Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, CRREL. For half of a century, the men and women at CRREL have provided outstanding service to our military, our Nation, and our friends and allies around the world by advancing science and engineering and applying these disciplines to complex environments, materials, and processes in all seasons and climates.

CRREL's mission dates back to 1867, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers first began exploration and development of the newly acquired Alaskan territory. Formally established in 1961 under Army General Order No. 3, CRREL merged the Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Establishment with the Arctic Construction and Frost Effects Laboratories, and continues to serve as one of seven laboratories under the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC.

To complement its dedicated staff, CRREL operates some of the most advanced and unique research facilities in the world. At its headquarters in Hanover, NH, my home State, CRREL operates the 73,000 square foot Ice Engineering Facility, the 27,000 square foot Frost Effects Research Facility, as well as 24 separate low-temperature research cold rooms, capable of reaching temperatures down to -35 deg.C. Other CRREL facilities include the Corps of Engineers' Remote Sensing/Geographic Information Systems Center of Expertise, the Cold Regions Science and Technology Information Analysis Center, as well as a permafrost research tunnel and 133 acre permafrost research center, both located in Alaska.

As part of the ERDC, CRREL's distinguished service record includes being recognized as the Army's top research and development laboratory 5 of the last 8 years and the last 3 consecutive years, a feat unmatched by any other Army laboratory. CRREL's scientists, engineers and staff continue the critical research that ensures that the men and women of our Armed Forces are the most capable and well prepared in the world.

I along with the entire State of New Hampshire would like to congratulate and honor the scientists, engineers and staff of CRREL for their honorable service to the Army, our Nation and our State. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating CRREL's 50 years of success and wishing them well as they work toward another 50 years of innovation and service.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor John Crosier for his outstanding service to the State of New Hampshire's residents and business community.

John retired as president of our State's largest business organization, the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, in 2004 after 16 years. He has served the residents of my State as a trustee of the University System of New Hampshire, a position which I am proud to have first appointed him to, as a member of the board of governors for the New Hampshire Forum on Higher Education, as a member of the executive committee of the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, and as a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Committee representing State chambers of commerce. Before he came to New Hampshire, he worked in Massachusetts as the head of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable and as Commissioner of Employment Security for our neighboring State. He was appointed by a Republican Governor and reappointed by a Democratic Governor.

John has been a board leader at numerous nonprofits in my State, lending his energy, intellect and voice to some of New Hampshire's most influential and important organizations: the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Junior Achievement, Leadership New Hampshire and the American Cancer Society.

Throughout his years as the head of the Business and Industry Association, and through his nonprofit board leadership, John's guiding principle has been what's best for New Hampshire.

When I was Governor of New Hampshire, John Crosier was one of my most trusted advisors. A gentleman always, his courage of conviction and pragmatic optimism for our State's future always trumped ideology. He has been, and continues to be, a role model for civility in public discourse.

John's commitment to New Hampshire was evident in his visionary work on the State's most extensive research project, which resulted in a statewide economic strategy in 1996--An Agenda for Continued Economic Opportunity in New Hampshire. That plan set forth by John has been credited with my State's recent strong economic recovery in relation to neighboring States. Pieces of it are still being used today as a framework for New Hampshire, and it served as the foundation for a similar report by my administration during my second term as Governor. His belief that the health of the business sector is closely tied to issues of education, environment, and the nonprofit sector has contributed to the leadership of our State and will continue to guide our State in the future.

I thank John Crosier for his service to New Hampshire as he prepares for his well-deserved retirement. I am grateful for his friendship, leadership and advice throughout the years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

I appreciate the consideration of my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. President, I come to the floor because I wish to share with people what I am hearing from my constituents in New Hampshire about the situation we are in in Washington.

I have heard from small business owners, from retirees, from working people all across the State, and one of the things that struck me about the majority of people whom I have heard from is they are willing to make sacrifices to help this country address our debt and our deficits. But they want to see us in Congress act and they want to see us compromise. Let me just take a few minutes and share some of the comments I have received from the people of New Hampshire.

First is from Diane, who is from Manchester, our largest city. Diane says:

Please get off the party line and work together. My welfare

and the welfare of my small business is at risk. I only

employ 5 people, but it's 5 people that don't need to collect

unemployment or take another job. Don't take away what's left

of my retirement by crashing the market. Work as a ``we,''

not as an ``I,'' and get it done. This is not the first time

the debt cap needs to be raised and it won't be the last.

