of all Senators, there will be no more votes tonight. I have had a number of conversations with the Republican leader today. We are going to have one or two votes before our caucus lunches tomorrow. We will have a number of votes set up after the caucus luncheons. We want to finish this bill as quickly as we can, which will be this week. I know a number of people are waiting around for votes. I know Senator Paul is waiting around for a vote on his amendment tomorrow afternoon, and I know Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Wicker have amendments we are trying to get a vote on. We are trying to move to those as soon as we can.

Anyway, we are going to have some votes tomorrow. No more votes tonight.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 223 on Tuesday, February 15, at 11 a.m.; further that at 11:40 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Nelson of Nebraska amendment No. 58; that a Nelson second-degree amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, there be up to 20 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, as amended; that no further amendments be in order to the Nelson of Nebraska amendment prior to the vote; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and there be no intervening action or debate.

I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a vote on or in relation to Wicker amendment No. 14, as modified; that all amendments covered in this agreement be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that if an amendment does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, the amendment be withdrawn; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our nation's veterans to once again discuss the unjust and outdated policy of failing to give our veterans their full earned military retirement benefits and veterans disability compensation. Full payment of retirement and disability benefits, known as ``concurrent receipt,'' is an issue that I have ardently supported for more than 10 years now.

In the past, veterans were prevented from receiving the full pay and benefits they had earned. The law required that military retired pay be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of any VA disability compensation received. Many Senators have joined me in fighting this policy and we have made some progress on behalf of our nation's veterans.

In 2003, Congress passed legislation which allowed disabled retired veterans with at least a 50 percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt benefits by 2013. Then in 2004, the 10-year phase-in period was eliminated for veterans with 100 percent service-related disability. These are significant victories that put hundreds of thousands of veterans on track to receiving both their retirement and disability benefits, but many more are

still affected by the unjust denial of concurrent receipt.

For me, this is a simple matter of fairness. There is no reason to deny a veteran who has served his country honorably the right to the full value of their retirement pay simply because his service also caused him to become disabled. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the current law does. This legislation will put an end to it.

It is not a partisan issue. Our nation has been at war for almost a decade, and our soldiers have performed with unmatched honor and courage in difficult theatres of war. Our utmost duty as lawmakers should be to ensure that the brave men and women in the United States Armed Forces receive the benefits they have earned.

Today I reintroduce this legislation which will eliminate all restrictions to concurrent receipt. We must take action now, and support our veterans who have given so much to this grateful nation. This is the right thing to do.

I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. These veterans have faced arbitrary discrimination long enough.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our nation's veterans to once again discuss the unjust and outdated policy of failing to give our veterans their full earned military retirement benefits and veterans disability compensation. Full payment of retirement and disability benefits, known as ``concurrent receipt,'' is an issue that I have ardently supported for more than 10 years now.

In the past, veterans were prevented from receiving the full pay and benefits they had earned. The law required that military retired pay be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of any VA disability compensation received. Many Senators have joined me in fighting this policy and we have made some progress on behalf of our nation's veterans.

In 2003, Congress passed legislation which allowed disabled retired veterans with at least a 50 percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt benefits by 2013. Then in 2004, the 10-year phase-in period was eliminated for veterans with 100 percent service-related disability. These are significant victories that put hundreds of thousands of veterans on track to receiving both their retirement and disability benefits, but many more are

still affected by the unjust denial of concurrent receipt.

For me, this is a simple matter of fairness. There is no reason to deny a veteran who has served his country honorably the right to the full value of their retirement pay simply because his service also caused him to become disabled. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the current law does. This legislation will put an end to it.

It is not a partisan issue. Our nation has been at war for almost a decade, and our soldiers have performed with unmatched honor and courage in difficult theatres of war. Our utmost duty as lawmakers should be to ensure that the brave men and women in the United States Armed Forces receive the benefits they have earned.

Today I reintroduce this legislation which will eliminate all restrictions to concurrent receipt. We must take action now, and support our veterans who have given so much to this grateful nation. This is the right thing to do.

I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. These veterans have faced arbitrary discrimination long enough.

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 Senate proceed

to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 49, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I 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 resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand H.R. 359 has been received from the House. Is that true?

I ask for its first reading.

I ask for a second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 28, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 15, at 10 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; further, that at 11 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 223, the FAA bill, as provided for under the previous order; and finally, the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, the first vote of the day will occur at approximately noon tomorrow. That vote will be in relation to the Nelson of Nebraska amendment, as amended, regarding the distribution of airport screening x rays. Senators should expect rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the FAA bill to occur throughout the day tomorrow.