Floor Statements

Mr. President, later today both Houses of Congress will welcome President Obama to speak about a very serious crisis we face as a nation, namely, an economic climate that is making it impossible for millions of Americans to find the work they need to support themselves and their families.

In a two-party system such as ours, it shouldn't be surprising that there would be two very different points of view about how to solve this particular crisis. What is surprising is the President's apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed. The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result. Frankly, I can't think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another stimulus. The first stimulus didn't do it. Why would another?

This is one question the White House and a number of Democrats clearly don't want to answer. That is why some of them are out there coaching

people not to use the word ``stimulus'' when describing the President's plan. Others are accusing anybody who criticizes it of being unpatriotic or playing politics. Well, as I have said before, there is a much simpler reason to oppose the President's economic policies that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: They simply don't work. Yet, by all accounts, the President's so-called jobs plan is to try those very same policies again and then accuse anyone who doesn't support them this time around of being political or overly partisan, of not doing what is needed in this moment of crisis.

This isn't a jobs plan. It is a reelection plan. That is why Republicans have continued to press for policies, policies that empower job creators, not Washington.

According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly a third of the unemployed have been out of work for more than a year. The average length of unemployment is now greater than 40 weeks, higher than it was even during the Great Depression. As we know, the longer you are out of a job, the harder it is to find one. That means, for millions of Americans, this crisis is getting harder every day. It is getting worse and worse.

We also know this: The economic policies this President has tried have not alleviated the problem. In many ways, in fact, they have made things worse. Gas prices are up. The national debt is up. Health insurance premiums are up. Home values in most places continue to fall. And, 2\1/2\ years after the President's signature jobs bill was signed into law, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs. So I would say Americans have 1.7 million reasons to oppose another stimulus. That is why many of us have been calling on the President to propose something entirely different tonight--not because of politics but because the kind of policies he has proposed in the past haven't worked. The problem here isn't politics. The problem is the policy. It is time the President start thinking less about how to describe his policies differently and more time thinking about devising new policies. And he might start by working with Congress instead of writing in secret, without any consultation with Republicans, a plan that the White House is calling bipartisan.

With 14 million Americans out of work, job creation should be a no- politics zone. Republicans stand ready to act on policies that get the private sector moving again. What we are reluctant to do, however, is to allow the President to put us deeper in debt to finance a collection of short-term fixes or shots in the arm that might move the needle today but which deny America's job creators the things they need to solve this crisis--predictability, stability, fewer government burdens, and less redtape. Because while this crisis may have persisted for far too long and caused far too much hardship, one thing we do have right now is the benefit of hindsight. We know what doesn't work.

So tonight the President should take a different approach. He should acknowledge the failures of an economic agenda that centers on government and spending and debt, and work across the aisle on a plan that puts people and businesses at the forefront of job creation.

If the American people are going to have control over their own destiny, they need to have more control over their economy. That means shifting the center of gravity away from Washington and toward those who create jobs. It means putting an end to the regulatory overreach that is holding job creators back. It means being as bold about liberating job creators as the administration has been about shackling them. It means reforming an outdated Tax Code and getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. It means lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is currently the second highest in the world. And it means leveling the playing field with our competitors overseas by approving free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that have been languishing on the President's desk literally for years.

Contrary to the President's claims, this economic approach isn't aimed at pleasing any one party or constituency. It is aimed at giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work Washington has not been able to do on its own, despite its best efforts over the past few years.

The President is free to blame his political adversaries, his predecessor, or even natural disasters for America's economic challenges. Tonight, he may blame any future challenges on those who choose not to rubberstamp his latest proposals. But it should be noted that this is precisely what Democratic majorities did during the President's first 2 years in office, and look where that got us. But here is the bottom line: By the President's own standards, his jobs agenda has been a failure, and we can't afford to make the same mistake twice.

After the President's speech tonight calling for more stimulus spending, the Senate will vote on his request for an additional $500 billion increase in the debt limit, so Senators will have an opportunity to vote for or against this type of approach right away.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to join those who have spoken or intend to speak about our former colleague Mark Hatfield.

Most people remember Mark as one of our party's most liberal members--as a Republican who called himself a liberal even after Democrats started avoiding the term.

I think he would like to have been remembered as someone who tried to bring people together or as he put it, as a reconciler.

He was, as we all know, a man of deep principle and compassion. He was also a gifted politician, to this day the longest serving Senator in Oregon history.

Mark was also deeply influenced by his experiences.

It is said his deep aversion to war derived, in part, from his experience as one of the first American servicemen to enter Hiroshima after the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Those of us who knew Mark as a colleague are glad to have had the chance to know him and serve with him. And I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt condolences to Antoinette and the Hatfield children, as well as Mark's many grandchildren. America, and the Senate family, have lost a good man.

Mr. President, it is good to see my friend the majority leader. I agree with him that I think we can make some significant progress in the next few weeks on some issues on which both sides have largely agreed. However, there are other things where clearly there remains differences among us.

As lawmakers return to Washington this week, every one of us, I am sure, is aware of the fact that many Americans are not only frustrated with the state of our economy but also with the state of their government. I don't think any one of us is under any illusion that the American people were particularly eager to see us come back. And who could blame them? After 2\1/2\ years of being told that Washington had the answer to everything from the high cost of health care to high unemployment, people have every reason to be skeptical. For more than 2\1/2\ years under the administration, Americans have been hearing about the wonders government spending would do for our economy and about the dangerous consequences of failing to apply bold solutions to big problems. And what has it gotten them? As Washington has grown bigger and bigger, Americans have continued to lose jobs. The national debt has exploded literally out of sight. And for the first time in our history, America's once pristine credit rating has been downgraded by a major rating agency. The average length of unemployment recently surpassed 40 weeks for the first time ever, and just last week we learned that in the month of August not a single new job was created in this country--not one. But here is the bottom line. In the 2\1/2\ years since President Obama signed his signature jobs bill--the so-called stimulus--there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in our country.

