Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution that is at the desk honoring the life, legacy, and example of British Prime Minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, we have just agreed to a resolution honoring the late Margaret Thatcher before her funeral tomorrow. It is our intention for that resolution to be a statement equal to her legacy. Her work with Ronald Reagan reinvigorated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the most influential and revolutionary figures of the 20th century, and failing to name her achievements would do her memory and legacy a great disservice. It would be unheard of to commemorate Churchill, for example, and ignore his heroic role in steering his countrymen through the Battle of Britain, nor would we think of honoring Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War. Doing the right thing when it is not easy or popular is what defines leadership, and it defined Margaret Thatcher. It is fitting that the Senate honored her legacy just a few moments ago.

Margaret Thatcher didn't just change a country or give people hope, she helped alter the course of history. It is true that she did not just go along to get along. Had she done so, I am sure we would have long since forgotten her.

Let's honor her for all she did. Let's acknowledge the enormity of what she accomplished. Let's mention her achievements by name, and the resolution does that. As I said, we owe Margaret Thatcher a tribute equal to her legacy.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture on proceeding to S. 649. I will vote against invoking cloture and I wish to explain why.

I believe the government should focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with mental issues that could cause them to be a threat to our society. The government should not punish or harass law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their second amendment rights. Unfortunately, S. 649 has the focus entirely backwards.

For example, the background check portion of S. 649 is Senator Schumer's bill that the Judiciary Committee reported out on a party- line basis. The aim of that bill, from its plain terms, could not be more clear. Section 121, the purpose section, provides that the aim of the bill is to require Americans to undergo background checks for ``all sales and transfers of firearms.'' If they don't, it is a Federal crime. Again, the requirement applies to all sales, and even transfers, of all firearms. And with very few exceptions, that is exactly what S. 649 does. The next section of the bill makes plain why that overly broad language is so problematic.

That section, section 122, provides that it is ``unlawful'' for any private party to ``transfer a firearm to any other person'' without first turning over that firearm to a commercial firearms dealer and having that dealer perform a background check. There are a few limited exceptions such as for gifts between immediate family members and inheriting a firearm. But that is it. In fact, the bill makes clear that transfer means not just sale but a ``gift, loan'' or any ``other disposition'' of that firearm.

So under the Schumer legislation, the following offenses would now be Federal crimes absent surrendering the firearms and conducting a background check. Federal offenses: An uncle giving his nephew a hunting rifle for Christmas; a niece giving her aunt a handgun for protection; a cousin loaning another cousin his hunting rifle if the loan occurs just 1 day before the beginning of hunting season; or one neighbor loaning another a firearm so his wife can protect herself while her husband is away.

The people I am describing are not criminals--they are neighbors, friends, and family--and the scenarios I am describing are not fanciful. They happen countless times in our country. But the Schumer bill would outlaw these transfers and it would make people such as these criminals.

But there are other problems with the legislation from the Senator from New York. Under his legislation, it is a crime for someone who lawfully possesses a firearm not to report a lost or stolen firearm to both the ``appropriate local authorities,'' whoever they are, and the Attorney General within 24 hours. People should report firearms that are lost or stolen, but are we really going to make their failure to do so within 24 hours a Federal crime that is punishable by up to 5 years in prison? What if the person thinks the firearm is misplaced, not lost or stolen, but the person is actually wrong about that? And what if the person comes to the realization after 2 days instead of 1, and if they report the lost or stolen firearm to their sheriff--assuming he is one of the undefined ``appropriate local authorities''--why is it a crime if they don't report it to the Attorney General?

Why would the provision target only those who ``lawfully possess'' firearms, rather than criminals who do not lawfully possess them?

I could go on and on and list other problems with S. 649, but I think I have made my point. This bill is a clear overreach that will predominantly punish and harass our neighbors, our friends, and our families. To protect the rights of the law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and other States, I will oppose invoking cloture on S. 649.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I was proud to congratulate Coach Pitino and the Louisville men's basketball team for an impressive national championship win. Today I would like to recognize Coach Walz and the Lady Cardinals for playing their hearts out last night. You know, these women were the lowest seeded team to make it all the way to the title game in decades--and that is really quite an achievement.

So my sincere congratulations to you, Lady Cards. Keep up the hustle for next year's tournament. And to the Connecticut Huskies, congratulations on your hard-fought victory last night. You earned it.