Please do what will have to be done anyway so we can continue

to bring this country back. I don't want to lose my business.

Who is going to win the next election is not what any of you

should be thinking about. I believe if you don't act, all of

you will lose.

David from Meredith says:

At the age of 25, I am already the owner of a small

software company in the lakes region. We currently have five

employees with plans to grow. We are expecting our profits

for next year to exceed $1 million. As an employer, small

business owner, and at my age, I feel as though I will be

greatly affected by budget decisions we make during the next

week and into the future. I want to make sure that America

stays as one of the best Nations in the world. I have never

written a letter to any Member of Congress before tonight.

Then we have Janine from Auburn who says:

Settle the budget now. The dysfunction in Congress is

embarrassing this country. As a small business owner, I can't

afford the uncertainty of a political fiasco. If interest

rates rise, I can't keep my business afloat. I would rather

pay increased taxes.

Eric from Hollis says:

As a small business owner, I am unable to plan and hire

employees due to the uncertainty the current standstill in

Washington has created. Please get the USA back to work and

making progress and stop the bickering.

Then Brenda from Enfield says:

My 77-year-old husband retired last year. I am planning on

retiring this year collecting Social Security at full

retirement age of 65. We have been good citizens, running our

own small business for 40-plus years, and we have been

diligent in taking responsibility for our own retirement

savings. As you know, over the past 2 years, due to economic

pressures, we have faced substantial reductions of our

retirement portfolio and, again, now face irreparable damage

just as we retire. My husband and I urge you to do whatever

it takes to build a cooperative bridge in Congress to protect

the economy from further trauma.

Cynthia from Exeter says:

I am receiving Social Security due to a disability, but I

would gladly give up $5 a month if everyone shared in the

idea of balancing our Nation's budget issues and deficit. I

would like to see revenue raised at the same time I would be

willing to sacrifice some of my Social Security.

Finally, Sue from Campton says:

My husband and I would be willing to pay higher income

taxes--and we would be in that higher tax bracket--to come up

with a compromise to save this great Nation. I hope that when

you read this message you will understand that there is a

majority of Americans who are willing to sacrifice for our

country. Please find compromise. Our great State of New

Hampshire and our country depends on it.

I want to tell Diane and David and Sue and all the others who have called and e-mailed and written to me that I agree with them. We must act and we must compromise. That is what I am trying to do. That is why I have supported a comprehensive approach to dealing with this country's debt and deficits. It is an approach that has been bipartisan, offered by the so-called Gang of 6. It addresses all aspects of our budget: domestic discretionary spending, defense spending, mandatory programs, and revenues. But I understand we are not going to be able to get that done between now and Tuesday, so that is why I am willing to support an approach that only makes cuts to the budget, because I know we have to compromise. But compromise means that everyone, all sides--the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--all sides have to give up something. I believe we have good people in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, the majority of whom want to see a resolution to this impasse. The time is now for all of us to compromise and to do what is in the best interests of this country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me begin by applauding Senator Harkin, my colleague from Iowa, for his comments relative to the FAA and the need to put the people who are out of work back to work and to get the FAA reauthorization done. It has been way too long.

We have a number of people who staff the tower that deals with air traffic coming into the United States north of Boston. That tower is in New Hampshire. We have people out of work. We need to get them back to work and we need to see this legislation done and moving forward.

Madam President, I came to the floor this afternoon because the United States Government is now less than 1 week away from defaulting on its obligations for the first time in our history. As we have heard from economists and business leaders across the country, a default could result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and in higher interest rates for every American, yet we are still debating whether we should avoid default. It is a very dangerous game, and we are risking permanent harm to the American economy.

I want to examine one consequence of default for a minute. All three credit rating agencies--S&P, Moody's, and Fitch--have said a default would automatically result in a lower credit rating for the U.S. Government. I think we all understand the principle of credit rating. It is like the credit scores on record for most of us in our personal lives. The better we have been about paying our debts in the past, the better our credit score. When we go to buy a house or a car, when we ask for a loan, the bank looks at that credit score and decides how much interest to charge us. The worse we have been at paying our debts in the past, the lower our score and the more money we pay in interest.

The credit rating agencies are keeping a credit score on the U.S. Government. So far, it has been perfect. The United States has never failed to pay its debts. That is why we have the lowest interest rates in the world, and loaning money to the U.S. Government is considered the world's safest investment. With a default, that would all change. And here is the key: It would change in just minutes, and that change would last for generations. If we default, the credit rating agencies will lower our credit rating immediately.

