Floor Statements

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 President, I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

This morning the Senate will vote whether the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be able to put a director in place before concerns about its accountability to the American people are addressed. Let me stress that is all today's vote is about. Today's vote is about accountability and transparency. It is a debate about whether we think Americans need more oversight over Washington or less.

Republicans made our position clear more than 7 months ago when 44 of us signed a letter saying we will not support a nominee for this Bureau, no matter who the President is, until three commonsense conditions are met that would bring some transparency and accountability to the CFPB. That letter now has 45 signatories.

The President knew about these concerns months ago and he chose to dismiss them. Now he is suddenly making a push to confirm his nominee because it fits into some picture he wants to paint about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are here in Washington. So, once again, Democrats are using the Senate floor this week to stage a little political theater. They are setting up a vote they know will fail so they can act shocked about it later. This is what passes for leadership at the White House right now.

The President has made his choice about how to deal with this issue, and we have made ours. What we have said is that until this or any other President addresses these legitimate concerns, we cannot and will not support a nominee. Here is what we said in that letter 7 months ago: First, replace the single Director with a board of directors who would oversee the Bureau. Second, subject the Bureau to the congressional appropriations process. Third, allow other financial regulators to provide a check on CFPB rules so they don't imperil the health of financial institutions and lead to unnecessary bank failures.

Look, everybody supports strong and effective oversight, but that has to include the overseers as well. Unelected bureaucrats must be held accountable to the American people, and that is exactly what our proposal would do. So it is up to the President. Republicans have outlined our concerns and they are well known. We are not going to let the President put another unelected czar in place, unaccountable to the American people. And, frankly, his refusal to work with us only deepens our concerns. The CFPB requires reforms before any nominee can be confirmed. It is time the President takes these concerns seriously.

I look forward to hearing from the President on this issue so we can put in place the kind of oversight and accountability the American people expect in an agency of this size and this scope. Until then, I will vote against this nominee for the CFPB and any others that this or any other President sends until he works to fix the problems, until he brings transparency to this bureaucracy and accountability to the American people.

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to S. 1931.

Madam President, I rise today to extend my personal blessing this holiday season to the family of Jacob Akin of Somerset, Kentucky. This year, the town of Somerset has graciously chosen to honor the Akin family by accepting their donation of a 20-foot cherry spruce tree to be displayed in the town's Fountain Square as the county Christmas tree. More important, however, is the solemn but heart- warming story of the tree's origin, and the inspiration it brings to the people of the community.

The tree, known as ``Jacob's Tree,'' was planted in remembrance of Jacob Akin, who was tragically killed in a terrible accident on December 6, 1994. Five-year-old Jacob was playing with his older brother, Abraham, in a house when a chimney unexpectedly collapsed on top of him. Thus, the holiday season each year is especially burdensome for his family, as it serves as a constant reminder of the horrific accident that took place 17 years ago.

A year after his death, his family decided to plant a tree to honor young Jacob. Over the years, the tree has helped bring comfort and peace to the family. ``We decided to put up the tree in memory of my son,'' Jacob's mother, Rebecca Buis, says. ``I felt like as the tree grew, I could keep up with the

years and somehow see how my son might have grown. It's kind of a reminder, and it helps with the grieving process to plant something in memory of someone you love.''

Almost two decades later, Jacob's spirit remains ever-present in the magnificent 20-foot cherry spruce tree that Rebecca hopes will bring a joyful light to the community on Fountain Square. ``Over the years, it just grew and grew,'' she says. ``It's a beautiful, well-rounded tree and would make a wonderful Christmas tree.''

On December 3, Jacob's Tree was scheduled to be lit for the first time in Fountain Square in a special tree-lighting ceremony during this year's annual Christmas parade. In the spirit of the season, Jacob's family hopes that the community will come together around the tree and share in its joy. ``Christmas is a time of giving,'' Rebecca said.

The story of Jacob's Tree and the selflessness of the Akin family is truly inspirational. I would like to extend my personal blessing to Jacob's mother, Rebecca Buis, his father, David Akin, and his brother, Abraham Akin, this holiday season. And I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in wishing the family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. It is my hope that the tree brings them comfort, and that it shine especially bright in honor of young Jacob.

The Commonwealth Journal, a Somerset-area publication, recently published an article telling the story of Jacob's Tree. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, as the majority leader has noted, today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I have certainly had the opportunity, and many Members of the Senate may have as well, of visiting World War II era veterans when they come to Washington on what are called the honor flights, where veterans groups raise the funds to get these World War II vets up here to see the World War II Memorial. It is a great inspiration to see these members of the ``greatest generation'' who, indeed, saved America during World War II.