The President's Budget

Mr. President, later today we will receive the President's budget. Like nearly every one of his budgets so far, it is late--really late. In the extra 2 months he has kept the country on hold, both the House and the Senate have actually already passed their own budgets. So it is hard to see what the White House plans to accomplish. I want to believe the intention is not to purposely blow up the budget process so the President can campaign against the very budget process he blew up, but from the reports we are seeing, it is getting harder and harder not to draw that conclusion. After all, the document headed our way does not appear designed to bridge the differences between the House- and Senate-passed budgets. That is the role Americans would expect the President to play at this stage. But his budget simply does not represent some grand pivot from left to center; it is really just a pivot from left to left.

I mean, if these reports we are seeing are correct, it is mostly the same old thing that we have seen year after year after year, and that is really too bad because it is not as if we do not know the kinds of things that need to be done to get our budget back to balance and Americans back to work. We need to provide families and businesses a fairer and flatter Tax Code so they can save for the future and create jobs. We do not need a budget that piles on tax increase after tax increase. We need to get government out of the way so the private sector can actually grow again. We do not need a budget that spends more money we do not have. We need a balanced budget that encourages growth and job creation. We do not need an extreme, unbalanced budget that will not balance in your lifetime or mine.

The White House initially made some fantastic claims about the amount of deficit reduction supposedly contained in its budget. But when you cut through the spin and get to the facts, it looks as though there is less than $600 billion worth of reduction in there--and that is over a decade--all of it coming, not surprisingly, from tax increases. In other words, it is not a serious plan--for the most part, just another leftwing wish list. Let me clarify: a wish list, actually, with an asterisk.

The President seems prepared to finally concede this time that at least something needs to be done to save entitlements from their inevitable slide toward bankruptcy. I am glad to see him begin to come to grips with the math. It is well past time for reform, and it is something the President ought to want to do because he presumably cares about saving entitlement programs, not just because he wants yet another excuse to raise taxes.

As we start to think about reforming entitlement programs, we should think about reform this way: Will the changes we make help modernize entitlements over the long term in order to eventually meet the needs of a rapidly aging population in a realistic way or will they just kick the can down the road without actually solving the problem? Remember, kicking the can down the road is how we got to this point in the first place. So we need to have the courage to finally make the tough decisions Americans sent us here to make.

If the President and his allies care about Social Security and Medicare--and I take them at their word that they do--then they need to prove that commitment by proposing ambitious, forward-leaning structural reforms to save them. This budget is their chance to do that, and I hope they will. But if they choose to continue using these programs as campaign weapons instead, then the math points to a clear outcome: The entitlement programs so many Americans rely upon will go bankrupt, and today's Washington Democrats will have to live with that legacy. We cannot get to that point. But Republicans only control a tiny sliver of the Federal Government, so there really is not much we can do until the President and his allies get serious about reform. It is way past time they did.

We do not need another reheated budget. We have had enough of those in the past few years. We need a serious reform-oriented budget. Sadly, I do not believe we will see that one today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I stand here to pay tribute to the honorable men and women, past and present, of the Somerset Police Department in Pulaski County, KY, for 125 years of faithful service and tireless dedication.

Founded on March 13, 1888, the Somerset Police Department has admirably served the city and surrounding area and to this day represents the best of our State's citizens. One example of their thorough care for and involvement in the community is their annual charity basketball game. Typically, the officers challenge a local high-school team to an exhibition match--this year they took on the local fire department, with the proceeds from the event going to support a local girl who suffers from Type I diabetes. Their reputation for ``coming to the rescue'' was displayed in a different way than their daily work, but displayed nonetheless, and their efforts certainly are appreciated by those in need who benefit from the support raised by their charity.

I rise not only to celebrate those who serve, but also those we have lost in service. We are grateful for dedicated officers of the Somerset Police Department who risk their very lives to protect and bring order to their city.

At this time, I would like to applaud the Somerset Police Department on the 125th anniversary of its founding, and I request that an article recognizing this occasion from a Pulaski County, KY, newspaper be printed in the Record.

Would my friend yield for an observation?

Mr. President, I would say to my good friend from Nevada that one of the things we enjoy talking about is sports, and he is a big UNLV fan as well. I would like to report to my friend through the Chair that it was a fun evening. It was absolutely exciting to be there. I was also grateful to the majority leader for coming down to the University of Louisville a few years ago. I was glad I had a chance to be there and to see it in person.

Basketball in a football facility is a little odd. There were 75,000 people there. I am not sure many people up at the top even saw the players. But we were a little closer to the floor, and it was a wonderful experience.

I thank the majority leader for his comments.