I recently had a conversation with Martin Regalia, the chief economist of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In that conversation he said the market reaction to default would take ``nanoseconds.'' Once we have defaulted, we can never unring that bell. Our special status as the world's safest investment may never return. We will have increased our interest rates for decades to come and maybe even longer. JPMorgan Chase said this week that a lower credit rating could cost our government $100 billion a year in interest.

This is the worst kind of wasteful spending because that money wouldn't be going to investments in our economy or to secure a better future for our children. It would go to nothing. It would do nothing. It would be money down the drain.

We have a path forward. It is the plan that has recently been proposed by Senator Reid. There are a lot of things about this plan I don't like. I am concerned because I don't think it takes a balanced approach toward deficit reduction that I have long called for, and I am disappointed that it lacks the $4 trillion in deficit reduction we need. But I am ready to support it. And because all the cuts in this bill are cuts that Republicans have already supported, they should be prepared to support this plan too.

The Reid plan would cut at least $2.2 trillion of our debt while allowing us to avoid default through the end of next year. These two elements are crucial to avoiding the lower credit rating we have been hearing raised as a concern. We need to provide the markets with some long-term certainty that will avoid default, and some proof we can deal seriously with our long-term deficits and debt.

A short-term, 6-month increase, as proposed in the House, would kick the can down the road. It won't prevent a lower credit rating. We need to end this constant threat of default which is paralyzing our government and our economy. The Reid plan achieves this through a combination of cuts to our

domestic spending, reduced spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. It doesn't raise taxes, and it doesn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

Again, this is not a perfect plan. I have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending-- domestic, defense, and mandatory--but also includes increased revenues. The Reid plan doesn't achieve those goals, but I do have hope that we will get there eventually.

This is not a proposal I would have written, but I am 1 of 100 Members of the Senate and 1 of 535 Members of Congress, so I don't get everything I want. None of us here in Congress get everything we want. That is the nature of compromise. That is the nature of democracy. That is why the Framers of the Constitution created checks and balances in government. That is why they created two Chambers in Congress and three branches of government. When you are a leader in government, you don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away. You have to be prepared to stay at the table and to give up something.

I have just laid out what I and I believe many of my colleagues are willing to give up in this proposal--our demand for a comprehensive balanced plan to reduce the deficit. In exchange, I am willing to accept a plan that includes more cuts than any other plan on the table. These are cuts that 40 of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already supported. This is a plan that I think neither side is going to love but both sides should be able to accept. It is a plan that gets the job done.

We here in the Senate and in Congress have to get the job done, so I urge that we come to the table, we adopt a compromise, and we put this debt ceiling vote behind us.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``FDA User Fees: Advancing Public Health'' on July 28, 2011, at 9:45 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Aviation Fuels: Needs, Challenges, and Alternatives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I rise today with deep sadness to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of Army SPC Nicholas P. Bernier, who died on June 25, 2011, from injuries sustained during combat in Kherwar, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Specialist Bernier was a combat medic with Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division based out of Fort Polk, LA.

A native of East Kingston, NH, and 2007 graduate of Exeter High School, Nicholas or Nick, as he was called by those who knew him, enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after graduation. Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in October 2010, Nick provided medical care in Texas to wounded soldiers who had returned from overseas.

From a very young age, Nick stood out in his tight-knit community for his desire to help others. It was, therefore, no surprise to his friends and family when he answered the call to serve his country, to protect his fellow Americans, and to care for his brothers in arms as a medic on the frontlines in Afghanistan. This last assignment was, in fact, a natural fit for him.

Our Nation can never adequately thank Nick for his willingness to serve and to make the ultimate sacrifice defending the freedoms we hold dear. While words provide little comfort at such a time as this, I hope Nick's family will find some solace in the deep appreciation all Americans share for Nick, for the life he lived and for the ultimate sacrifice he made in the service of others. He was a true American hero.

Nick is survived by his parents, Paul Bernier of East Kingston, NH, and Tina Clements of Haverhill, MA; two brothers, Bradley and Christopher, and half-sister, Brittany. He also leaves behind a caring extended family and a community that loved him.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of SPC Nicholas P. Bernier.

Mr. President, the media has been focused on our differences. But I think there is one thing that every single member of this body agrees on, we have to address the long-term debt and deficits.

