Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

Our capacity is limited only by our ability to work

together. What is needed is the will.

I have just returned from a week at home in Montana traveling from Fort Benton to Billings to Bozeman. I visited with constituents from all across our State. At each one of my meetings, the conversation would touch on the first snow of the season or football and the Bobcats or the Grizzlies. Those are, in this case, football teams. But inevitably every conversation turned to the challenges we face in Washington and the standoff we just had over the country's borrowing limit and funding the government.

People have lost faith in our ability to serve them. They are worried about what the dysfunction means for the future of our country.

For more than 2 weeks, Congress was stuck in a stalemate, unable to agree on a course for our Nation. The political standoff shook America's confidence and threatened the global economy. Thankfully, compromise was able to overcome conflict. Cooler heads finally prevailed. But our Nation didn't emerge from the fight unscathed.

The 16-day government shutdown took a $24 billion bite out of the U.S. economy, according to Standard & Poor's. The rating agency now projects the U.S. economy will only grow at 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter as opposed to the already slow 3 percent predicted prior to the shutdown. That is a staggering self-inflicted wound, and defaulting would have been even worse.

Thankfully, that didn't happen. Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell were able to find the will and come together to provide a path that averted default. Their bipartisan legislation, passed on October 16, pulled us back from the brink. It created a conference committee to negotiate a budget compromise and it gave the President the power to suspend the debt limit until early February. It also gave Senators an opportunity to object and overturn the suspension using what is called a resolution of disapproval. That is what we are considering today.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. For the good of our economy, it cannot pass. Passing this resolution would plunge this Nation back into the same economic crisis we were facing just a few weeks ago. With economic confidence still suffering from the shutdown, another debt ceiling crisis could drive the Nation--and the world--back into recession. We cannot let that happen. It is time to be responsible leaders. Congress needs to stop governing from one self- created crisis to another.

Tomorrow, the budget conference committee will begin discussions on a plan to resolve the fiscal challenges before us. The conference will be led by Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan. They are smart, hardworking and solutions oriented and I am confident they can craft a compromise.

I began my remarks with a quote from President Roosevelt and I will close with another. Roosevelt once said:

The great test for us in our time is whether all the groups

of our people are willing to work together for continuing

progress.

Today, we face our test. Can we work together for continuing progress?

I strongly urge Members of the Senate to reject the resolution before us. It is a step backward, a return to shutdowns and showdowns. Enough is enough. Instead, we must find the will to work together for progress, for the good of our economy and the good of our country.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, would the Senator repeat his request.

I certainly will not object to that.

Mr. President, I wish to underline the gravity of the financial condition our country is headed to at this point. I think in the back-and-forth we tend to overlook just how serious this matter is. Here in the Capitol we walk in the footprints of our forefathers. Walking through these halls, their presence is felt at every turn. Just outside this Chamber are the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze and marble.

At the end of this month a new leader will be added to the halls of Congress--Winston Churchill. A bust of the late Prime Minister will be added to the Capitol collection in the National Statutory Hall later this month.

Churchill once said, ``The price of greatness is responsibility.'' We here in Congress have a great responsibility--a responsibility to conduct the business of this Nation, to represent and do what is right for our people and help the people we represent. That is our responsibility here. However, the inaction of a small group of Members in the House has crippled Congress and is now threatening to impede the ability of the United States to fulfill one of its greatest responsibilities--to pay the government's bills. It is completely irresponsible to threaten to default on the Nation's debt. Since 1789 this country has always honored its obligations. Even when the White House and Capitol were burned to the ground right here in 1814, America still honored its debts.

America is the greatest country on Earth. We are the leaders of the free world. Nations look to us as examples in democracy. We are supposed to be ``the shining city upon a hill,'' but unfortunately the shine risks being tarnished by a debt default.

I agree with many of my colleagues that more could be done to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth, but, as the President said, we cannot negotiate under the threat of default of the Nation's debt. It reminds me of what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: Never fear to negotiate, but do not negotiate out of fear. Failing to raise the debt limit and shutting down the government are two fearful actions that should not be on the table as we attempt to negotiate other matters in our Nation's fiscal policy.

The path is clear. We need to open the government and raise the Nation's borrowing limit. Take away those two guns to our head as a country. Then and only then can we responsibly address the Nation's long-term budget challenges.

Right now we need to come together to ensure that we do not permit another self-inflicted wound to our Nation's economy, and that is what defaulting of the debt is--a self-inflicted wound with global consequences.

When is the X date? When is the date on which the U.S. Government can no longer pay its bills? We don't know exactly. It is uncertain, and that is part of the problem. Uncertainty creates unpredictability. Nobody knows for sure. The Treasury Secretary says it is October 17. That is as good a date as any. At that time we will have exhausted all ``extraordinary measures'' to stay under the debt limit. I reminded my colleagues that we have been over the debt limit since I think it is May. But we have been taking extraordinary measures; that is, not fulfilling other obligations; that is, not making the government contribution to, say, the government retirement system, for example--we are not doing that anymore. That is an extraordinary measure. We are not making that contribution so we can make other payments such as Medicare payments and other payments the government is obligated to make.

After October 17, after all extraordinary measures are exhausted, we would risk defaulting on payments. This is dangerous territory. As of next Thursday it is expected the Treasury Department will have only about $30 billion cash on hand, barely enough to support the government for 1 or 2 weeks. After that the government's wallet is empty. We are in uncharted waters.

Again, this country has never in its history defaulted on the national debt. If the debt ceiling is reached, government would immediately have to slash its spending by 20 or 30 percent, driving the Nation back into recession.

Make no mistake about it. Social Security payments and Medicare would have to be slashed, veterans' benefits

hit, farm payments, farm funding, Department of Defense, payments to the disabled--every program this government runs will be devastated by cuts.

The default would also have global consequences, not just here in America but worldwide. Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, warned that a failure of the United States to raise the debt ceiling could damage the entire global economy. She is right. Look at how precarious the European economy is right now, and the great effort the European countries have been undertaking to try to stabilize the southern countries in Europe, along with the creditors of the northern nations of Europe. She said it is ``mission critical'' that the debt limit be resolved as soon as possible. Mission critical, says Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF.

We are the most important economy in the world. We are the reserve currency for the world. Our Treasury bonds are the very foundation of the global financial system. Default would put the global economy in chaos. The New York Times has an article today entitled ``Default Threat Generates Fear Around the Globe.''

Five years after the financial crisis in the United States

helped spread a deep global recession--

Don't forget, Lehman Brothers collapsed 5 years ago in December.

--policy makers around the world again fear collateral

damage, this time with their nations becoming victims not of

Wall Street's excesses but of a political system in

Washington that to many foreign eyes no longer seems to be

able to function efficiently.

We have read the article. We know it is true. The plug has been pulled on negotiations between the United States and Europe on their trade agreements. Why? Because of the government shutdown, not so much the debt limit but the shutdown.

We also read articles, I am sure it is true, that President Obama had to cancel his trip to Southeast Asia because he had to stay here and try to work out this crisis. The United States is losing influence in Southeast Asia because he is not there. Who is there? President Xi, the President of China. President Xi is there, explaining to the Southeast Asian countries that China is their friend and he is making loans, an international development bank sponsored by China, tens and twenties of billions of dollars--not by the United States but China.