Jerry Tarkanian

Mr. President, I am going to take another opportunity to congratulate the Louisville Cardinals for an incredible championship win last night. It was a truly exciting game. I know my colleagues from Michigan take great pride in the fact that not just one but two of their schools were in the Sweet 16.

But you know we Americans love a story about somebody getting knocked down and picking themselves up again. That is why it was such a great moment to see Kevin Ware cut the net last night. They had to lower the rim a bit, as I am sure it is difficult to climb a ladder with a cast on your right leg, but let me just say to him and to the entire University of Louisville, my undergraduate alma mater: Well done. You have truly made our State proud.

Remembering Margaret Thatcher

Today, Mr. President, I plan to talk about the President's budget, but first I also wish to say a word about Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the most transformative political figures of the 20th century. She was a revolutionary, a tireless tribune for what she called ``popular capitalism''--her ``crusade to enfranchise the many.'' Thatcher's methods were razor-sharp wit and the force of her will, which had toughened through decades of literally plowing through obstacles.

A woman of humble beginnings, she charged headfirst against a cross- partisan ruling class that had become calcified in office, an elite clique that had grown impotent in the face of the sort of postwar economic challenges that have long since drained the vitality from Western democracies that never had a leader like her.

The starched dukes and faceless union men who traditionally alternated the reins of British power sneered at ``that woman,'' as they called her--the ``grocer's daughter'' who knew nothing of their ways, whose middle-class instincts were unsuited to the business of governing. Yet she outmaneuvered them all.

When Margaret Thatcher finally wrested the keys of office from those who had made peace with Britain's decline in a way she never could and never would, she set in motion a whirlwind of reforms.

None of those were easy. The vested interests opposed her every move. But in the teeth of fierce opposition, she ignited what could best be described as a political and economic earthquake--one with a tide of global reverberations.

The kind of policies and ideas she inspired saw dictatorships and entrenched bureaucracies come crashing down, grinding poverty lose its grip, and the fossils of socialism recede into the surf. In the wake of this wave of reform stood freer people with a greater say over their own lives and a greater hope for the future.

That is Margaret Thatcher's legacy. In some ways, the parallels to our own day are hard to escape.

When Margaret Thatcher took office, Britain was gripped by wrenching economic turmoil--turmoil of a somewhat different kind than, but not entirely dissimilar to, our own. But through unbending confidence in the power of free markets and in the power of free people to order their lives more intelligently than centralized elites, she literally turned the tide.

So we mourn her passing, but we still have much to learn from her courage and example. Because in the years ahead, we will need to draw from it as conservatives look to turn the tide in the United States and to set about a renewal of our own.

The President's Budget

Tomorrow the President is set to unveil his budget--the details of his plan for America's future. Is it going to be a visionary blueprint that focuses on growing the economy instead of the government, a budget that can help, rather than continue to hurt, job creation? Is it going to be a budget that balances 10 years from now, 20 years from now, ever? Is it going to be a reformist document that makes bold choices? Will he finally drop the tax hike fanaticism that is, frankly, starting to enter the realm of the absurd?

From what we have heard so far, the prospects do not look all that great. We hear that, just like the Senate Democratic budget, it will never balance--ever. We hear it contains only about $600 billion or less in deficit savings over 10 years, which is roughly the level of the deficit in the first 6 months of this fiscal year. We hear it contains new spending proposals and does little to address the drivers of our debt. We hear it contains tax hike upon tax hike upon tax hike-- and, in fact, all the deficit reduction I just mentioned would be derived from myriad tax increases rather than spending reductions.

So apart from reports of a modest entitlement change--and we will need to see the details on that--it sounds as if the White House just tossed last year's budget in the microwave.

Look, this budget is already 2 months late, so I sincerely hope it is not the case that it is just a warmed-over version of last year. Because if it is, what a colossal waste of time and what a disappointment. The American people deserve a lot better than that.

In a statement released yesterday, President Obama said Margaret Thatcher taught us that ``we are not simply carried along by the currents of history . . . [that] we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will.''

What I am saying this morning is that this is your moment to do just that, Mr. President--your moment.

Lady Thatcher did not save her country from the abyss by taking half- measures or tiptoeing around special interest groups. She pushed through groundbreaking reform after groundbreaking reform, usually under heavy fire from all sides, and often over the objections of powerful leaders in her own party and Cabinet.

Had she governed by opinion poll, I am sure she would have been a lot more popular while in office, and Britain would have never recovered from the abysmal state in which she found it.