Like many Members of this Chamber, I have repeatedly called for a bipartisan package that includes reforms to everything deficit related. That means cuts to spending, domestic, defense, and mandatory, as well as increased revenues. I have supported attaching deficit reduction measures to the vote on the debt limit. And I believe reducing the deficit is critical to strengthening the long-term health of the economy.

But I also believe that everyone--everyone--has to come to the table to find a compromise solution that will get this done. Democrats know this, that is why time and again we have offered compromise plans, including more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts. It is disappointing that politics are keeping some from negotiating in good faith. That is a disservice to the American people.

I have spoken before about what some people are trying to a protect, tax breaks for big oil, for hedge fund operators and for yacht owners. I would like to speak now about what some are willing to risk to protect those tax giveaways. What happens if we do not increase the debt limit and meet the United States' financial obligations.

First of all, raising the debt limit does not mean spending more. Our spending is set by Congress's annual budget process.

Raising the debt limit means paying our government's bills. Our government. It is not the Democrats' government, it is not President Obama's government. It belongs to all of us. We are talking about servicing savings bonds issued under President Reagan. Supporting an Army first sent to Afghanistan under President Bush.

Paying Social Security checks, food inspectors, and air traffic controllers. This is about the full faith and credit of our government.

Failure to raise the debt limit means default. It means the United States would not meet its obligations. What would happen?

Warren Buffett said it would be Congress's ``most asinine act ever.''

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would lead to ``a huge financial calamity.''

Economist and former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow said default would be ``catastrophe.''

The biggest concern these experts name is the potential for a global financial crisis. Companies, pension funds, and governments across the world hold U.S. savings bonds. A default could trigger a crisis worse than the one in 2008, which itself triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression.

We are just now climbing out of the hole caused by the last financial crisis. We cannot risk another one.

Let me read from a letter sent to Congress earlier this week by hundreds of America's top businesses and business organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, and great New Hampshire companies like Cirtronics and Control Air:

We believe it is vitally important for the U.S. government

to make good on its financial obligations. . . .

It is critical that the U.S. government not default in any

way on its fiscal obligations. A great nation--like a great

company--has to be relied upon to pay its debts when they

become due. This is a Main Street not Wall Street issue.

Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just

for companies but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans,

credit cards and student debt. A default would risk both

disarray in those markets and a host of unintended

consequences. The debt ceiling trigger does offer a needed

catalyst for serious negotiations on budget discipline but

avoiding even a technical default is essential. This is a

risk our country must not take.

Again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of business leaders. We should listen to them.

In a recent op-ed in USA Today, the Chamber and the Financial Services Forum spelled out why they believe a default would result in ``hundreds of thousands of lost jobs every year.''

First, they point out that a default would halt critical government operations, far more abruptly than we have seen in past standoffs over the budget. They say:

The U.S. Treasury is expected to take in about $170 billion

in tax revenue in August, but needs to pay $300 billion in

expenses. The resulting $130 billion deficit would require

the government to pick which programs--Medicare, Medicaid

stamps, unemployment insurance--to pay for and which not to

fund. And there would be little money left to pay our troops

or to run the courts, the prison system, the FBI, or other

essential operations.

They go on to note that default would make our government debt and deficit problem worse.

Yesterday, Moody's, the credit rating agency, put the United States governments' credit rating under review. If Moody's were to downgrade our credit rating, investor confidence in U.S. bonds would be shaken, and it would be more expensive for our government to borrow money.

This is something that I understand viscerally because, as Governor of New Hampshire, we worked closely to try to avoid the rating agencies downgrading the State's borrowing so that we would not have to pay more money. JP Morgan estimates that the higher interest rates caused by default could increase our annual deficits by a staggering $75 billion every year. Just from higher interest rates. If we are serious about reducing the deficit, this is the wrong way to go.

That is why we need to find a compromise solution. We have in the past. The debt limit has gone up under every President in modern times. President Nixon raised it nine times. President Clinton raised it four times. Since President Kennedy, the most frequent and largest increases came under President Reagan. He raised the debt limit 18 times, by a total of 199 percent. I don't think anyone here thinks President Reagan was a champion of big government.

I believe that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of getting this done. I believe many of them believe in the value of compromise. We all have to be at the table. We all have to be ready to compromise to reach a solution.