I remember in particular talking to an elderly gentleman--obviously they are all elderly at this point--who was at Pearl Harbor that day, and his describing the horror of the experience. So whether these World War II veterans served in Pearl Harbor or in Europe or in the Pacific theatre, we certainly remember their extraordinary contribution to saving this country, and today in particular.

For our parents' generation, they always remembered exactly where they were when they heard about the attack. For most of us, we remember exactly where we were when we heard about the Kennedy assassination, that moment that is seared in your memory of some extraordinary event; and, of course, for younger people, the 9/11 attack. Everybody remembers exactly where they were, and millions of Americans saw the second plane go into the second building in real time. But today we remember the attack, and we express our admiration and respect for the ``greatest generation.''

Madam President, today the President welcomes Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House, and I would like to take the opportunity to say that I hope the Prime Minister is able to convince President Obama to reverse his recent decision to delay the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The President has said repeatedly that jobs are his top priority. He says he wakes up every morning thinking about how he can create jobs. Yet here is the single greatest shovel-ready project in America ready to go, and for some reason he is suddenly not interested.

I have a question: How is it that when it comes to taxpayer- subsidized jobs that may or may not materialize, the President tells us we can't wait, we have to do it tomorrow, but when it comes to private sector jobs that are ready to go immediately, he is in no rush? It doesn't make any sense, particularly when we look at some of the President's past statements.

Here are a couple of examples. President Obama said earlier this year:

For those--just to give a background to folks, there are

these tar sands in Canada that can produce oil. There is talk

about building a pipeline into the United States to import

that oil.

This is the President. He said:

I will make this general point, which is that, first of

all, importing oil from countries that are stable and

friendly is a good thing.

That is the President, and I agree with him.

The President also said earlier this year--a statement of the obvious:

We're still going to have to import some oil.

Boy, are we.

And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations,

obviously we've got to look at neighbors like Canada and

Mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources.

That was the President earlier this year.

So the President has correctly said, in my view, that he favors importing oil from allies and neighbors. Here is a project that would enable us to do that and do a lot more of it and create thousands of jobs in the process. What is the problem?

Last Friday, Americans woke up to the news that for the 34th month in a row, the unemployment rate in this country has stood above 8 percent--a period of joblessness not seen since the Great Depression. The least they can expect from Washington is that we will not stand in the way of people who want to hire. Yet that is exactly what they are getting from this President when it comes to this pipeline. This project has been under review for years--3 years--including two exhaustive environmental evaluations. By all accounts, the State Department was ready to give it the green light by the end of this year--this month.

What happened? Well, it appears Presidential politics got in the way. The President started getting heat from the environmental activists he is counting on to stuff envelopes next year, so he conveniently put off the decision until right after next year's election.

So if this episode tells us anything, it is that the President is clearly more concerned about getting himself reelected next year than getting somebody in Montana or Kansas or South Dakota or Missouri a job today. He is so determined to keep his liberal base happy, he is even willing to go against the labor unions that, by the way, are enthusiastically in favor of beginning this project right now.

What have they had to say about it? Well, the Teamsters put it this way:

The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and

women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their

families in this difficult economic climate.

That is Jimmy Hoffa.

The AFL-CIO:

For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any

discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with

one word: JOBS.

The AFL-CIO further said:

As many as 500,000 indirect jobs via a strong economic

multiplier effect . . . without one single dollar of

government assistance.

Isn't this what we are looking for? It doesn't cost the government anything. It creates jobs immediately. This is what we are looking for.

The Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:

At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the

Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have

ripple benefits throughout the North American economy.

Laborers' International Union of North America had this to say: This is ``not just a pipeline, but is a lifeline''--not just a pipeline, but a lifeline--``for thousands of desperate working men and women.''

So what do we have here? We have a privately funded project that labor leaders are saying their members want up and running. But the President says this one can wait. Despite what he has said about importing oil from allies, despite what the labor unions say, the President wants to delay these jobs until after his election.

It is not just the unions and the Republicans who are asking for this project to move forward. Let's take a look at what some of the Democrats in Congress have said about it. There was a letter from 22 House Democrats to President Obama on October 19 of this year, and I will just read a few excerpts: ``America truly cannot afford to say no.''

Further in the letter:

Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Further in the letter:

The Department of State's Final Environmental Impact

Statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous

environmental impact statements, namely, that the Keystone XL

Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.

Further in this letter from the 22 Democrats to the President they said:

This represents a true shovel-ready project that would

directly create 20,000 high quality domestic manufacturing

and construction jobs for Americans who are desperately

seeking employment.

That is 22,000 directly working for the pipeline. I have already described the spin-off benefits--the other jobs that would be created as a result of it.