So, Mr. President, if you are ready to embrace bold reform, to take the steps that are needed to make our entitlement programs permanently solvent

and grow the economy, then Republicans are ready to work with you because the time for pretending America's challenges can be solved with more of the same is over--over. The time has come to summon the political courage to move beyond the status quo, to put the tax hikes and the poll-tested gimmicks aside, and to do finally what must be done.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the majority leader yield?

Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Murray, Senator Sessions, and the majority leader for conducting an open and complete and full debate. I know everyone is exhausted, and people may not feel it at the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days in recent years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this extraordinary debate.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota. He is entirely correct. This budget is extreme, and it is unbalanced. What would happen if it passed? We would have a tax hike of up to $1.5 trillion. That would be the largest in U.S. history. It would cost the average middle-class family literally thousands.

Democrats here in Washington, as Senator Thune and Senator Sessions pointed out, already just got billions of dollars in new taxes at the end of the year--about $600 billion because the tax law expired, the fiscal cliff; then they got $1 trillion more out of ObamaCare. So this would be on top of all of that--$1.5 trillion on top of the $1.6 trillion that is already going into effect. And there is a nearly two- thirds increase in big government spending.

It would siphon $\1/2\ trillion out of our economy and into the hands of Washington bureaucrats and the people in Congress to spend; 42 percent more debt, with each American owing up to $73,000; and an average of 850,000 fewer jobs every year. That is about 11,500 jobs in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Medicare would be allowed to go bankrupt in a few years, and this budget would not balance--not this year, not tomorrow, not ever.

A lot of Democrats here in Washington are saying they simply don't care about balancing the budget anymore. It certainly shows with this one. Their budget will not give Americans a better economy. There won't be any real job creation or the kind of deficit reduction we all know the country needs, just a massive tax hike and more spending to grow the bureaucracy from the pockets of the middle class out.

Our Democratic friends here in Washington like to say that budgets are not just about dollars and cents, they are about values. What their budget tells me is that they have completely lost touch with the hopes and concerns and aspirations of their constituents, that they are putting the needs of government ahead of those who elected them. The budget we waited 4 years for--4 long years we have waited for a Democratic budget--is just a rehash of the extreme policies that continue to pummel the middle class. As all of us have said, it is time to grow the economy, not the government.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate Women's History Month. This March, we pay tribute to the generations of women in

America whose commitment to their community, their State, and their Nation has proved invaluable to society. I know Kentuckians are proud this March to honor the more than 2.2 million women who live in the Commonwealth.

Women's History Month began as a national celebration in 1981 thanks to an act of Congress, and since 1995 every President has issued an annual proclamation designating March as Women's History Month. For Women's History Month 2013, I would like to shine the spotlight on some very admirable women's groups in Kentucky who are working hard to make the Bluegrass State a better place for women to live, grow, and prosper--and making history themselves.

The Family Scholar House in Louisville is an organization that strives to end the cycle of poverty for many women by giving students who are single parents the support they need to earn a 4-year college degree. By working from poverty to self-sufficiency, these parent- students are then able to provide their children with a better life. The Family Scholar House is transforming families and communities through the power of education, and I had the pleasure of meeting with some of this organization's leaders in my Capitol office last week.

The Chrysalis House, in Lexington, provides substance-abuse treatment programs for women. Their mission is to support women and their families in recovery from alcohol and drugs. In operation for over 34 years, Chrysalis House specializes in treating substance-dependent expecting mothers, allowing them to keep their newborn babies with them while in treatment. They also counsel the children of these women on substance abuse prevention. Chrysalis uses a combination of the 12-step program, long-term living arrangements, and a caring and nurturing environment to ensure women and their families live fulfilling lives free of abusive substances. I have visited Chrysalis House and seen firsthand how much good they are doing, and I want to especially recognize president Lindy Karns and her husband, Rick Christman, for their dedicated efforts.

The Hope Center, also located in Lexington, is an organization that addresses homelessness on multiple fronts. They provide food, shelter, and clothing to the homeless; recovery for those who are addicted; health services for the sick; diagnosis and treatment for the mentally ill; employment services for those looking for work; housing for those who need it; and childcare and higher education opportunities for single-parent families. The Hope Center seeks to identify the underlying causes that compel people to seek out their services and then work to address them in fundamental ways.

The Isaiah House, located in the town of Willisburg in Washington County, seeks to provide real hope for those who suffer from addiction. This faith-based program helps men but also has special facilities and programs for women. They exist to help provide women struggling with drug or alcohol addiction the peace and serenity they have been searching for, through counseling that tends to the spiritual, mental, and physical needs of the residents.