I ask my colleagues to do what is right and put politics aside, for the good of the economy and of the country.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to lend my voice to the others who have been here--my colleagues--to talk about the need to come to the table and come up with an agreement around how we are going to deal with raising the debt limit by the August 2 deadline and include some sort of package to address our debt and our deficits.

I listened carefully to my colleague and friend from Indiana, and I think we agree on a lot of what he said. I certainly agree that both sides of the aisle have been working hard to look at ways we can address this issue. I agree we need Presidential leadership to address this challenge we are facing. That is why I was so pleased to see the President come out yesterday and say, very strongly, that in order to address this, we are going to have to put revenues on the table, make sure they are in the mix, because we cannot get there without looking at revenues, with just looking at cuts to the budget.

So I think there is a lot of agreement. But every negotiation I have

been part of means that every side has to give a little. So drawing a line in the sand and saying: We are not going to look at revenues at the same time we are looking at spending cuts is not the way for us to solve this challenge.

Now, we all know that negotiations are ongoing between the President and leadership in both the House and the Senate. They are looking at all kinds of measures to reduce the deficit and raise the legal debt limit. There is no doubt we have to address the long-term debt and deficits. I repeatedly called for a bipartisan package that includes reforms to everything that is deficit related. So that means domestic, defense, and mandatory spending, as well as looking at revenues. I support including deficit-reduction measures in the vote to raise the debt limit. I believe that reducing the deficit is important to strengthening the long-term health of our economy.

But that being said, failure to increase the debt limit would do exactly the opposite. It would devastate the economy. To be clear, raising the debt limit does not mean spending more. It means meeting our existing obligations--obligations made by both parties over many years. Failure to raise the debt limit means default. It means, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, we would not pay our creditors, and that disruption would cause the worldwide economy to have devastating consequences--consequences that would be incredibly expensive to American taxpayers.

I think Warren Buffett said it very well when he said: If Congress did that, it would be the ``most asinine act ever.''

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would cause severe disruptions in the financial markets, it would slow our economic recovery, and make the deficit problem worse.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it absolutely must be done, the debt limit must be raised.

Economist and former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow said default would be ``catastrophic.''

All these experts have pointed out that the disruption to world financial markets would plunge us into another financial crisis, and America would lose the trust of world investors, which would result in higher borrowing costs for the government, and that would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.

It would also mean higher interest rates for consumers, making it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college, or even pay your credit card bill.

In a recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimated that if we do not raise the debt limit, the Federal Government would have to eliminate all spending on discretionary programs, cut nearly 70 percent of spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, or increase taxes by more than 60 percent. That is not just speculation. That is what will happen if we fail to raise the debt limit.

We should not be playing politics with this issue. We all have a stake in making sure this gets done. That is why it makes no sense to me that the leadership on the other side of the aisle is refusing to entertain any discussion about eliminating any tax loopholes.

I think it is important to highlight some of those tax loopholes, and there are two I want to talk about that have been mentioned on the floor in the last couple of days. I would think we could all agree that these are the kinds of tax loopholes we ought to be closing.

First, we have a special deduction for yacht owners. If the yacht is big enough, like the yacht shown in this picture I have in the Chamber--so if it has beds and a bathroom and a kitchen--then yacht owners can claim it as a second home, and they can get the same mortgage interest deduction on their taxes that we give to middle-class homeowners.

I think this is a clear abuse of the Tax Code. The mortgage deduction provision is meant to increase home ownership, not yacht ownership. There are as many as a half million yachts in the United States that qualify for this exemption, and the yacht industry actually includes this tax loophole in their marketing.

Now, the second loophole that, again, has been mentioned before on the Senate floor is a tax break for racehorse owners. The current Tax Code allows racehorse owners to depreciate the cost of their horses at an accelerated rate.

Yachts and racehorses, these are tax breaks that just do not make sense. We all know we are grappling with a truly historic long-term deficit. To continue to ignore the revenue side of that deficit is irresponsible. Our Tax Code is riddled with hundreds of arbitrary tax breaks just like the one for racehorses and the one for yachts. In fact, we give away more in tax breaks in a year than we take in through individual and corporate income taxes. These tax breaks are, too often, granted based on who has the most clout in Congress rather than based on what is best for the economy or what is fair for people in this country.

So the result is that some businesses are paying nearly the full corporate tax rate while others are paying almost nothing. We need a fairer system. We need a tax system that drives innovation and keeps our economy competitive on the global stage.

Do we really want to continue supporting tax breaks for yachts and racehorses? If we want to eliminate waste in government, isn't this exactly the kind of spending we should be targeting?