Senator Baucus--right here in the Senate--Senator Baucus said:

We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford

further delays to the Keystone XL pipeline.

Senator Tester said:

It should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down

decision.

The Montana Senators have it right. Americans can't wait for the next election. They want their jobs now--right now.

So it is my hope that Prime Minister Harper is able to convince the President to change his mind.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats stand ready to move forward on this project. We are prepared to do all within our means to get the Keystone XL Pipeline approved. There is literally no time for delay.

If the Senator will yield on that point, it is my understanding, and is it not correct, that these are not jobs sometime in the future but these are, in fact, jobs that just as soon as the President would sign off on this, this project is ready to go. We don't have to borrow any--the government doesn't have to borrow any money and they don't have to try to stimulate anything. This is a project, as I understand it, I would ask my friend from North Dakota, that is literally shovel ready and will not cost the government a penny?

In fact, I would say to my friend, the Senator from Nebraska is on the Senate floor with us right now. He could further underscore that the people of Nebraska, having now satisfied the concern they had earlier about location, seem to be ready to go.

Could I ask one further question of either or both of the Senators--and Senator Isakson as well.

I understand there is a suggestion that there may be political concerns on the President's part, and we all know that most environmental groups are very much on the Democratic side. But is it not the case that there are a number of unions in the country--most of which, certainly, do not support Republicans anywhere I know--that also feel passionately about this issue and would like to get to work? Is that not the case?

Could I ask the Senator from Nebraska a further question?

It strikes me--correct me if I am wrong--that America not going forward does not prevent this from happening, just in another country. And a good option for the Canadians might well be to just ship this product to China. Is that not correct?

Just one final observation, and then I am going to leave the colloquy to all the rest of my colleagues. But it strikes me--and I wonder if my colleagues agree--this is about as close to a no-brainer as we will ever run into in America. There is no government money.

Madam President, yesterday my friend the majority leader unveiled what he rather misleadingly referred to as a compromise on the payroll tax. I say it was misleading because we had to find out about it from reporters.

This was not a compromise. This was nothing more than another bill designed to fail so Democrats can have another week of fun and games on the Senate floor while tens of millions of working Americans go another week wondering whether they are going to see a smaller paycheck at the end of the year.

I have said I support this extension. I don't think working Americans should

have to suffer any more than they already are for the President's failure to turn this jobs crisis around. Unfortunately, the majority leader has yet to introduce legislation that can actually pass the Senate or the House. One would think if that is one of the President's top priorities, then the Democratic leader of the Senate would put together a proposal that is designed to actually pass. But we haven't seen it yet. We all know what a successful bill would look like. So I hope the majority leader comes forward with a real proposal soon because time is running out. It makes absolutely no sense at a moment when 14 million Americans are looking for jobs to raise taxes on the very people we are counting on to create them. That is why the Senate rejected the idea last week on a bipartisan basis.

Look, the Democrats know as well as we do that this is a terrible idea. They have seen the same letters I have. The National Association of Manufacturers says this tax hike would seriously impair the ability of their members to put unemployed Americans back to work. The Democrats know as well as I do that four out of five of those who would be hit by this are business owners, people who create jobs. The only reason--the only reason--we even went through this exercise is because it obviously polls well.

So this is what Washington has been reduced to: a President and a Senate who would rather spend their time doing cheap political theater than giving people the certainty they want. What we need to do is to step back and realize that the only reason we are talking about a one- shot stimulus measure nearly 3 years into this Presidency is because of the President's failure to turn this jobs crisis around. We need to get beyond the temporary fixes and start talking about fundamental tax reform that puts the American worker in charge of this recovery, not Washington.

But for now, it is perfectly clear that the path to an accomplishment on this issue does not run through tax hikes. Yesterday, the President warned Congress to keep its word to the American people and ``don't raise taxes on them now.'' I wish to remind my colleagues and the President that the Republican plan is the only plan that meets the President's standard. The President just warned us: Don't raise taxes on the American people. The proposal we offer is the only one that meets that standard.

If our friends are serious about passing this extension of the payroll tax cut, they have a choice: We can have an accomplishment or we can have additional partisan show votes.

Madam President, later this week the Senate will vote on whether the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should move forward with a director before addressing concerns that have been raised about the bureau's lack of transparency or accountability to the American people.

I understand through press reports that the President plans to make a big push for this nominee to the CFPB. Let me tell my colleagues something the President hasn't done when it comes to this position: In the 7 months since 44 Republicans sent the President a letter outlining some very serious and very reasonable concerns about it, he hasn't done a thing to address these concerns--not one thing. If he picked up the phone to talk these issues over with anybody in our conference, I haven't heard about it. If he has put some thought into how he could ensure the perfectly legitimate concerns we raised in that letter are addressed, he hasn't let us in on the game plan.