Those countries are trying to escape the gravitational pull of mainland China. President Xi's presence there helps increase their gravitational pull. The President of the United States is not there, not there to show to those other Southeast Asian countries that we care. He is not there because we are not doing our work. That is why he is not there.

His absence creates another almost deeper concern among countries, let's say in Southeast Asia. Where is the United States going to be militarily if there is some military difficulty in Southeast Asia? Where is the United States going to be? Can the United States be counted on? Can the United States be trusted?

It seems as though there is a question there because the President is not in Southeast Asia and the other question is there because there is a question whether the United States is going to pay its debts, going to pay its bills. I think we eventually will, as the Senator from Arizona Senator McCain said. I think most Members of this body think we eventually will. But let's get there now, not later.

There is a real danger here, a big danger here. The danger is we are going to get close to the cliff and get so close to it that we will go over it. We know the cliff is out there. The cliff is default. We know it is not too far away. We know we do not want to go over the cliff. We do not know exactly where that cliff is. We don't know. It may be closer than we think. We do not know what payments we have to make, when they are due. We do not know what the revenue is going to be. That is why the X date is so uncertain.

In addition to that, something might happen that triggers a catastrophic economic global response. I don't want to overstate this point, but back in 1914, the Archduke of Austria was assassinated-- Serbia. That spark started World War I, that spark caused it.

Very briefly, in addition, there have been other instances when pressure was being built up, people did not heed warnings, they let fate tempt them, and the result was collapse. There have been financial bubbles. The tulip bubble, for example. Lehman Brothers is another example. We knew with the mortgages being written that a bubble was building in that market, but we let it. We would say, oh, nothing is going to happen, but it eventually did.

I plead with my colleagues here. Remember, we cannot control fate. We can't control it. We can do our best. We all know that we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we all know we are going to open the government, so let's do it early rather than late.

I know it was exceeding my time a little bit, but I think it is important to remind ourselves.

I know we are the greatest country in the world.

The leader asked me to refer to a book I mentioned a couple of hours ago in the Democratic luncheon by Paul Kennedy, a Princeton historian. He pointed out in the sweep of history, civilizations and countries rise and fall. There is no guarantee that any country or civilization continues forever--Greeks, Romans, Persians, Genghis Khan, the United Kingdom--they rise and they fall. We are No. 1 right now. How long can we continue to be No. 1?

He also pointed out, Paul Kennedy, in the sweep of history, countries are defeated not by external armies but by internal decay. So I am saying let's not decay here. Let's resolve this as adults and let's be responsible in the spirit of Winston Churchill.

I apologize to my good friend from Maine for speaking on her time.

For this hour of majority time, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators have 20 minutes each: Senator Baucus, Senator Franken, and Senator Leahy.

On September 26, 1987, 26 years ago this very day, President Reagan faced a Congress playing politics with the Nation's debt ceiling.

Knowing the catastrophic consequences a default would have on America's economy, President Reagan addressed the Nation. Speaking from the Oval Office he said:

Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of

default before facing its responsibility.

He warned:

This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government

bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans

benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would

occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would

soar.

The United States has a special responsibility to itself

and the world to meet its obligations.

That was a pretty stern warning. While spoken more than a quarter of a century ago, President Reagan's words, sadly, still ring true today.

I hope my colleagues listen to those words of reason. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives heed the warning from President Reagan about using the debt ceiling for brinkmanship.

As we know, the Federal Government hits its debt limit on May 19. For the past 130 days, the Treasury Secretary has been using what are known as extraordinary measures to continue funding the government. We are running, therefore, on borrowed time. But those extraordinary measures will be used up by October 17. At that point we will have exhausted every measure. Default--that is the United States not paying its debts--will occur unless Congress acts to raise the debt limit.

There will be much debate in the coming days on how to deal with the debt limit. The House continuing resolution which we have before us today contains a proposal that some claim would avoid the default. What is it? What do they claim, what is the provision?

It is a dangerous plan that gives the Treasury Secretary the unprecedented power to prioritize payments; that is, the Treasury Secretary decides what obligations should be paid and not paid; that is, once the debt limit is surpassed--in short, the power to pick and choose which bills to pay.

The House CR does, however, identify two specific payments as priorities they have to pay first. What are they? Social Security and interest to holders of U.S. bonds. They are all first in line. Everyone else has to fight among themselves.

We are all familiar with Social Security and its importance. It is a given. But the American people may not be as familiar with the principal and interest on U.S. bonds. This is the payment Uncle Sam makes to various persons and countries that hold our debt. It can be U.S. citizens who hold our debt or it can be countries such as China, Japan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. I might add that the foreign countries that hold most of the U.S. debt among the countries I listed are China and Japan. They hold the most foreign debt.

The continuing resolution categorizes the interest to these foreign bondholders as a must-pay bill--we must pay those first; that is, Social Security and interest. It leaves all other obligations of the Federal budget to be paid only by the revenue Treasury has on hand on any given day. Some days revenue comes in and some days revenue comes in more than others.

Critical programs will be left fighting for the remaining scraps of funding. In effect, the House proposal to prioritize payments would result in the interests of America's veterans, the unemployed, and students, among others, being left behind the interests of China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. It is pay Russia first, pay U.S. veterans second--if there is money left over to pay U.S. veterans.

This proposal makes no sense. A few of the programs that would compete for funding under the House plan are veterans' benefits, child nutrition, military salaries, military operations and maintenance, Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, student loans, highway funding, dollars for air traffic controllers, unemployment insurance, and tax refunds, to name a few. They are all going to have to compete with each other for what is left after interest on the debt and Social Security payments are made under the House measure.

Can you imagine the result? Medicare beneficiaries will be pitted against disabled vets, each fighting the other. Students receiving Pell grants will be up against patients receiving medical care; doctors conducting cancer research would be pitted against agents patrolling our borders. The chaos that would ensue would be unimaginable. We can't even begin to fathom the chaos. When this scheme was first proposed during the debt limit debate in January, it became obvious what it would be like. I compared it to the movie ``The Hunger Games,'' hunger games where individuals were out scrapping, trying to save their own lives and killing other people to save their own lives. The sequel ``The Hunger Games'' is not out until November, but we can now see the coming attractions of the House CR. Their plan for a debt prioritization would pit one program against another in a fight for survival.

Under this ill-conceived plan, the Secretary of Treasury would be given unprecedented power to decide which programs are funded and which are eliminated. It is in the Treasury Secretary's hands. He decides, the President decides: Do veterans get paid, do Medicare beneficiaries get paid, does the military get paid? That is up to the Treasury Secretary and the President.

No such power should ever be placed in the hands of any Treasury Secretary, regardless of party affiliation. No Member of Congress who believes in our system of checks and balances can honestly advocate for this idea to stand. In article I of the Constitution, Congress decides what appropriations should be paid, not the executive branch.

Finally, this House proposal is wrong for the country. Why? Because it ignores the progress we have made over the past 2 years to actually reduce America's deficits and debt.

With the adoption of the Budget Control Act in 2011 and the fiscal year cliff agreement earlier this year, debt has been stabilized. Together with interest savings, these actions will cut the deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Add in the savings for winding down operations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the total deficit reduction reaches almost $3.7 trillion over 10 years. These are real savings. All this progress must not be ignored.