Lastly, we must consider the price of refusing to deal with these tax breaks, of refusing to say we are going to look at these kinds of tax breaks because we know that meaningful deficit reform will mean trillions of dollars in changes. In avoiding revenues, Republicans have, instead, proposed steep cuts that are dangerous both to the health of the American people and to the strength of our economy.

Eliminating funding for basic women's health care, ending Medicare as we know it, dangerous cuts to nursing home care, slashing Pell grants that will help train the next generation of engineers, stopping the development of new energy technologies, and halting efforts to retool the economy to compete in the 21st century--these are the alternatives that Republicans are proposing to save tax breaks for yachts and racehorses.

We know we need to continue these kinds of basic services and investments in the economy. The President's bipartisan commission has said it, the business community has said it, and Americans know it. We also know that finding a compromise on the debt limit is critical if we want to avoid plunging our economy back into chaos. We know that many of these tax breaks just do not make sense.

So I urge my colleagues, let's look at the facts. Let's work together for what we all know needs to happen--reduce the deficit, raise the debt limit, and keep America working.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island be the next speaker on our side.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of SPC Michael B. Cook, who died on June 6, 2011, from injuries sustained from indirect rocket fire in Baghdad, Iraq, while supporting Operation New Dawn. He gave his life in service to his country on his 27th birthday. Michael was assigned to the B Battery, 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, KS.

Growing up in the towns of Pelham and Salem, NH, Michael graduated from Salem High School in 2003. He enlisted as a way to pay for his education and serve his country. Like so many brave sons and daughters of New Hampshire, Michael sought to serve his country and did so with honor. Tragically, Michael is the fifth Salem High School graduate killed in action in the war on terror, and the third from his class.

Michael is remembered by his family as a devoted father and son. Friends described him as hardworking and dedicated to the service of others. It was therefore no surprise when he answered the call to serve his country and protect his fellow Americans.

While no words can diminish the loss of this brave New Hampshire son, I hope his family can find comfort in knowing that all Americans appreciate and respect his heroic service and sacrifice.

Michael is survived by his wife Samantha and their two children, Hailee and Michael at Fort Riley, KS, and his parents Patti and Michael B. Cook Sr., and his siblings Lucas and Kimberly of Salem, NH. He also leaves behind a caring extended family and many dear friends. He will be missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of SPC Michael B. Cook.

Mr. President, today I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to an exceptional teacher from New Hampshire.

Stephanie Wheeler has been chosen to receive the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. This award honors teachers who have made exceptional contributions to their students and to their profession. I congratulate Ms. Wheeler for her outstanding accomplishments and commitment to New Hampshire's students.

Our country's competitiveness in the global economy requires us to foster the development of our students in math and science. Educators like Stephanie are essential to this effort because they are able to engage students and help them develop a love for these important subjects. I am pleased to see Stephanie honored for her work.

Stephanie has been the title I mathematics supervisor and coach at Wilson Elementary School in Manchester for the last 4 years. In this position, Stephanie oversees all title I mathematics certified instructors and monitors the implementation of the mathematics curriculum for teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade. She also teaches mathematics daily to second, third, and fifth graders.

Prior to her time at Wilson Elementary School, Stephanie spent 5 years as the district title I math coach for the Manchester School District. She also served as a middle school math teacher for both the Bedford and Laconia school districts for 9 years.

In addition to her responsibilities as an educator and title I supervisor, Stephanie has presented workshops at local, state, and national mathematics conferences. She also serves as the elementary representative on the New Hampshire Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors. Her dedication to improving mathematics education in New Hampshire and throughout the country by sharing her knowledge with other educators is truly commendable.

The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is the most prestigious honor awarded to mathematics and science teachers in the country. As a former teacher myself, I am especially proud of the role that Stephanie plays in educating the next generation of Americans. I am honored to recognize Stephanie Wheeler's exceptional dedication to her students and her subject and to congratulate her for her commitment to excellence in teaching.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for the great work she has done over a long period of time for women and families in her State of Michigan and throughout the country. I remember her telling me she got involved in politics in order to address a nursing home issue, which disproportionately affects women--just as this budget that passed the House disproportionately affects women and children. I am pleased to be able to join her on the floor, along with my other colleagues.

I also appreciate Senator Mikulski's leadership in bringing us together today.