Then we have the Western Kentucky University Sisterhood. Western Kentucky University, located in Bowling Green, is one of the Commonwealth's leading universities, and with women making up 65 percent of the school's current students and half of all alumni, the WKU Sisterhood is a way for women to make an impact at the university. The WKU Sisterhood is a group of women who donate at least $1,000 each and then decide collectively how that money shall be used. Two grant recipients, the groups Women in Transition and Project CLASS, are both programs specifically geared to help women succeed in college.

The New Opportunity School for Women, located in the town of Berea, was founded to improve the educational, financial, and personal circumstances of low-income, middle-aged women in the Appalachian region of Kentucky. In the past 23 years, the New Opportunity School for Women has hosted more than 580 women in its 3-week residential program and provided hundreds more with career and educational outreach and counseling.

What a marvel it is to consider all of the resources, programs, and charities that have been founded in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by women, for women, to empower women to improve their own lives and then, in turn, improve their communities. Kentucky is truly blessed to have so many people of compassion.

This Women's History Month is an entirely appropriate occasion on which to pay tribute to them and their accomplishments on this floor. I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in congratulating the leaders and supporters of the several groups I have enumerated here, as well as the many others I did not get to mention, for their good works. And the people of Kentucky thank them as well. History will remember them for their dedication and achievements.

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

Madam President, it took 4 years to get a budget from the Senate majority--4 long years.

As the days go by, it has become increasingly clear why it took so long; their budget is so extreme and so unbalanced. That is why they are having such a hard time selling it to the American people and why they have had to fall back on some tired talking points to defend it, claiming their budget would, for instance, grow the economy from the middle class out. That is a clever sound bite, but it doesn't describe the Senate Democratic budget at all.

Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democratic budget would grow the bureaucracy from the pockets of the middle class out. That is because it would increase Federal spending by almost two-thirds by imposing a massive tax hike that could cost the average middle-class family literally thousands.

The Democrats like to say the up to $1.5 trillion tax increase authorized in their budget--the largest tax hike in American history, by the way--would be funded by closing loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, but the math simply doesn't add up. They will have to come after the middle class to fund this spending spree.

There is something else. The Senate Democratic budget wouldn't balance ever--not in 2013, not in 2023, not in 2023, not ever. It wouldn't balance in any of our lifetimes. It wouldn't balance in the lifetimes of our children or our grandchildren. It would simply never balance.

Think about it. That means a child born today would grow up knowing nothing but massive deficits their entire life. That means trillions upon trillions in more debt and an economy that would never ever reach its full potential. That is simply not right, but it is what we would get with the Senate Democratic plan. It is an extreme approach that is more than just fiscally reckless; it is deeply irresponsible.

That is why so many middle-class families agree with Republicans that we should be growing the economy, not the government. They know we need to control Washington spending and balance the budget in order to kick- start economic growth and to create American jobs. They are so tired of the Obama economy.

They are tired of the endless pivots to jobs that never result in the kind of sustained job creation we need. They are tired of the sluggish growth, of always looking to the future with anxiety or worrying whether Medicare will even be there when they retire.

They are tired of the ideological DC Democratic extremism that got us here: knee-jerk, tax-first solutions to almost every single problem, massive overspending, steadfast opposition to reforms that would make government programs more efficient, effective, and sustainable.

So my friends across the aisle shouldn't be surprised their budget is getting such a rough ride. It contains up to $1.5 trillion in new taxes. This would be the largest tax hike in American history. It contains $\1/2\ trillion more in spending, money that could be siphoned out of the economy and into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

It lacks meaningful reforms to save and strengthen Medicare, allowing it to go bankrupt in just a few years, and it enshrines massive deficits into law, ensuring they continue forever and ever without end.

The Senate Democratic budget is nothing more than a rehash of the same tired politics that continue to pummel the middle class. It is time to move beyond this failed extremist approach and try a new one. Instead of expanding the power of the bureaucratic elite at the expense of hardworking taxpayers, I would urge Washington to change course. Let's focus on growing the economy, not the government.

ObamaCare

I would also like to discuss ObamaCare for a moment.

As I just stated, Senate Republicans want policies to grow the economy, not the government. Yet ObamaCare is a law that grows the government and will slow our economy. On Saturday, we will mark the third anniversary of its passage into law.

Republicans have long warned that ObamaCare would have a devastating

impact on our country. I have spoken about 100 times on the Senate floor against ObamaCare and I have warned about its consequences: increased premiums, lost jobs, and higher taxes.