I agree with many of my colleagues that even more can be done to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth. But those actions should be separate from the debt limit debate. It is a different subject.

We are in no position to play games with the economy. It is completely irresponsible to threaten default on the debt. Since 1789, this country has always honored its obligations. We paid our bills. We are known for that. Americans know and people around the world know that America, up to this date, anyway, has always paid its bills. Even when the Capitol burned to the ground in 1814, guess what, America still honored its debts. Yet I heard a Senator say a few weeks ago that failing to raise the debt limit is ``no big deal.''

No big deal.

I couldn't imagine when I heard those words. It is more than a big deal; it is more than a huge deal. It is a catastrophic deal. It is something that is so bad it is unimaginable.

People have forgotten the summer of 2011. Remember August of 2011? People have forgotten what happened when Congress failed to address the debt limit decisively. I remember what happened. The dysfunctional debt-ceiling debate led to the first ever downgrade of America's credit rating--the first ever downgrade of America's credit rating. I remember the stock market plunged 635 points the day after the S&P downgrade. I remember that 14-day trading period in the summer of 2011 when the Dow plummeted more than 2000 points, about 20 percent. Consumer confidence back then dropped even lower than it did in the heat of the 2008 financial crisis, and it took nearly a year to recover.

Worst was the impact on jobs. During the months Congress was fighting over the debt limit, job creation fell by nearly 50 percent.

Remember, Congress did still raise the debt ceiling without defaulting, but the political brinkmanship did all that damage to the economy. We did raise the debt, but look at what damage the brinkmanship caused to our economy. We cannot let that happen again.

Time is running short. We need to stop playing games. This will to fight is getting us nowhere. Enough with the threat of default; enough of the schemes to prioritize payments. As President Reagan said:

The United States has a special responsibility to itself

and to the world to meet its obligations.

It is time we accept our responsibility. It is time for us to work together. It is time for us to get the job done.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I finish speaking, the Senator from Maryland Senator Mikulski would have the floor for 15 minutes, and then Senator Alexander from Tennessee be yielded the floor for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today, as I often do, with a quote. It comes from a conservative leader speaking out about a new health care law. He said:

We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need,

into a compulsory government program.

He went on to call the pending legislation ``socialism.'' He went on, saying:

Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a

dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so

fragile, so close to slipping from our grasps as it is at

this moment.

Those are frightening words. When were they spoken? Not spoken in 2010 or 2011. Not spoken in 2012 or 2013. Rather, these words were spoken in 1964. And who do you suppose spoke them? Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was speaking out against Medicare, which became law the following year.

Now fast forward 20 years and things were quite different. President Reagan said in 1984:

Millions of Americans depend on the Medicare program to

help meet their health care costs. We must ensure the long-

term solvency of the Medicare program, and I'm confident we

can find the right solutions in a bipartisan manner.

What do you suppose happened in that 20-year period to change President Reagan's mind? The hysterics ended, people gave the new program room to breathe, and it worked. Medicare gave America's seniors access to health care they had never had before.

The same pattern emerges when we look farther back into history. Consider Social Security. In 1935, one Senator said Social Security would ``go a long way toward destroying American initiative and courage.'' Another Member of Congress said, ``The lash of the dictator will be felt.''

These are criticisms of landmark legislation, monumental laws that are now vital to the very health and welfare of our Nation. While criticized in their conception, Social Security and Medicare are now considered the most successful large-scale Federal programs in our Nation's history.

I am confident history will treat the Affordable Care Act in a similar fashion. I am confident the complaints of those who have gone so far as to call the Affordable Care Act ``a crime against democracy'' or a ``centralized health dictatorship'' will soon be drowned out by the voices of the American people whose lives are better off. Why? Because of the Affordable Care Act.

Already the ACA has done more than any other laws of the past century to expand health coverage. In the past 3 years, the ACA has provided 71 million Americans free preventive services. More than 6 million seniors have received discounts on vital prescription drugs. More than 3 million young people have peace of mind in knowing they are allowed to stay on their parents' health plans until they turn 26.

I am especially proud of the fact that now no child--no child--can ever be denied health coverage because of a preexisting health condition. All that, and the full benefits of the law have not yet taken effect.

The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law, but neither were Social Security or Medicare when they passed Congress. Adjustments may need to be made to improve the ACA, as well to make it stronger, make it better. It would be easier to make improvements if everyone on Capitol Hill participated. But we are not getting that chance from half of the Congress. Instead, opponents are making every effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, fighting to take away its many benefits from America's families and businesses.

Last week, the House passed a continuing resolution to pay for the government for the remainder of the year. But that bill before us today included amendments to end all funding and to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. I want to be very clear here: We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to go back to the status quo. We are not going back to a broken system where more than 50 million Americans lack health insurance. We are not going back to a system that allows the costs of medical care to overwhelm a family and force them into bankruptcy. We are not going back to a system that allows the simple lack of insurance to contribute to the death of thousands of Americans each year. We are not going back or returning to the status quo. No, we are not going to do that.

Rather, we are full steam ahead on implementing the Affordable Care Act. In 6 days, the health exchanges--or marketplaces--will open for business and the Affordable Care Act kicks in. What does that mean? For the majority of Americans, nothing. Really. Despite all the scare tactics, despite all the rhetoric, nothing will change for the millions of Americans who already get health insurance from their employers, from Medicare, Medicaid, or from the Veterans' Administration.

But for those almost 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance, they will now have access to affordable care and peace of mind. Thanks to Federal tax credits and subsidies, for the first time millions of working-class families will pay less than $100 a month for health insurance. And for the most vulnerable among us, they will receive care through an expanded Medicaid.

No one--no one--can be denied health insurance any more. That is unless some in the House have their way. Their intention--fully spelled out in the continuing resolution before us--is to undermine and defund America's health care law. For years, we have been trying to solve the problem of rising health care costs. For years, we have been trying to help working families gain access to comprehensive coverage that doesn't make them go bankrupt or deplete their household budgets. Past Presidents, Congresses, and other policymakers have tried to fix this problem time and again. And we sit here today with a solution--the Affordable Care Act. For the first time, every American will be guaranteed health coverage. It will no longer be legal for health insurers to deny someone coverage for a preexisting condition, such as breast cancer or pregnancy. Before the ACA, being pregnant was a preexisting condition, if you can believe that. That is what the health insurance industry thought. That is wrong. And with the passage of this act, that is no longer the case. Pregnancy is no longer a preexisting condition. But the House wants to stop this and continue limiting consumer protections and access to affordable care.

The ACA also provides free preventive service, such as wellness visits and mammograms. Since the law passed, 71 million Americans have received preventive benefits such as these for free.

But the House wants to take this away.

Under the ACA, insurers can no longer impose lifetime or annual limits on care. This means more than 105 million Americans no longer have a cap or a limit on their coverage. No longer can insurance companies say: No, no, no. No more.

But the House wants to take this away too.

Approximately 3.1 million young adults have gained coverage through an ACA provision that allows them to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until the age of 26.

We have all heard so many comments about this provision from so many constituents in our States. But no, the House wants to take that away as well.

I am concerned about the effects of the House continuing resolution not only on health care reform but also on seniors in Medicare. Leader Reid and I wrote a letter last week to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and asked her what impact the House CR would have on the operation of Medicare. Specifically, we asked how the CR would affect the beneficiaries' access to care. Last Friday we received a response, and it confirmed our fears. The House bill would have much broader and more harmful implications for the Medicare Program and for seniors.