Here is what we asked for in that letter, which has now been signed by 45 Republican Senators--not 44, 45: All we asked for before we vote to confirm anybody to run the CFPB--regardless of their party affiliation, regardless of who the President is--are three clear, simple, commonsense reforms that would make sure this new agency is accountable to the American people.

No. 1, replace the single director with a board of directors that would oversee the bureau. Under the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank bill, the Director of the CFPB, by design, is set to lead one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. What we are saying is no single person who is unaccountable to the American people should have that much power. We are asking for the same structure as the SEC, the CFTC, the FDIC, the FTC, the NLRB, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission--the same structure we use anytime we give unelected bureaucrats new powers that need to be checked to protect against abuse.

No. 2, subject the bureau to the congressional appropriations process. Subject this new CFPB to the congressional appropriations process. Currently, the CFPB is housed at the Federal Reserve and funded through a percentage of their annual budget, giving it a funding stream that is completely unique in government, entirely without a check from the American people and making it one of the least transparent agencies in Washington. If one likes the level of accountability over at the Fed, one will love the CFPB.

A journalist who wanted some information about the Fed's lending practices recently had to sue to find it out. This is information not even Congress could have gotten on its own.

If my colleagues ask me, the American people should be getting more transparency out of this administration, not less. We don't need any more unelected, unaccountable czars in Washington.

No. 3, we asked for a safety and soundness check for the prudential financial regulators who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that we are not inadvertently causing bank failures through excessive regulations.

Our proposal would do nothing more than give congressional committees a proper level of oversight and accountability over this new bureau and ensure that its decisions were subject to the checks and balances that were meant to be inherent in our system--something we owe the American people.

Everybody supports strong and effective consumer protection, but the CFPB, in its current form, cannot stand. In its current form, the CFPB could easily be used for political purposes at the expense of access to credit, job creation, economic growth, and financial stability.

What is needed is transparency and accountability. That is all we have asked for, and the President has done nothing to address these concerns. Instead, he has ignored these perfectly legitimate concerns, and now he is suddenly making a push to confirm his nominee because it fits into some picture he wants to paint about who the good guys and the bad guys are in Washington.

So once again he has used the Senate floor this week to stage a little political theater. He is setting up a vote he knows will fail so he can show up afterward and say he is shocked. This is what passes for leadership right now in the White House, and it is truly unfortunate.

Look, we all believe Americans need access to financial products that are not rigged against them. We just think nobody should be above oversight, including the overseers. We do not think a bureau designed to watch Wall Street should have the ability to squeeze out hiring on Main Street. Frankly, the President's refusal to even consider our calls for oversight and transparency only serve to deepen our concerns about this agency. So, once again, we call on the President to take these concerns seriously and work with us on achieving something positive.

The fact is the CFPB needs a drastic overhaul before any nominee can be confirmed. This will not come as a surprise to anybody at the White House, and our doors remain open.

Now, Madam President, on yet another topic--there are a number of things going on this week--today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I will be opposing this nominee, and I would like to explain why.

First and foremost is Ms. Halligan's record of advocacy for an activist view of the judiciary and a legal career that leads any reasonable person to conclude that she would bring that activism right on to the court. As I have said many times before, the proper role

of a judge is that of an impartial arbiter who gives everybody a fair shake under the law as it exists. The role of a judge in our system, in other words, is to determine what the law says not what they or anybody else wants it to say. Yet looking over Ms. Halligan's record, it is pretty clear she does not share that view.

In Ms. Halligan's view, the courts are not so much a forum for the evenhanded application of the law as a place where a judge can work out his or her own idea of what society should look like. As she herself once put it: The courts are a means to achieve ``social progress,'' with judges presumably writing the script.

Well, my own view is that if the American people want to change the law, then they have elected representatives to do that, and these elected representatives are accountable to them. This also happens to be how the Founders intended it, and it is what the American people expect of their judges: to be fair, impartial arbiters. But that is not what they would get from a Judge Halligan.

So how do we know this? Well, it is true that like many of this President's other judicial nominees, Ms. Halligan repudiated President Obama's own off-stated ``empathy standard'' for choosing judges and disclaimed an activist bent in her confirmation hearings. But her record belies this now familiar confirmation conversion.

Let's take a quick look at her record to see what it does suggest about the kind of judge she would be.

On the second amendment: As solicitor general of New York, Ms. Halligan advanced the dubious legal theory that those who make firearms should be liable for third parties who misuse them criminally. The State court in New York rejected the theory, noting it had never recognized such a novel claim. Moreover, the court called what Ms. Halligan wanted it to do to manufacturers of a legal product ``legally inappropriate.''