Unfortunately, many of those things have already started happening. It is not just off in the future. It has already happened, and the Federal Government has only just begun implementing the law.

Instead of premiums going down $2,500, as President Obama promised, they have actually gone up by about the same amount, $2,500. Congress's own nonpartisan budget experts tell us the premiums will increase by about $2,100 after more rules, more taxes, and more mandates take effect.

The Federal Reserve also came out with a report that confirmed something else Americans already know: ObamaCare is costing us jobs. By some estimates, it could end up costing 800,000 jobs at a time when we desperately need more of them.

Members of the President's own party have begun sounding the alarm about the law's tax hike, including its tax on medical devices.

His union allies are concerned the law will make them less competitive too. Of course it will. Perhaps some of the union bosses should have more thoroughly considered the well-being of their members before supporting ObamaCare's passage in the first place.

ObamaCare has already become a regulatory nightmare. I would call the attention of my colleagues to this chart. This is the ObamaCare law, hundreds of pages in itself. But these are the regulations so far: 7 feet tall, almost 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations so far.

The law itself is not small, hundreds and hundreds of pages. But nearly 20,000 new pages of regulations, 7 feet tall, and they are just getting started. This monster of a bill, as I indicated, was hundreds of pages long itself, but that is actually nothing compared to the regulations it has spawned.

This more than 7-foot stack of paper next to me is what has become known as the redtape tower--the redtape tower, almost 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations so far. It is nearly 20,000 pages' worth of complexity. That is just what the bureaucracy has dreamed of so far, and we can only imagine how much more is yet to come.

Do we expect small businesses to be able to cope with all the rules in this tower? If you were a small business owner, how could you? Would you even be able to read through all of them and figure out which ones applied to you? I doubt it. I don't expect the average American to have much luck either.

The administration released a draft ObamaCare application last week. It is 21 pages long. Unbelievable. If you like doing your taxes, you are going to love applying for the ObamaCare exchanges.

So Washington Democrats may pop the champagne this Saturday to celebrate the law's third anniversary, but more Americans and small business owners will be reaching for an aspirin once they are forced to start navigating this bureaucratic nightmare.

In my view, ObamaCare is a colossal mistake for our country. There is no way to fix this thing. It needs to be pulled out by its roots, and we need to start all over. This bill needs to be repealed and it needs to be replaced, not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages of regulations but with commonsense reforms that actually lower health care costs.

Anyone who thinks we have given up this fight is dead wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week I noted that the Senate Democratic budget was one of the most extreme, most unbalanced pieces of legislation we have ever seen, one that would never balance, ever, and one that would have a devastating outcome on the middle class.

I said that its centerpiece is a $1.5 trillion tax hike that would be the largest in American history. Some on the other side have argued with this $1.5 trillion figure. They say their budget only contains a $1 trillion tax hike, which is a stunning and telling admission in itself. Just months after Democrats got hundreds of billions in new taxes, they now freely admit their intention to hit Americans with another $1 trillion in tax hikes. But in reality, it would be more than that since their budget envisions $1.5 trillion in new revenue. While the Democrats' math may be fuzzy, their intentions are unmistakable. Their massive tax hike would cost average middle-class families thousands in lost income and lost opportunity. And despite that massive hit to working families, the Democrats' budget would still not ever-- ever--balance.

But that is just one of the reasons this budget is so destructive to the middle class. Take spending for example. Americans know that a good way to create jobs and increase economic growth is to balance the budget and put our massive national debt on a path to elimination. Yet the Senate Democratic budget would actually increase spending by more than $\1/2\ trillion--increase spending by $\1/2\ trillion.

Put another way, Democrats want to take another $\1/2\ trillion out of the economy, on top of all of the money they would take out with their tax increase, and put it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats and politicians to spend or waste as they see fit. And their budget would balloon the debt by 42 percent, increasing every Americans' share to a whopping $73,000. They want to grow the government at the expense of the economy, and that is not the way to create jobs or get the private sector moving. In fact, by some estimates, this budget could result in more than 600,000 lost jobs if enacted.

Of course, the Senate Democratic budget won't prevent Medicare and Social Security from going bankrupt. It is not going to prevent Medicare and Social Security from going bankrupt.

So here is what we would get with the Democratic budget: No. 1, a massive tax hike and thousands less for middle-class families--a massive tax hike; No. 2, $\1/2\ trillion more in big-government spending; No. 3, 42 percent more debt, with each American owing $73,000; No. 4, more than 600,000 lost jobs.