In her letter, Secretary Sebelius said the CR would ``severely impact the Medicare program.'' She goes on to note the House CR would eliminate funding for Medicare prescription drug coverage, forcing seniors to pay more for their prescriptions.

The Secretary also said the House CR would disrupt payments to doctors and cut off annual wellness visits, forcing seniors to pay out of pocket for preventive services.

In addition, Medicare beneficiaries may be forced to drop their Medicare Advantage plans and enroll in traditional fee-for-service. It is clear the House CR would have dire consequences for the more than 46 million Americans who rely on Medicare every day.

In her letter, Secretary Sebelius also stressed the severe impact the House CR would have on children and working families and the most vulnerable among us.

The ACA expanded Medicaid, allowing States to cover low-income adults for the first time. The House CR would end this coverage, sending this vulnerable population back to the emergency room for treatment and putting hospitals on the hook for providing care. The ACA also expanded access for services to people with disabilities and other long-term care needs. The CR would put an immediate stop to these programs and send people with disabilities back to the nursing home.

The Affordable Care Act also extended the Children's Health Insurance Program for 2 additional years. The House CR, you guessed it, reverts back to prior law, ending vital funding for this program at the end of this month. The House CR would also leave 6 million children without access to coverage--no doctor appointments, no prescriptions, no cast to heal the occasional broken arm.

For 3 years, a group of Republicans in the House has wasted taxpayer money, time, and resources trying to stop the act, over and over again. They have tried to repeal this law 40 times. They even took their argument all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, we all know what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court said the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. The Supreme Court upheld it. It is the law.

People fear what they do not know. I understand that. But let's all take a deep breath. As one Republican Senator recently noted, it is ``not rational'' to think the Senate will vote to repeal, delay, or defund the ACA. You know what. He is right, it is not rational. We won't go back to the status quo.

This is complex legislation, and I am open to strengthening the law to better serve the American people, just as this Congress did with Social Security and Medicare. Wouldn't it be better if both parties worked together to improve the law, something that is here with us? It is not going to be repealed. Let's work to improve it. That is what the American people expect of us. They do not want the government to shut down. They do not want America to default on its debt over the ACA.

A recent poll by CNBC found the vast majority of Americans--59 percent--oppose defunding the Affordable Care Act at the cost of a government shutdown or debt default. Almost 60 percent said no, don't do that, that is not smart.

We all have a responsibility to lead. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. We all need to work together to make it work for families and businesses who depend on it instead of using it as a political football.

Enough is enough. It is time for the hysterics to end. People need to give the ACA room to breathe and a chance to succeed. If we do so, I am confident America will be better for it and we will all be on the right side of history.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I deeply thank and am humbled by the senior Senator from Maryland. Coming from her, that is a high compliment, and I deeply appreciate it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 113th Session: Kevin McNellis, Carly Borth, Stephen Jenkins, Sibyl Tilson, Taylor Harvey, Matthew Deavers, Craig Dobson, Louis Evans, Danielle Parnass, and Robert Andres.

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

Just outside this Chamber are the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze and marble. I often look to these individuals for inspiration and quotes when writing a speech.

On a recent walk across the Capitol to meet my colleague, Congressman Dave Camp, I passed a giant statue of Andrew Jackson, our Nation's seventh President.

It was Jackson who famously said--and I quote him

The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation

that would operate with perfect equality.

Those words were spoken by Jackson in 1832. More than 180 years later, our Nation still struggles with a broken tax system.

Our Tax Code today is inequitable, inefficient, and incomprehensible to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It contains nearly 4 million words--4 million. If someone were to try to read the entire code out loud, it would take them more than 18 uninterrupted days.

Not only is the code long; it is maddeningly complex. There are 42 different definitions of a small business in the code--42. There are 15 different tax incentives for higher education--so many that the IRS had to publish a booklet to explain and simplify the higher education tax incentives. And that book--I have it with me--is 90 pages long--just on the education tax incentives. Here it is. I defy anybody to read it, let alone somebody trying to go to college or a parent trying to help his or her child go to college.

The code is such a labyrinth that 90 percent of American taxpayers have to use an accountant or some kind of computer software to file their tax returns. Even with all this assistance, it still takes the average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms to comply with the code.

The Tax Code today is also inefficient and unfair. It is riddled with loopholes and deductions that result in more than $1 trillion in lost revenue each year.

This complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and creating uncertainty for America's families and businesses. Many Americans think of the other guy, the fancy lawyer who can take advantage of the code and pay lower taxes, which means more tax burden on to me. It is not fair. Confidence is eroding.

It is also threatening to undermine the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace.

Harvard Business School did a survey last year asking 10,000 of its graduates who live and conduct business around the world about the challenges of doing business in America. These individuals--these 10,000--are leaders on the frontlines of the global economy, and they are pessimistic about America's economic future.

The vast majority of those surveyed--71 percent--expected U.S. competitiveness to deteriorate over the next several years.

And what did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness problem? Respondents pointed to America's Tax Code--to the code--as one of the greatest weaknesses in the U.S. business environment.

Dig deeper and you learn respondents were deterred from investing in the United States not simply by a higher statutory corporate tax rate, but also by the sheer complexity and uncertain future of the Tax Code. I might say, when I mention that report to people, to businesses, to Americans, they nod their heads in agreement. That is what they have found themselves too.

The survey concludes with a dire warning--and I quote the survey:

For the first time in decades, the business environment in

the United States is in danger of falling behind the rest of

the world.

That's bad news for everyone. A fundamentally weakened U.S.

economy is not only an American problem but also a global

risk.

Chairman Camp and I have been working together for more than 2 years on comprehensive tax reform. Here in the Senate I have been working on tax reform for the past 3 years with my good friend Senator Hatch, the ranking member of the Finance Committee. We have held more than 30 hearings and heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive.

A lot of people talk about more jobs. There is a lot of talk about more jobs. This is one way to get more jobs. If we reform the Tax Code, it will unleash so much positive energy in this country. It would create a lot more jobs than any other plan I have recently heard of.

We held more than 30 hearings, heard from hundreds of experts on how reform can simplify the system, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive. Last month Senator Hatch and I completed work with the Finance Committee on an extensive, 3-month, top-to-bottom review of the Tax Code. We met as a full committee every week to collect feedback on different topics in tax reform and issued a series of 10 discussion papers to kick off that conversation.

In an effort to include the entire Senate in our efforts, we recently called on all Senators to partner with us and provide their input and ideas for reforming the code. Starting with a blank slate, we called on every Senator to submit their proposals for what they want to see in a reformed code. This is

an important exercise. Everyone needs to be involved. We need every Senator to weigh in on tax reform. I might say, the deadline is this Friday, tomorrow. I encourage all of my colleagues to submit their ideas and make their voices heard.

I might say, your constituents are certainly making their voices heard. We have received more than 10,000 comments and ideas so far through the Web site that Chairman Camp and I created called taxreform.gov--actually, 10,258 responses, to be exact.

Overwhelmingly, Americans, from every corner of our country, are calling for a simplified Tax Code. People think they should not have to spend hours upon hours and hundreds of dollars to prepare their taxes, and I for one agree.