So let me say again, the New York Appellate Court termed Ms. Halligan's activist and novel legal theory to be ``legally inappropriate.'' The Congress passed legislation on a wide bipartisan basis to stop these sorts of lawsuits because they were an abuse of the legal process. Undeterred, Ms. Halligan then chose to file an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in another frivolous case against firearms manufacturers. Not surprisingly, she lost that case too.

What about her views on enemy combatants?

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President has the legal authority to detain as enemy combatants individuals who are associated with al-Qaida. Yet despite this ruling, Ms. Halligan filed an amicus brief years later--years after that-- arguing that the President did not possess this legal authority.

On abortion: Ms. Halligan filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that pro-life protesters--protesters--had engaged in ``extortion'' within the meaning of Federal law. The Supreme Court roundly rejected this theory 8 to 1.

On immigration: Ms. Halligan chose to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the National Labor Relations Board should have the legal authority to grant backpay to illegal aliens even though Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from working in the United States in the first place. Fortunately, the Court sided with the law and disagreed with Ms. Halligan on that legal theory too.

The point is that even in cases where the law is perfectly clear or the courts have already spoken, including the Supreme Court, Ms. Halligan chose to get involved anyway, using arguments that had already been rejected either by the courts, the legislature or, in the case of frivolous claims against gun manufacturers, by both. In other words, Ms. Halligan has time and time again sought to push her own views over and above those of the courts or those of the people as reflected in the law.

Ms. Halligan's record strongly suggests that she would not view a seat on the U.S. appeals court as an opportunity to evenhandedly adjudicate disputes between parties based on the law but instead as an opportunity to put her thumb on the scale in favor of whatever individual or group cause in which she happens to believe.

So, Madam President, we should not be putting these kinds of activists on the bench. I have nothing against the nominee personally. I just believe, as I think most Americans do, that we should be putting people on the bench who are committed to an evenhanded interpretation of the law so everyone who walks into a courtroom knows he or she will have a fair shake. In my view, Ms. Halligan is not such a nominee. On the contrary, based on her record and her past statements, I think she would use the court to put her activist judicial philosophy into practice, and for that reason alone she should not be confirmed. So I will be voting against cloture on this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand today to pay tribute to a fine and blessed couple, Mr. and Mrs. Earl and Opal Williams of Laurel County, KY.

Earl Williams and Opal Morgan grew up less than 20 miles apart Earl attended Bush High School located east of London, KY, and Opal attended Hazel Green High School west of London--yet their paths never crossed at the time.

However, when Earl was 24 years old he set out for Kinzua, OR, some 2,500 miles away where he began working for the Kinzua Pine Mills Company. ``In those days you could not get any work locally, you had to leave home and usually go a long ways to find work,'' Earl recalls.

As fate would have it, a short time later Earl and Opal met after Opal traveled to Kinzua to visit her father, who was also employed by the Kinzua Pine Mills Company. Eventually, Opal took a job in a local factory and decided to stay in Kinzua. ``Our courtship was about normal,'' Opal says. ``We dated for about a year and got married December 22, 1949, in Goldendale, Washington.''

In December of 1954, Earl and Opal returned home to Laurel County, KY, after spending 2 years in Indianapolis, IN. Earl began a career with Water

Softener Rental, a company Earl bought into and then later purchased outright from his partners, while Opal stayed busy making a wonderful home in the house the couple built on the ``Old Williams' Farm,'' a house Earl is especially proud of. ``This farm belonged to the Williams family during the Civil War,'' he boasts.

Earl and Opal were married for 7 years before they were blessed with four children, sons David, Joe, and Phillip, and daughter Amber. The couple is not shy about explaining that their children have been the highlight of their lives. ``We enjoyed our boys,'' the couple says, ``but we were ready for a girl when Amber came along.''

These days Earl and Opal stay busy tending to their three grandchildren and one great-grandson several days a week, and Earl still drops by the office daily to ``check on'' his sons. The couple, who have been married for over 61 years, claim that their faith and dedication to their church, Lick Fork Community Missionary Baptist, has played a major role in the success of their lives and marriage over the years--the two have been members of the church for over 50 years. ``It has been a good life,'' Opal says. ``We got married 61 years ago to stay married. We never thought of divorce like young couples do today.''

Mr. President, Earl and Opal Williams have shared an incredible journey together, and their faith in each other, their family, and their church has given them a wonderful story to share. Earl and Opal's life together serves as an inspiration to the people of Kentucky, and I wish them many years of further happiness. The Laurel County-area publication the Sentinel Echo recently published an article to share the Williams' story with the rest of our great Commonwealth. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday, Republicans, led by Senator Heller, introduced what we believe is a much smarter approach to extending the temporary payroll tax cut than the one proposed by Democrats involving permanent tax hikes on job creators.