There is no doubt that everybody in the Senate--and those who spoke today--understands we need to deal with this country's debt and deficit. There is no question about that. But the question is, Are we going to do that in a way that is fair to everyone? Unfortunately, the House Republican plan would disproportionately impact women and, in particular, older women.

Make no mistake about it, the Republican budget that passed the House will end Medicare as we know it today. Since women are a majority of all Medicare beneficiaries, any radical change to the Medicare system will disproportionately affect women, and it will, in the long term, hurt so many women in this country. For example, if we take a typical senior on Medicare in my home State of New Hampshire, under the House Republican plan that senior's out-of-pocket health care costs are going to double to $12,000 a year.

As time goes on, those out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to increase. This health care impact on senior women is especially hard because, during most women's working years, they earn less than men. That is still true today--women earn less than men. Women often work part time or leave the workforce while raising families. As a result, they have less retirement savings, on average, and lower Social Security benefits.

So for women who already have earned less, Medicare is a critical source of financial security. It keeps many women out of poverty. The House-passed Republican budget will end that security for seniors who rely on prescription drugs--a real improvement we made when we passed the affordable health care plan because we made great progress toward closing that doughnut hole and helping seniors with the cost of prescription drugs. But what the House Republican plan will do is dramatically increase those costs. Again, in New Hampshire, we have 15,200 seniors who will pay $8.5 million more in just 1 year for their medication. Of course, we all know women tend to live longer than men. As a result, women represent three-quarters of our most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries--those who are living in nursing homes and assisted living or other long-term care facilities.

When their savings run out--which happens often, given the costs of long-term care--seniors must turn to Medicaid to pay their bills. However, the House Republican budget would also make radical changes to the Medicaid system. So their proposal not only threatens Medicare but it threatens long-term care for millions of women who rely on Medicaid.

The House Republican proposal eliminates the current Medicare system and puts private insurance companies in charge of the health benefits seniors receive. The Republican plan does nothing to reduce the cost of health care. It just shifts that cost of health care onto seniors. What is going to happen when we shift the cost to seniors who can no longer afford to pay for their health care is that they are going to go to emergency rooms, and emergency rooms are not only the most expensive care because we would have eliminated the preventive care that is part of the new Medicare proposal we passed for health care, but everybody who has health insurance winds up paying for those emergency room costs that seniors would not be able to afford to pay. So it is a double cost shifting--a shifting to seniors for the cost of their health care and a shifting of those health care costs to everybody who has insurance.

The House Republican budget will hurt all seniors, but it will especially hurt women because they are the most vulnerable. I hope all our colleagues will join us in voting against the House Republican budget that is on our desk that we expect to take up this week.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased I could be here to hear our colleague from Florida talking so eloquently about the importance of ending the subsidies we are currently paying to the Nation's largest oil companies and about the importance of continuing to preserve the gulf and to make sure the regulations we put in place last year continue.

I appreciate his leadership on both of those issues, and particularly on protecting the gulf, which is a national treasure. So I thank very much our colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson.

I came down to the floor today to talk about the important legislation that is before us to reduce our deficit by ending the needless subsidies for the Nation's largest oil companies.

At a time when Americans are paying these companies $4 a gallon for gasoline--and in some places it is more than that--it might be surprising to some people out there that these same companies are receiving $4 billion a year in subsidies from the American taxpayer.

The legislation that is before us in the Senate right now would end six of these separate tax handouts. One of them repeals a provision that essentially amounts to a subsidy for foreign oil production. A second closes a loophole that lets oil companies drill for free on public lands in the Outer Continental Shelf. Another ends a practice that lets oil companies manipulate the numbers when deducting the cost of new wells from their taxes. Under current law, in fact, oil companies sometimes can deduct more than they actually paid to put in place the well.

While so many families and small businesses nationwide have struggled to pay the high cost of gasoline, the five largest oil companies in the United States collectively made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last decade.

Yet because of unnecessary and outdated tax subsidies, ExxonMobil-- the biggest oil company--paid no U.S. income tax in 2009. That is hard to explain to the small businesses in New Hampshire and Florida and Delaware that are struggling in this recession to pay their taxes, that the biggest oil company in the country that made the highest profits did not pay any taxes in 2009. With record deficits, ending those giveaways is a commonsense step toward fixing the Federal budget.