Let me share a couple of submissions we have received on our Web site.

Jennifer, from Hollywood, MD, writes:

I've been doing my family's taxes for 22 years. This year

my husband suggested we use a tax service. Why? The tax code

is too complicated and he was concerned we were missing

deductions.

Mike, from Fort Collins, CO, provides an example of the complexity in the code, writing:

I have been a tax assistance volunteer for 19 years. It is

difficult to tell someone who knows what a child is that

there are actually four different definitions for ``a child''

in the tax law. Make the same definition apply across the

entire tax code. The best way is the simplest way.

Wendy from Irving, CA, writes:

I do not mind paying taxes--we need education,

infrastructure, and a defense. What I do mind is that it is a

complete mystery and a complete game to find every allowable

deduction and that it is a significant burden as well as a

significant expense to pay a qualified preparer. How has this

come to be? My returns are 20-50 pages long. Why is it more

than two? There must be a way to simplify the process.

You know what. Wendy is right. There must be a way to simplify the process.

That is the same message Chairman Camp and I heard earlier this month in St. Paul, MN. We were in the Twin Cities for the first in a series of trips we are taking across the country to speak with people about tax reform.

We want to get out of Washington. We are doing it this summer. We are going to Philadelphia next Monday to get input and feedback from people on dealing with America's tax system.

St. Paul was a great trip. We met with leaders of two distinctly different types of American businesses--one a U.S.-based multinational corporation with more than 85,000 employees, the other a family-run bakery with 85 employees. While dramatically different in size and in industry, they face similar challenges when it comes to dealing with America's Tax Code. In conversation after conversation we heard the same thing: We need a simpler Tax Code.

St. Paul was just the first stop. As I mentioned, the next trip is Philadelphia. Then we plan to go to the west coast. We have other trips planned over the next couple of months. We are going to talk to groups about how we can make the tax system fairer and easier to deal with, and we want to learn how we can restore some confidence in the code.

Our efforts on reform have been ramping up. We are continuing to build momentum. Reform provides a historic opportunity to give families certainty, spark growth, create jobs, and make businesses more competitive to provide America a real shot in the arm.

I will conclude my remarks as I began them--with a quote. These words are from our Nation's sixth President, John Quincy Adams. President Adams:

Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before

which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.

That is where we are. We are patient. We are persevering. We have a lot to do. The difficulties will disappear, obstacles will vanish, and the best result will be that the American people have a simpler, fairer code to provide more jobs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I also thank my friend from Maine for her indulgence. Believe me, I will be as short as I possibly can. I deeply appreciate their indulgence.

Tax Code Reform

I am here to basically say I believe we must very aggressively reform our Tax Code. It has not been updated since 1986. Since that date, it has built up barnacles, loopholes, deductions, credits. There have been 15,000 changes to the Tax Code since 1986, and there have been additions. There have not been subtractions.

Our code is out of date. Other countries have kept their tax codes up to date. They have ensured that their companies are more competitive with changes in their tax codes. We have not done so. Our American companies are losing out. They are losing out to other companies worldwide because our code has not kept up to date.

In fact, there is a recent survey by Harvard Business School. Harvard Business School surveyed over 10,000 of its graduates over a short period of time.

The conclusion of that survey, from those who responded, is America is starting to lose its competitiveness. We are losing out. Why? Many reasons. But the one that bubbles up the most, the one that was most telling, is our Tax Code. Two reasons: One, they said, is the high rates. Our Tax Code's top rate, 35 percent for corporations, is much higher than is the rate for other countries worldwide. Other countries have lowered their top corporate rate. We have not lowered ours. As a consequence, when there is a merger, the consequence is that the headquarters ends up in another country, very simply because the tax rate in that country is lower than it is in the United States. The Anheuser InBev merger is one of many examples.

The second reason they give to the Code, why the U.S. Tax Code is causing the United States to be less competitive, is not only because our rates are higher but because our Code is so more complex. It is very difficult for people doing business in the United States or Americans doing business in the United States or people in other countries who work with the U.S. Tax Code to deal with our Tax Code because it is so complex.

In addition, our Code needs to be updated because it is so complex, not only from an international perspective but from a domestic perspective. Americans as individuals do not trust the Code. It is too complex. They cannot figure out their own returns. I might say, myself, it was not too many years ago I was sitting down at the kitchen table trying to figure out my own tax returns. I am not a wealthy man. Frankly, I had to give up. I could not figure it out. I felt un- American that I could not figure out my own taxes, especially as somebody who went to college, went to law school, is in the Senate. I still cannot do my own taxes. Something is not quite right there. Many Americans believe, as a consequence, that somebody else is getting some deductions and credits when they hire a fancy lawyer. They are getting credits and deductions that they are not getting.

Then small businesses. Small business has a devil of a time keeping up with rules and regulations, let alone tax provisions. They spend much more of their dollars on regulations, including tax returns, hiring CPAs to figure out the returns than big business does. It is usually the big business that can deal with the complexity of the Code. It is much more difficult for small businesses. The complexity of the Code is hurting our country because it is also hurting small business in America.

I might say too, as a couple of examples of the complexity, there are 42 definitions of a small business--42 different definitions in the Code of small business. There are either three or four definitions of a child. My Lord, you would think we all know what a child is. But there are three or four different definitions of what constitutes a child. There are many--I forgot the exact number--many different provisions in the Code with respect to the education deduction--education credit.

In my hand is a 90-page document explaining the education deductions alone--90-page document. You think the American family, American students have the patience to go through a 90-page document that explains which deductions are available and which are not? No way. That has got to be simplified. So we must simplify the Code, get rid of a lot of the junk, frankly.

I believe the approach we are taking in the Finance Committee is the correct approach. We have had over 50 hearings in the Finance Committee. We have had many sessions in the committee about what is next, as the occupant of the chair knows. The approach we are taking is very simple: We are starting with a clean slate. We are getting rid of all of the deductions, all of the credits. They total about $1.2 trillion annually. We are getting rid of them all--$12 trillion over 10 years. Get rid of them all, then start to build up which ones seem to make the most sense.

Senator Hatch and I are working together. This is a bipartisan bill. The ranking member of the Finance Committee and I are together in this approach. We have asked our colleagues on the committee, off the committee, all Senators both sides of the aisle: Give us your submissions. What do you want added back to the clean slate? Do you want anything added back? If you want something added back, how do you want to change it, how to tailor it? We are not going to stand here and mention lots of different ways it can be changed. Senators know what they are.

I think by working through Senators, it is more likely to be a better, a more solid, productive product. I urge all of my colleagues, send us your submissions. Send your submissions. There are a couple of Senators on the floor. I hope they have submitted their suggestions. They indicated they have. Good. I urge my colleagues to do so, because we are hearing directly from constituents.

We have a Web site. It is taxreform.org. There were 10,000 submissions from around the country of people telling us what they want. I submit, if our constituents are telling us how they want the Tax Code changed, at the very least we as Senators should also indicate how we would like to see the Tax Code changed and be in on the ground floor starting out, rather than having to come out on the floor and offer amendments, adding something back in that has to be paid for. If it is added back in, I do not think that is something Senators want to do.

We will mark up the tax bill this fall. There is going to be a markup. There is going to be a markup this fall. I am guessing--I do not like to predict dates because sometimes they change, but sometime this fall, September, October, November, in there, we are going to mark up a tax bill.