Similar to Democrats, we think struggling American workers should continue to get this temporary relief for another year. There is no reason folks should suffer even more than they already are from the President's failure to turn this jobs crisis around. But there is also no reason we should pay for that relief by raising taxes on the very employers we are counting on to help jolt this economy back to life. We would not be helping anybody by making it less likely that small businesses actually start hiring people again. Senator Heller's proposal would achieve the same result, the same relief, without a gratuitous hit on job creators. Even better, our plan protects Social Security and reduces the Federal deficit by more than $111 billion.

How do we do it? Consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, our payroll tax plan would institute a 3-year pay freeze on Federal civilian employees, including Members of Congress. It would also reduce the Federal workforce gradually by 10 percent, not by firing anybody but by only hiring one replacement for every three Federal employees who leave Federal service until a 10-percent reduction that the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended is reached. So over this period, only hire one worker for every three who leave until it achieved a 10-percent reduction in the Federal workforce. This is a recommendation in the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

Our bill would also save money by means testing Medicare benefits for millionaires and billionaires. What does that mean? One of the things the economic downturn of the past few years has revealed is that a lot of people out there are getting a pretty good deal from the government at every level, all on the taxpayers' dime. Let me give you an example. Yesterday, a CBS affiliate in Philadelphia reported that a former Philadelphia school superintendent who got a nearly $1 million buyout in August is now putting in for unemployment benefits. The lady was shown the door, given $905,000 not to finish her 5-year contract with the school district, and on top of that she now wants the taxpayers to subsidize her unemployment benefits to the tune of about $30,000 a year. Our proposal helps minimize this kind of thing.

What we are saying is, anybody who makes more than $1 million a year should not get an unemployment check on top of it, paid for with tax dollars of folks struggling just to make ends meet. No more unemployment checks or food stamps for millionaires. No more unemployment checks or food stamps for millionaires. We don't think these folks would mind having to pay the full freight on their Medicare premiums either. Millions of seniors need help covering their monthly Medicare premiums; Warren Buffett is not one of them.

Here is another way we think folks such as Warren Buffett can offset the relief we are giving working Americans through our proposal of a temporary extension of payroll tax cuts, which would also incorporate legislation from Senator Thune, that would allow people who want to voluntarily help pay down the Federal debt to do so on their tax return. There would actually be a new line right on Warren Buffett's tax returns enabling him or anybody else, for that matter, to give as much as they want. That way those who want to go that route can feel they are contributing in a way they want to contribute, and small business owners who want to help our economic and fiscal situation by growing their businesses and creating jobs can do that too without Washington dictating one way or the other.

This is the kind of balanced plan Americans are looking for. It is focused on helping middle-class Americans without asking them to fund benefits for the wealthiest among us, and it does so without hamstringing the economy--as the Democrats would--with a permanent tax on job creators. Bear in mind what they are doing here is ``paying for a temporary payroll tax relief with a permanent tax increase on job creators.'' It also helps rein in the bureaucracy in Washington.

Millions of Americans have had to go without or to live with less over the past few years. Yet all they see here is that Washington just keeps getting bigger and bigger and richer. It is about time Washington took the hit for a change. We think this is a plan that those who are fed up with Washington and Wall Street can embrace but, as I have said before, we are never going to turn this economy around as long as we are focused on these temporary measures.

Yesterday, I outlined our vision for a tax-reform plan that restores basic fairness, helps put businesses on a level playing field, and puts our tax rates in line with our competitors overseas. That is the kind of thing that will get this economy charging again and we will continue to press for it. Meanwhile, we will also continue to point out what this administration is doing to prevent job creation right now.

Yesterday, Republicans drew attention to one of the greatest fumbles of this administration yet, and this is astonishing. I don't know how many Americans are familiar with the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, but this is an issue every single American is soon going to learn a lot about. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the single largest shovel-ready project in our entire country--the single largest shovel- ready project in our entire country. It would transport oil from Canada--our friendly neighbor to the north--to the gulf coast. It is privately funded, so it would not cost the taxpayer a dime, and we are told that its approval would lead to the creation of 20,000 jobs, not some other time but immediately, right now.

This project is enormous. It is a huge job creator, and it is ready to go. Labor unions love this project. Folks in the Heartland love this project. The Chamber of Commerce loves this project. But here is the problem: President Obama is getting heat from his base over this project, especially from the very young and very liberal voters he will need knocking on doors before November. So the State Department now says they are going to delay the approval--even though previously they were seemingly ready to approve it after a 3-year review that has already occurred, including two exhaustive environmental evaluations.