Here is what we won't get: We won't get balance, just more and more unbalanced tax hikes. We won't get the kind of deficit reduction our country needs, just more spending to enrich the Washington establishment at the expense of Main Street. We won't get more jobs or a better economy or sensible reforms to prevent Medicare or Social Security from going bankrupt. And we certainly won't get a balanced budget.

Not only does the Senate Democratic budget never balance--ever--but top Washington Democrats now say they simply don't care about balancing the budget anymore. They just don't care about that. Well, Americans do care. A party that once cared about hard-working American families seems to have gone off the leftmost edge of the reservation with this budget. DC Democrats' priorities are just so far removed from the actual needs of middle-class Kentuckians and Americans who continue to struggle in the Obama economy.

I appreciate that the Senate majority has finally decided to put its ideas on paper. It took 4 years--4 years--to get a budget from them, and we now know why it took so long: because their ideas are so unbalanced and so extreme, so destructive to the economy Americans want us to fix.

We can help foster the conditions necessary to make the economy healthier and create more jobs but only if Washington Democrats finally reach across the aisle to address America's real concerns in a truly balanced way. I hope that will ultimately happen because it is time to start making divided government work for the American people who elected it, and it is time to grow the economy, not the government.

Presidential Visit

Mr. President, this week President Obama will travel to two of our closest allies--Israel and Jordan. His visit will come at a moment of great importance for each of our governments.

I join in conveying a message of congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu in having formed a new government, in restating our determination to use all available means to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and in pledging to work with Israel to meet the regional challenge caused by civil strife within Syria. The fighting in Syria has produced refugee flows of at least 1 million people into Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Also of concern to Jordan, Israel, and other allies in the region is the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, especially the al-Nusra Front.

During his visit, I hope the President makes progress in working with our allies to address these threats that have developed while Bashar al-Asad remains in power and to begin the important planning to address the challenges that will come with his fall, such as how best to secure chemical weapons stockpiles.

None of these threats or challenges can be addressed with simple, easy answers, but I fully support America working with Prime Minister Netanyahu and King Abdallah to craft original strategy that serves all of our national interests.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Chair.

Yesterday I asked Senate Democrats to forward a thoughtful budget that Americans of both parties could rally around, one that controls spending, gets our economy healthy again, and advances the serious reforms necessary to make government programs more efficient, effective, and responsive to the needs of 21st-century Americans. I asked them to please shelve the tax hikes. That is because we understand the negative effect more taxes would have on our fragile economy and the millions of Americans still looking for work. It is also because we know Washington Democrats already got $600 billion in taxes they demanded earlier this year. Remember, that is in addition to the

more than $1 trillion they got in taxes from ObamaCare as well. So now it is time for the balance they promised. Washington does not need to tax more; it needs to finally figure out how to spend less.

I said that these things were the least Senate Democrats owed the American people, given their lack of responsibility in not producing a budget for the last 4 years. I am sorry to report that the plan they put forward yesterday will do none of these things. Instead of getting Washington spending under control, their proposed budget doubles down on the same wasteful stimulus spending we already know does not work. We have tried that. In fact, at a time when Americans believe that about half of every dollar they send to Washington is wasted, the Democratic budget would increase spending by nearly 62 percent. Their budget will do more to harm the economy than to help it, and it will let Medicare and Social Security drift ever closer to bankruptcy.

Then there is the Democrats' $1.5 trillion tax hike--that is trillion with a ``t.'' Let me repeat that. Any Senator who votes for that budget is voting for a $1.5 trillion tax hike--the largest tax hike in America's history. So the Senate Democratic budget is more than just disappointing, it is extreme. It is really one of the most extreme, most leftwing budgets of the modern era.

I think it says something about today's Washington Democrats. There was a time when the Democratic Party cared about fiscal responsibility, when Democrats understood the need to be concerned about the impact their policies would have on hard-working taxpayers, a time when they would have rejected this budget as a joke. But those voices of reason have been mostly chased out of today's DC Democrats. The few who remain have been sidelined and silenced throughout the budget process. Even the chairman of the Finance Committee has been pushed aside so his fellow Democrats can quickly ram through their massive tax hike.