I urge Senators to be ready. This is bipartisan. I have worked overboard. I have had meetings personally with every single Senator about the Tax Code. At lunch today, for example, Chairman Camp and I-- we meet weekly. At lunch today, we are meeting with 10 House Members, 10 Senators--a total of 10. We call it ``burgers and beer'' every 2 weeks over at the Irish Times. That is symbolic, because that is where the last Tax Code in 1986 was in many respects put together. The more we get to know each other, get to know House Members--I must confess there are a couple of House Members whom I did not know and they did not know who I was.

We talk about kids, we talk about tax reform. It is a bonding process to get to know each other better. Dave Camp and I are going around the country. We went to the Twin Cities a couple of weeks ago, met with 3M, with management, with their employees, and met with a small bakery. It is called Bald Eagle Bakery. We are going to Philadelphia a week from next Monday. I think we are going over to Delaware; I am not sure. We will be up in New Jersey. I apologize to the Presiding Officer. It is New Jersey. We are going to Philadelphia and New Jersey for another session. There will be others. We are traveling around the country. We want to talk to people to see what they have to say.

I think this is the way to crack some of this partisan gridlock around here, this partisan deadlock around here. How? We are working together, low key, building from the bottom to the top with these sessions, these meetings, discussions, keep talking. Because we all know the Tax Code needs to be reformed. It is way dated. It is out of date.

A small example is all of the exempt provisions, the 501(c)(4)s and (3)s, and so forth. This has not been addressed for over 50 years. All of the money since Citizens United is tax exempt, trying to find a safe home; that is, where there is no disclosure of either donors or amount. That has got to be maybe addressed as well. That is just one example.

My main point is to first indicate there is going to be a markup. It is an opportunity for Senators to send in their submissions. The deadline is the end of this week. I urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Finally, I am very grateful for my friends from Maine and Washington for allowing me to take time. I thank them very much.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a very special person who has served the people of Montana for 37 years: Elizabeth Ching. Our Liz retired from the U.S. Senate on June 30, 2013. Of course, she started her new job the very next day, on July 1. Her so-called retirement lasted less than 24-hours. That is the kind of work

ethic that has made Liz famous. When she has a task to accomplish, she simply doesn't rest until it is done.

She is a workhorse and one of the kindest, most dedicated people I know.

Liz was a staff assistant on the Select Committee for Presidential Campaigns and the Budget Committee before joining my team in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975. Liz continued her career in the U.S. Senate. As one of the first members of my team, Liz has literally helped thousands of Montanans over the years.

She has also worn many hats over the last thirty-seven years proving that no job is too small or too large for her to tackle with heart and soul.

In many ways, Liz and I grew up together learning the ropes of Congress. Little did we know back in 1975 when I first hired her how much we would be able to accomplish for Montanans. She has helped support Montana outreach efforts on three farm bills, four highway bills, four major rural water project bills, and the Affordable Care Act.

In her early years in my Washington, DC office, she was my office manager. In 1995, she moved to Montana to be assistant to the state director. Her titles from 1996 through today include grants coordinator, State casework director, agriculture issues eastern Montana and director of constituent services, and Montana economic development director. As our economic development director, Liz has played a key role in making our Montana Economic Development Summits a success--helping make connections that have resulted in hundreds of Montana jobs. More recently, she has been an ambassador to energy- impacted communities in the Bakken region helping them to understand and access the myriad of Federal programs available to absorb the pressures of the Bakken oil and gas boom. While we will all miss having her on staff, I am thrilled to know that she will have the opportunity to continue serving Montanans through her passion for economic development.

Liz has worked on more than 17,000 cases for Montanans on issues such as small business, labor, agriculture, veterans, appropriations, transportation, housing, postal services, health, environment, energy, banking, and economic issues. I have always been thankful to have Liz in my corner. I can only imagine how each and every one of those 17,000 individuals felt knowing that Liz answered the call when they needed help.

In addition to her legislative achievements and impressive constituent work, Liz mentored thousands of interns and young staff assistants over the years, gently educating them in all facets of protocol, policy, and poise.

Always on the road, working tirelessly on individual casework and larger community issues, often I received e-mails and notes from Montanans sharing their gratitude for Liz's support and knowledge of the issues that matter most to them. One of her greatest talents is bringing key people together for discussions and setting the table for meaningful teamwork.

While she is known statewide for her work, Liz is truly a pillar of the Billings community. Whether there is a road to build, a bridge to fix, a new store opening, or a building burnt down, Liz has always been there to uplift those in need or help with the groundbreakings, ribbon- cuttings, dedications, and donations. I cannot fully express how amazing Liz has been as a liaison for our office.

While I could go on and on about Liz's professional accomplishments, I know she is most proud of her wonderful marriage to Kevin Dowling and the beautiful family they have raised together. Her amazing family is truly a testament to the type of person she is. Liz and Kevin have three terrific children: Tierney, Aidan, and Seanan, and one grandson Kaiven.

Everyone privileged to know Liz is touched by her contagious zest for life and endless energy. Her colleagues in Washington, DC, and Montana have the highest regard and appreciation for her many years of service, friendship, and determination to do everything she can for all Montanans in need of any kind of assistance.

I personally owe her a big thank-you. Liz, you are truly one of a kind. We are all rooting for you on your new adventures.

Madam President, on July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS announced a new initiative to allow States to experiment under the temporary assistance for needy families, TANF, block grant. The HHS initiative would waive some Federal requirements for qualifying states and instead allow them to develop and use ``alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.'' States would be required to improve employment by 20 percent in order to keep one of these waivers. Some of my colleagues object to this approach.

I was a supporter of 1996 welfare reform and stand by the tenets of that reform. However, it has been seventeen years since that debate on welfare produced the TANF program. We would not expect a car to run for 17 years without maintenance. It is time to tune-up our Nation's antipoverty program. It is time to take a look under the hood.

In the past, TANF has provided crucial benefits to struggling Americans. As poverty rates for women and children increase, it is vital to ensure our programs are adequately meeting the needs of this vulnerable population. The Congressional Research Service estimates that in 1995 over 14 million children were living in poverty. After welfare reform, the number of kids living in poverty decreased to about 11 million by 2000. Since then, these gains have been eroded. There were over 13 million kids in poverty by the start of the recession in 2007. Now there are over 16 million children in desperate need of assistance. These numbers do not indicate a healthy safety net. We must ensure that disadvantaged women and children continue to have access to the vital resources they need.

In 2005, after several attempts to pass a TANF reauthorization bill in ``regular order,'' the TANF program was reauthorized as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. But it was not the comprehensive bipartisan TANF reauthorization voted out of the Finance Committee. Rather, it was a slimmed-down version placed in a budget reconciliation bill that focused on tightening up the work standards and adding grants for marriage promotion and responsible

fatherhood. Furthermore, the reauthorization was solely written by Republicans without any Democratic input.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for my distinguished colleague for Utah. I share in my colleague's strong belief that work is honorable and that it should be a cornerstone of our welfare system.

While I certainly share in my colleague from Utah's concern over the unilateral waiver of legislative requirements, I am also a strong supporter of finding ways to improve Federal programs. I agree with the administration that innovation often comes from our partners in the States. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have provided Montana and the other 49 States numerous opportunities to take initiative and improve our programs. Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'' Giving the 50 States an opportunity to experiment and improve on Federal programs allows us to determine what works and what doesn't.