Here is the bottom line. The President has said time and time again that his top priority is jobs. Yet here we have the single largest shovel-ready project in the country ready to go, and he is delaying its approval--interestingly enough--until after the election next year. He is saying he doesn't care so much about jobs in States such as Nebraska--that he doesn't think he will carry next year--so he can keep the enthusiasm up in States he hopes to carry. So I think it is pretty clear the President cares less about this particular boon for job creation than his own job preservation, and it is wrong.

There is no reason whatsoever to delay this project and these jobs by another day. As the President recently put it, we have to decide what our priorities are. We have to ask ourselves what is not just best for me but what is best for us. What is the best way to grow the economy and create jobs? It was President Obama who said that. That is why Republicans are proposing legislation today that would require the President either to approve this massive job-creating project within 60 days or to explain clearly why he doesn't think it is in the national interest to do so. We will give the President 60 days--not after next year's election but 60 days--to decide why this should not be approved and explain it to us. We think the people who want to start hiring deserve action or a straightforward explanation from the President himself as to why he opposes it.

Get this pipeline going right now or get out of the way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader and congratulate the Senator from New Jersey on this milestone in his long and very distinguished career here in the Senate.

(Applause.)

Madam President, I know my good friend the majority leader may have been a little busy during the last 24 hours. Maybe he missed the news. Reuters said:

U.S. Senate Republicans Back Payroll Tax Cut Extension.

The Wall Street Journal says:

GOP Set to Back Payroll Tax Cut.

IBD says:

GOP Open to Payroll Tax Cut.

U.S. News:

Mitch McConnell Says Congress Will Likely Extend Tax Cut

One More Year.

CBS says:

GOP working on alternative proposal for payroll tax cut

extension.

Washington Post:

``Majority'' of Republicans likely to back payroll tax cut

extension.

And Fox News:

Republicans Back Payroll Tax Cut Extension.

Madam President, this is not an argument about whether we ought to extend the payroll tax cut that was enacted last year for 1 year. The issue is how do you pay for that, and we have differences of opinion about that.

This week, as we all know, the Senate is debating the extension of a temporary payroll tax cut that the two parties agreed to last year to help those struggling in a bad economy. But before getting into any detail about the various proposals that are being considered for extending this temporary tax cut, I think it is important to establish a couple of things right here at the outset.

First, the debate we are having this week is not about whether to extend this temporary relief for millions of working Americans out there who are struggling as a result of the ongoing jobs crisis; it is about whether we should help those who are struggling in a bad economy by punishing the private sector businesses the American people are counting on to help turn this economy around.

The President and Democrats here in Congress are saying we ought to recoup the revenue we will not get from one group of taxpayers by socking it to another group, a significant number of whom happen to be employers. What this really means is that one way or another they want the money coming back to Washington so that the President and his allies in Congress can divvy it up how they want, protecting and aiding the politically favored few. This really sums up the whole story of this President and the economic policies he has promoted over the past few years--send your money to Washington so the President and his allies in Congress can spend it their way, on things such as turtle tunnels or bailing out politically connected investors of failing solar companies.

The Democrats can say they just want some people to pay a little bit more to cover this or that dubious proposal, but what they do not tell you is that 80 percent of the people they want to tax are business owners--in other words, the very people we are counting on to create the jobs we need in this country. Think about that. The Democrats' response to the jobs crisis we are in right now is to raise taxes on those who create the jobs. This is not just counterproductive, it is absolutely absurd.

That brings me to my second point, which is this: The only reason we are talking about extending a temporary cut in the payroll tax right now, the only reason we are even talking about extending unemployment insurance right now is because President Obama's economic policies have failed working Americans.

Democrats and liberal pundits are fond of saying that Republicans are rooting against the economy, but it is easy to refute that one. If Republicans wanted the economy to stall, we would just stand on the side lines and wave through everything the President and his Democratic allies in Congress propose. That is what the Democrats did for the first 2 years of the President's term, and now we are living with the results. Unemployment is still stuck at around 9 percent, 14 million Americans are looking for work and can't find it, millions more are underemployed or have given up on finding a job altogether, and here we are, 3 years into this Presidency, still talking about temporary stimulus measures.

Republicans will put aside their misgivings and support this extension not because we believe, as the President does, that another short-term stimulus will turn this economy around but because we know it will give some relief to struggling workers out there who continue to need it nearly 3 years into this Presidency. Americans should not have to suffer any more than they already are for the Democrats' failed economic policies.

Republicans reject the idea that the way to help people is for the government to write them a check every once in a while or adjust their pay stub at a time of our choosing. We think it is time to get past the idea that government should be the sole arbiter of people's futures and livelihoods. We need to get government out of the business of picking winners and losers, and that is why Republicans think the real answer is broad-based tax reform that clears out the deductions and the loopholes and the special carve-outs for those who are rich enough or politically connected enough to benefit from it.