It will be no surprise to hear that my conference opposes a leftwing manifesto masquerading as a responsible budget, and when Americans get a chance to digest their budget and the one House Republicans put forward earlier this week, they will see some very clear differences between a budget that balances and one that enshrines waste and cronyism; between a budget that helps bring the economy back to health and one that kills jobs; between a budget that measures compassion in how many people it helps and one that counts compassion in how many hard-earned tax dollars are sent to Washington for politicians to waste; between a budget that strengthens Medicare and one that would put Medicare even further out of reach for future generations. In short, they will see a bold, reformist Republican budget centered on their needs and an extreme Democratic budget centered on the needs of Washington bureaucrats and politicians.

I hope Senate Democrats think again before they choose to push such an extreme budget forward because I think they will find that Americans agree with Republicans on the most important point: We need to grow the economy, not the Government.

Madam President, more than four decades ago, millions of people watched in awe as Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the Moon. I remember that day still, and I am sure many of you do. It remains one of our country's proudest moments. But not every American was able to share in the excitement. As the senior Senator from Arizona put it, when the momentous event occurred, I had no idea it was happening. I and several hundred comrades were otherwise engaged. That is because 2 years earlier, on his 23rd bombing run over Vietnam, a missile hit Lieutenant Commander McCain's plane. He ejected, his body spiraling through the air until it hit water thousands of feet below--a lake right in the center of Hanoi.

An angry mob set upon him. They ripped off his clothes; they hit, kicked, and spat upon him. They bayoneted his ankle and his groin. The Senator was left with two broken arms and a broken leg, and he passed sort of in and out of consciousness. But he has never forgotten what came next, when Vietnamese forces gathered him up and took him to the so-called Hanoi Hilton. As the massive steel doors locked shut behind him, Senator McCain said he felt ``a deeper dread than [he has] ever felt since.''

He would remain an enemy captive for the next 5\1/2\ years, cut off from family and friends, from even the simplest joys of life, things you and I take for granted: the aromas of Thanksgiving, the far-away thrill of cheering a hometown team on to victory, the sounds that let us know the world around us is alive with action, with movement, with hope. But John McCain never lost hope even when he was locked in solitary confinement and even when he was tortured. His captors poorly cast his broken arms on purpose. They broke an arm again and hung the young captive by his lifeless limbs so they could torture him some more.

Eventually, Vietnamese officials discovered he was the son of a high- ranking Navy officer and offered him a release. He turned their offers down. It was partly because he knew an early release would be used cynically by the Communist propaganda machine but, more importantly, because he refused to skip the line ahead of his fellow POWs.

It is one thing to talk about attributes such as courage and bravery in the abstract, it is quite another to demonstrate those qualities in the most trying of circumstances. It reminds me of an old saying: ``The superior man is modest in his speech but exceeds in his actions.'' That kind of man--well, that is just who John McCain is.

His campaign motto in 2008 was ``Country First.'' For some politicians that might have been just a slogan, but for my colleague from Arizona I know it was authentically and truly him. Senator McCain still wears the scars of his long detention. He cannot raise his arms above shoulder level. One of his legs still has not fully healed. I can only imagine the weight of the memories he still must carry with him. Yet he endures--a man who has always seen his life in service, transformed from a captive of the enemy into a servant of the people.

For more than 30 years he has represented Arizona with great distinction, in both the House and Senate. He is a valued member of the Senate Republican Conference, especially when it comes to issues he cares about most passionately--defense being at the top of the list. As someone who experienced the horrors of war in the truest sense, he understands what it means to send young Americans into harm's way, and he never takes those decisions lightly.

Because he knows what it means to be in chains, he also understands what it means to be free. He was able to leave his prison behind, but for millions around the world there is no escape from suffering and despair. That is why Senator McCain has always been so outspoken about his view of the responsibility we, as a free people, have to help others secure their own liberty, whether in Pyongyang, Libya, Damascus, or--a cause close to my own heart as well--Burma.

He has been absolutely unafraid to take unpopular and sometimes solitary stands on issues when he believes in the cause. He never wavered in his support for the surge in Iraq, for instance, even when others said it would take a ``willing suspension of disbelief'' for the policy to succeed, but it did. That is why when he speaks, others listen--even when they may not agree with him.

Senator McCain provides a unique and much needed perspective in the Senate, and we are fortunate to have him as our colleague. He certainly knows I am grateful for his contributions. Let's take a moment today to mark the 40th anniversary of Senator McCain's release from captivity and to thank him for his sacrifice on behalf of all of us for enduring the unendurable, for keeping faith with his fellow POWs, and for believing in our country when others had given up hope. We honor him for his service, service that began as a plebe so many years ago, and service that continues today as a Member of the Senate.

We thank you, Senator McCain.