Allowing our States to have the flexibility to increase their work rates by 20 percent is a noble goal that improves the very foundation of our welfare system. I understand that there are concerns about how the 20 percent is calculated. However, the goal of increasing employment is my highest priority, a goal that I believe is shared by my friend from Utah.

No matter how noble the goal, I agree that there are better ways to go about making improvements to the TANF program than bypassing the Congress. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the TANF program. As a committee, we have never shirked our legislative responsibilities and could have been engaged in a more productive manner.

However, this impasse around TANF waivers has prevented productive dialog on the needs of this Nation's most vulnerable women and children for almost a year. It is time to get back to business. I am willing to work with Senator Hatch to end this impasse. The American people deserve our best attention on getting people jobs that will support their families.

With an eye toward reform, I asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate TANF. Since 1996, the number of families served by federal welfare programs has dropped from 3.9 million to 1.9 million in 2010. The GAO noted that this decline was not due to an increase in income but a decline in participation. GAO noted that States have erected increasingly more stringent barriers, making it difficult for families and children to qualify for TANF.

The GAO also noted that current policies may be discouraging States from preparing difficult-to-serve families for the road back to work through TANF. Some options suggested for serving families with complex needs include adjustments to state requirements and a focus on employment outcomes. We may need to make some modest changes to ensure that the program runs smoothly, our tax dollars are spent efficiently, and that we provide a useful safety net for Americans.

A safety net that encourages and inspires resiliency in the face of hardship is crucial to our growth and success. We have worked together to provide States with the opportunity to find solutions while maintaining rigorous standards in the child welfare programs. Continuing this trend is important, even more so when it involves lifting families out of poverty. We have had a strong bipartisan relationship on the Finance Committee, and I look forward to working with the ranking member to improve our welfare system.

Women should not be faced with the hard choices like staying in abusive relationships in order to provide for their kids or leaving their children with less than trustworthy guardians to find a job. We can do better. Input from the administration, States, and other stakeholders on what they think might improve the program is welcome and needed. I am looking forward to working with my colleague from Utah on a legislative solution that improves the TANF program in real ways for women and children.

Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Rhode Island how much time he wishes to speak?

Mr. President, I am fine. I think we should wait, let the Senator from Rhode Island proceed with his statement, and if the Senator from South Carolina wants to go ahead----

Whatever the two Senators work out, great.

First, I very much thank my colleague from Rhode Island for all his work in many areas, a great Senator, a great statesman, and a great representative to the people in the State of Rhode Island, and also for his work on the resource legislation which he mentioned.

At this point I want to add my thanks to all of those who worked on the recently passed immigration bill. Senator Graham made a point of thanking Senators. I want to also thank all of the so-called Gang of 8: Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, Senator Bennet, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, Senator Flake, and Senator McCain for their great work. They worked very hard to get that bill together, and of course, Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven came up with the key amendment to put the bill over the finish line.

My hat is off to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Leahy and of course our leader Senator Reid, who marshaled those efforts. They did a great job. There is no end to the commendation they should receive.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell said, ``The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating a problem in a way that will allow a solution.''

I come to the floor today with my good friend Senator Orrin Hatch to state our concerns about a national problem that is holding back our economy. We are here to call on our colleagues to provide ideas that will allow a solution.

First, the problem. America's Tax Code is complex, it is inefficient, and it is acting as a brake on our economy. Senator Hatch and I believe it is in need of a serious overhaul. It has been close to three decades since the last major revision to the Tax Code. In that time Congress has made about 15,000 changes to the Tax Code. The Code now contains nearly 4 million words. Here it is, right here. The Tax Code. This is America's Tax Code, all 24 pounds of it. Paperback. Think how heavy it would be for hard cover. It would take more than 18 days nonstop to read the Tax Code. In fact, it takes the average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms to comply with the code. It costs Americans $160 billion a year to comply with the code, let alone the taxes Americans pay. This complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and creating uncertainty for America's families and businesses.

Clearly, the Tax Code is broken. That is the problem. It is a serious one. The solution calls for a more simple, more fair Tax Code, one that will allow the economy to grow and to create jobs. For the past few years, Senator Hatch and I have been working closely with all of the members of the Senate Finance Committee to reach that goal of comprehensive tax reform. We have held more than 30 hearings. We have heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive.

Mr. President, I might say this blank slate is not, of course, the end of the discussion. You do not clear the decks and stop. Some of the provisions in the code obviously serve very important objectives. That is why they made it there in the first place. Some we will need to keep, clearly. Why? To make sure the Tax Code is at least as progressive after tax reform as it is today.

I want to emphasize this approach is just a starting point. It is not a proposal. This is a good, fair, balanced way, a good-faith way, of including all Members of the Senate to get started. We believe it is going to lead to a solution, kind of the way Bertrand Russell suggested: You have to state the problem the way that it is going to lead to a solution. We think this is a good way to get to that solution.

Now that we have a blank slate, we are asking all Senators; that is, all Senators, Senators on the committee, Senators off the committee--to submit detailed legislative proposals; that is tax expenditures, the credits, the deductions, exclusions, which they think should be added back that meet the test for growth and for jobs, as well as any other provisions Senators might have in mind that they think should be added or repealed, that they think make sense or other reforms they think make sense.

In order to help guide our colleagues' submissions, we have released some rough estimates the Joint Committee on Taxation and our staffs have been working on. These estimates show how much the rates would rise, for example, if we add back tax expenditures and keep the current level of progressivity compared to a blank slate.

We put this out today. Why? Because we wanted everybody to know there is a tradeoff involved; that is, when you keep tax expenditures, there is going to be an increase in rates, certainly compared with what otherwise we start with. The more tax expenditures there are, the less revenue there is for a rate reduction and deficit reduction, and the more complicated our Tax Code will end up being.

We also need to remember, this is not just about tax expenditures. There is much more to it than confining our discussion to tax expenditures, because at its core tax reform means making the Tax Code more fair, easier to deal with for families all across our country. There are a lot of loopholes, on the other hand, in the code we should get rid of. People who can afford fancy tax advisers should not be able to take advantage of loopholes regular Americans do not have available to them. As chairman and ranking member of the committee, we are determined to complete tax reform this Congress. We cannot afford to be complacent. Improving the Tax Code provides a great opportunity to spark economic growth, to create jobs, and make U.S. businesses more competitive.

I might add at this point, other countries are modernizing their codes. We are going to be left in the dust if we do not modernize ours. We need to hear from our colleagues as to what provisions they think will help us reach those goals.

I have a great partner in this mission, my good friend Senator Hatch. I will keep communicating and working with the administration and the Senate leadership as we move forward.

Working together we can get this done. I believe strongly that nothing of consequence ever happens around here if one person tries to accomplish something alone on his or her behalf; rather, matters of consequence are accomplished when people work together. We clearly want a matter of consequence to pass here. We will do so by working together.

I thank Senator Hatch. It is mutual.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, just outside this Chamber is a bust of President Theodore Roosevelt. When I walk past it, I am often reminded of one of my favorite T.R. quotes, which is, ``Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.''