I have heard some people who are in favor of these giveaways say we need them so the oil companies can keep prices low. But as Senator Nelson so clearly put it, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week in a report that rolling back these tax handouts will not raise gas prices. With prices so high, they said, oil companies will do all they can to maximize production from all existing wells and the oil supply will remain unchanged. A barrel of oil is currently selling for far more than it costs an oil company to produce. These subsidies are doing nothing to make gasoline cheaper.

In fact, the former CEO of Shell Oil Company spoke about drilling subsidies last February, and he said: ``with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.''

But I think it is important to be clear. This legislation is not about punishing the oil companies for doing well. We want all companies in America to do well. It is about reducing the deficit and our debt and making smart policy choices with our limited resources.

Tax breaks for big corporations are just spending under another name, and all government spending of taxpayer dollars has to come under scrutiny as we tackle our debt and deficits. We are never going to get our massive deficits and debt under control unless we are prepared to eliminate outdated and unnecessary government programs--and that means government programs that we support on the Democratic side of the aisle, and it also means outdated and unnecessary programs that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support.

Providing tax handouts to one of the most profitable industries in human history--an industry that clearly needs no help from taxpayers-- is a logical place to start.

As we emerge from this historic recession and grapple with our long- term deficits, we have to ask ourselves: What are our priorities-- investing in the next-generation economy, reducing the national debt to leave to our children or is it providing outdated tax breaks to one of the most profitable industries in the history of our country? I think the choice is pretty clear.

I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation to eliminate these giveaways, reduce the deficit, and strengthen our economy.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I congratulate and honor Larry Kelly, who is retiring from his position as executive director for Tri- County Community Action Program, CAP, which serves New Hampshire's North Country.

Larry's career has been one of admirable service to New Hampshire and his community. Through various roles, including positions at the Community Services Administration in Boston, Federal Regional Council of New England, and other CAP agencies, Larry's career has been dedicated to helping others and serving the less fortunate.

In 1984, Larry joined Tri-County CAP. Larry's dedication to the greater Berlin community and the entire State of New Hampshire, coupled with his decades of volunteer service, is a testimony to his character. His kind and gentle disposition is complemented by a passion and drive to make his community a better place in which to live and work. Always putting the community's interests above his own, Larry has been a champion for the neediest among us, advocating on behalf of those without a voice and without hope. He has been rightly recognized as a leader among his peers throughout his professional life, receiving national awards such as the Community Action Foundation's Executive Director of the Year Award.

On a personal note, I am very grateful to Larry for his support and counsel during my years in public office. Whether it was a CAP-related matter or not, Larry was always ready and willing to assist in whatever capacity he could. I consider Larry a friend, and I know his contribution to the North Country will be missed. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Larry Kelly of Berlin, NH, on his retirement.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2011. This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that every State has either a full-service veterans hospital or, in the alternative, that veterans in every State have access to comparable in-state hospital care and medical services. I am pleased that my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this measure.

New Hampshire is currently the only State that does not have either a full-service veterans medical center or a military hospital providing comparable services to veterans. While the staff of the Manchester VA Medical Center does an excellent job of caring for our State's veterans, this facility does not provide inpatient surgical care, emergency services or care in a number of critical specialties. This imposes a great burden on many New Hampshire veterans who are forced to travel out of state for a range of medical services.

New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this number continues to grow as our troops return from major deployments in the Middle East. It is unconscionable that our veterans must board shuttles to larger VA facilities in Massachusetts or Vermont to get the medical care they have been promised in exchange for their service. Often, especially during the winter months, travel is difficult in New England, and our veterans should not be forced to drive long distances in order to receive the medical care they have earned and deserve.

Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans get the care they need as close to home as possible. This legislation provides the Department of Veterans Affairs with the flexibility to achieve this end in the most cost-effective manner. If it is not feasible for the VA to construct a new full-service hospital in New Hampshire or to provide the full panoply of hospital services at its existing medical center in Manchester, the legislation simply requires the VA to contract with other health providers to offer comparable in-state care.

I introduced similar legislation in the 111th Congress with our former colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. Since that time, the VA has established an effective contractual relationship with one hospital in New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, to expand in-state care for our veterans. I believe this type of partnership could be readily expanded. I have begun working with officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs to

find innovative ways to enhance public-private health care partnerships in New Hampshire and look forward to furthering that dialogue.

Our veterans deserve access to first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize this inequity and support this effort to provide New Hampshire veterans with the same access to quality local health care that veterans in every other State enjoy.

I look forward to working with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation, with my Senate colleagues and with the Obama administration to end this injustice.

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