If one is a small business owner, we don't think they should have to have an army of tax lawyers on staff to figure out how to keep their business profitable and their employees on the payroll. If one is an individual, they should not have to hire an accountant to keep from getting ripped off by the IRS. We think Americans are ready for tax reform that makes the system fair for everybody, that levels the playing field so people in small businesses can compete without having to beg for favors or beg for loopholes. We are going to keep pressing for it, and part of that is looking beyond these temporary stimulus measures.

Let's be very clear about this. The Democrats' quick-fix approach has failed. Nearly 3 years have passed since Democrats passed the mother of all stimulus bills, and we have 1.3 million fewer jobs in this country than we had when the President signed it into law. Yet they are still at it. Republicans in the House have passed an avalanche of legislation aimed at liberating the private sector and getting the economy growing again. It all dies at the Senate door. Democrats are not interested. With Democrats in control of two-thirds of the government in Washington, all we get is more temporary stimulus and calls to raise taxes on the very people we are counting on to jolt this economy back to life. That is why we are standing here 3 years into this administration still talking about temporary stimulus measures paid for by permanent tax hikes--temporary stimulus measures paid for by permanent tax hikes.

Democrats don't seem interested in doing anything that will lead to economic growth. They are stuck on stimulus. They are stuck on government. They are stuck on economic policies that have already failed. So we are not arguing against extending the payroll tax cut. We just think it should not be punishing job creators to pay for it. We think that if this kind of temporary relief engineered at some lawmakers' whim is the sum and substance of Democrats' plan for getting this economy going again, we are in trouble.

The American people don't want a temporary allowance from Democrats in Washington. They want us to get out of the way, to lift the burdens to growth so they can get this economy going. That is why Republicans are proposing a very different approach to paying for this extension. We can maintain this tax relief without raising taxes on job creators. If past experience shows us anything, it is that Washington will only spend every dime it gets and then some anyway, when we need to find a solution that doesn't give more power to Washington. We will never get this economy going or help people create the wealth and jobs America needs if we continue to allow Washington to dictate all the rules of the game when it comes to our economy. At the end of the day, the real question in this debate isn't whether lawmakers in Washington should or should not extend some temporary stimulus but whether the American people should continue to allow Washington to have so much power over their lives. That is what this debate is about.

The last time my good friend the majority leader and I had a discussion on the floor, he reminded everyone he would get the last word. Of course, since he has prior recognition to me, he can get the last word if he chooses. So I will just remind him of that at the outset. He will get the last word if he chooses to. I will not fight for the last word, but I will make this point with regard to the observation from my good friend.

We have just heard essentially the argument going into next year's election. Argument No. 1 is it could have been worse. That is an inspiring message to take to the American people. It could have been worse.

We also heard argument No. 2. The second argument goes essentially like this: After being in the administration in power for 3 years, No. 1, it is George Bush's fault. Among other causes of our current dilemma that have been cited by the President and others, in addition to the previous administration, it was a tsunami in Japan, it is the European debt crisis, of course it is the Republicans in Congress, it is those millionaires, it is those people in Wall Street. In short, it is everybody's fault but ours. That is the argument they are left with when they are going into an election year facing the American people and they have nothing else to say.

People don't think the stimulus worked. People don't like ObamaCare. They don't like Dodd-Frank. There is absolutely nothing, in terms of positive accomplishment, our good friends can cite; thus the argument: It is anybody's fault but mine.

It will be an interesting discussion going into next year, but it strikes me that our job in the Senate is not to frame campaign arguments on a weekly basis but actually try to get something done. As my friend indicated, there are things that need to be done before the end of this year: The Defense authorization bill that we will finish this week, the appropriations bills in one way or another--either a combination of them or a continuing resolution, each of them, through the end of the next fiscal year.

We have tax extenders. We have the doc fix. We have the completion, in spite of the exercise we will engage in tomorrow, with two approaches to continuing the payroll tax extension. I have already indicated the overwhelming majority of Republicans think it should be extended, and so we will have to figure out how to package that and actually accomplish something, not just come out on the floor and score political points but actually accomplish something for the American people on things such as unemployment insurance, extension of the payroll tax reduction enacted a year ago, and the doc fix. These are the kinds of things that actually have to be done. The more time we spend on the floor with these political messaging votes, the less time we actually have to do what the American people sent us to do.

So I will be working with my friend, the majority leader. I mean, we work together every day. When we get past the political speeches and the show votes, there are things that need to be done, and we will be working together to get those things accomplished before Christmas.