For the past 3 years, I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee on comprehensive tax reform. It has been hard work, but it has certainly been work worth doing. We have had more than 30 hearings. We have heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the U.S. more competitive.

Our efforts have been ramping up over the past several weeks, and we are starting to build momentum. Senator Hatch and I have been working very closely with members of the Finance Committee on a series of 10 discussion papers, examining key aspects of the Tax Code--each of the discussion papers on a different aspect of the Code. We began back in March, with a discussion on simplifying the system for families and businesses.

There have been nine others. We then met as a full committee every week the Senate has been in session to go through different topics, presenting a range of options, and sitting around a table asking questions of staff, what about this and that, and asking questions of each other. It is a very informative process that is bringing us even closer together, establishing trust and confidence in what we are doing and learning a lot more about what the code is and is not.

We concluded these meetings this morning with a discussion on non- income tax issues; for example, payroll taxes and excise taxes. That is not income taxes. The meetings have been very beneficial. We are building trust and getting everyone's buy-in. I also speak weekly with the Treasury Secretary about tax reform, getting his ideas and what seems to make sense for him and for the administration.

I have been working for quite some time with my counterpart in the House, Chairman David Camp. In fact, we have been meeting weekly, Chairman Camp and I, face to face for more than a year now discussing matters that apply to the Finance Committee, as well as Ways and Means, but especially tax reform. He is working just as hard on his side in the other body.

Our shared goal is to make the code more simple, to make it more fair for families to spark a more prosperous economy. I believe very strongly if we can simplify the code, as well as other measures that need to be taken, people will feel better about it. They will not think the other guy has a big loophole that he cannot take advantage of. It will help people feel better about themselves. It will certainly help small businesses because the code is so complex for small business. I think that in and of itself will help create some innovation, some entrepreneurship and energy for more jobs.

Together, Chairman Camp and I have also recently launched a Web site. It is called taxreform.gov. The site will enable us to get even more ideas and to hear directly from the American people, not people in Washington, DC, but from around the country. People all around can tell us what they think. We want to know what people think, what they think the Nation's tax system should look like, how we can make families' lives easier, and how we can ensure a less burdensome Tax Code.

We have received a lot of hits, if you will, to the Web site. Over 30,000 so far, 10,000 submissions. That is ideas people have from every State in the Nation. People are overwhelmingly--I must tell you, if you were to categorize the character of the submissions, overwhelmingly they are calling for a much more simple code. People want the code a lot more simple. It is too complex.

For example, a fellow named David from Redmond, WA, wrote:

I'm a retired lawyer and I cannot prepare my own tax

returns--

Why--

because of the technical and incomprehensible language of the

code. I commend you and hope you are successful.

That is just an example. Richard, from my hometown of Helena, MT, noted that the current Tax Code is outdated and does not work effectively or efficiently. He said, ``It needs to be simple, effective, and fair.''

Again, another representative submission. I think Richard and David hit the nail on the head. Over and over, that is what we are hearing: simple, effective, and fair.

Chairman Camp and I are going to be making a big push in the coming weeks to further engage our colleagues in Washington, as well as people all across America. How are we going to do that? Well, we are going to travel. We are going to travel to other cities, Chairman Camp and I together. We are going to travel outside of Washington, DC, where the real Americans reside. We are going to talk to individuals, we are going to talk to families, business owners, big and small, to hear directly what the people have in mind.

Again, we are doing this because we want to hear directly from the American people, not just people in Washington, DC. We will be announcing our first visit outside of Washington, DC, next week. We want to hear what people think.

Momentum is building. Now is the time to do reform. I might say, in my view, if we cannot get tax reform passed in the Congress, I do not think we will ever be able to address the issue for maybe 3 years. I doubt we will do it next Congress because that will be a Presidential election year. We will have to wait for the new President. It is going to take a long time. That is critically dangerous because the last time the code was significantly reformed was 1986.

The world has changed dramatically since 1986. The code is too dated. I might say this: Since 1986, the last time the Tax Code was reformed, there have been 15,000 changes to the code--15,000. No wonder it is complex. No wonder people want it more simple and more fair. I think working together we in Congress can improve the code and update it to the 21st century.

This comes down to working together. It comes down to building trust on both sides of the aisle, both bodies. It is going to help the American people when we do reform the code in this Congress. I do not know how many months it is going to take, but we are going to do all we can. As Teddy Roosevelt said: Hard work is worth doing if it is for a good cause. This is clearly hard work, I can tell you that, but it is also for a good cause.

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

Mr. President, the Finance Committee reported out the nomination of Michael Froman to be USTR unanimously. It is rare that I speak so highly of somebody. I can think of many top administration officials who are very good. Michael Froman will be another. He is very smart, and he is very tough. He is the right person for the job as the United States begins to negotiate trade agreements with Asia, the so- called TPP, as well as the trade agreement with the Europeans. Our economic future is tied to economic growth tied to trade.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for Michael Froman. Give him a big vote so that when he goes to Geneva and when he goes to other parts of the world to negotiate trade agreements, the world will know he has our strong support. Michael Froman is a great man, and I hope very much that he gets that vote where everybody votes for him. He is a good man.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

I would ask for 10 or 15 seconds.

I would say to my good friend from Massachusetts that if she will work with us, we will work with Mr. Froman to make sure he answers all of our questions.

I plan to work with the Senator to get answers to the questions. I was unaware of this problem until the Senator just mentioned it.

Mr. President, in 1865, Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune, ``Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.''

For decades, Greeley's words captured the imagination of a country, and millions of families flocked to the West for a glimpse of the American dream. Rural America continues to thrive, and places like my home State of Montana offer an excellent place to raise a family. But there is a no question that rural and frontier America present unique circumstances that differ substantially from our more urban neighbors.

While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and opportunities within rural communities are often misunderstood or overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from 10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now comprise almost one fourth of the Nation's public school enrollment. And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural areas.

Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural students

are--naturally--widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and solutions for rural education.

Montana is the fourth largest State by land mass, totaling over 147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby, these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning environment but often a thriving community center.

Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating our next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2011 scored higher than the national average in both reading and math.

But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, they also face a unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even comprehend.

For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I coordinator, the math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the bus driver. In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing professional development and training for teachers and principals. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students must travel between school and home make it more difficult to participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after- school programs.

And while Horace Greeley encouraged us to ``Go West'', many of the Department of Education's recent initiatives have failed to do just that. In the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competitive grant, only one State west of the Mississippi received funding.

And in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse consequences. The first round of the Investing in Innovation, i3, competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points'' for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to encourage and support rural applicants. However, the Department's lack of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage. The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of inducing urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban projects. While the Department has made strides to improve the competitive chances of rural applicants, funding under the I3 grant continues to be directed to more urban school districts.

I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia and Senator Collins of Maine in reintroducing the Office of Rural Education Policy Act. This bipartisan bill will establish the Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This Office and its Director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural schools and districts. The legislation requires the Department to consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural education. The goal of this bill is to allow rural schools to focus their time and resources on students in the classroom rather than red tape in the bureaucracy.

The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as, the innovative efforts underway in rural schools to tackle these challenges.

We have received strong support from dozens of organizations, including: American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association, National Association of Development Organizations, National Education Association, National Farmers Union, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to this proposal.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to move this legislation, to ensure our rural students and schools across the country are given a fair shake.

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