Statistics such as these help us to understand the dimensions of the economic challenges so many Americans continue to face. But most people don't need to read the morning papers or wait for the monthly jobs report to know they are struggling. And no amount of speeches, however carefully crafted to appeal to the anxieties of the moment, will convince them that some politician here in Washington, from the President on down, has the solution. The truth is, President Obama did more for jobs last week by reversing himself on a single government- imposed regulation than he has done in all the speeches he has given put together.

At this point, I think most people have safely concluded that the problem with our economy isn't that Washington is doing too little but that Washington is doing too much already. That is why in the coming weeks and months many of us will continue to press for an entirely new approach, one that puts individuals and businesses at the center of our recovery instead of Washington, one that clears away the redtape and the regulatory overreach, one that lifts the cloud of uncertainty that has been holding job creators back and enables the American people to move our economy in the direction they want instead of having it dictated to them from above by the President.

It is time for an approach that is based on the simple principle that if the American people are going to have control of their own destiny, they need to have more control of their economy. They have seen where consolidating every economic decision in Washington has gotten us. They see that folks in Washington seem to be doing just fine. Millions of Americans may have lost their homes over the past few years, millions more may owe more on their homes than those homes are worth, but home values here in Washington are going up--going up. Countless Americans outside of Washington may have seen their savings dry up or have been forced to decide between making a car repair or a tuition payment, but you would never know that here. As countless economic tragedies unfolded in homes across the country over the past few years, the Washington metropolitan area was working on a new distinction: the highest median income in America--the highest median income in America right here in Washington. I assure you, these folks aren't getting rich off of farming. While most of the rest of the country continues to struggle, Washington is booming. And that is not the kind of change people voted for 3 years ago.

So before we get into the details about what many of us believe will succeed in reigniting the economy outside of Washington, we need to be clear about what hasn't because while I have no doubt that the President will propose many things on Thursday night that when looked at individually sound pretty good or that he will call them all bipartisan, I am equally certain that, taken as a whole, they will represent more of the same failed approach that has only made things worse over the past few years and resulted in fewer jobs than when we started.

Over the weekend, the President tested a few of the lines I expect we will hear on Thursday. His central message, evidently, is that anyone who doesn't rubberstamp his economic agenda is putting politics above country.

Well, with all due respect, Mr. President, there is a much simpler reason for opposing your economic proposals that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and it is this: They don't work.

We can trace these failures to the President's very first days in office. One of the first things he did upon assuming office was to direct Congress to send him the stimulus. Here was one of the single most expensive pieces of legislation Congress has ever approved. The interest payments alone were projected to cost an average of $100 million a day. This was the President's way of jump-starting an agenda that, in his words, ``began with jobs.'' The agenda, he said, began with jobs, and he knew some of us were skeptical it would work. That is why shortly after it became law he asked if he could come up to Capitol Hill and use his very first speech to a joint session of Congress to explain exactly what it would achieve. Here is what the President told us. The stimulus, he said, would save or create 3.5 million jobs--3.5 million jobs, he said--and ultimately that is how he will measure its success, on whether it created jobs. To reassure those of us who thought government couldn't be counted on to spend this kind of money wisely, he insisted that anyone who received it would be held strictly accountable.

Then he said something some people may have forgotten: He said the stimulus was just a first step. The primary purpose of the stimulus, he said, was to help the economy in the short term. But the only way to fully restore America's economic strength, he told us then, was through a 10-year budget that would reach into all areas of the economy that the stimulus did not.

Just like the stimulus, the unifying theme of the President's budget was more government. And once again, he felt in selling it that he needed to speak to the skeptics first. Here is what he said about that. The goal of the budget, he said, wasn't to replace private enterprise but to catalyze it, not to stifle business but to create the conditions for entrepreneurs and businesses to adapt and thrive. Well, how did that work out? As government continued to grow, the economy sputtered, and it is still sputtering. Yet the President wants to know why the people are

resistant to his economic proposals. He says they must be motivated by politics.

A stimulus bill aimed at creating jobs was followed by a period where we lost 1.7 million jobs. The inspector general who was appointed to oversee distribution of the stimulus funds reports that he received more than 7,000 complaints of wrongdoing. More than 1,500 of those complaints have triggered investigations. Just last week, one of the companies the President personally vouched for as a shining example of how stimulus dollars would work announced it was laying off more than 1,000 workers and filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. And it wasn't the first. But still, according to the President, anyone who opposes this agenda is playing partisan games.

Well, the President can attempt to blame our economic problems all he wants on his political adversaries or his predecessors or natural disasters. But at the end of the day, he is the one, as he himself said, who is responsible for what happens on his watch, and that includes the epic failure of a bill he himself touted as the key to our recovery.

By any measure, including his own, the stimulus and the economic principles it was built on have been a failure, and that is the reason so many people are skeptical of the President's economic proposals. They don't work as advertised. Now, the President, of course, doesn't want to acknowledge it, and I understand that. It is hard to admit when you have been wrong. But in other, more subtle ways, the administration has acknowledged the fundamental flaws in its approach to the economy. The only reason the President agreed to keep taxes from going up last December, for instance, was that he knew it would lead to even more job loss. The only problem with this proposal and others like it, of course, is they are temporary, which only perpetuates the uncertainty that has kept so many businesses, large and small, from making investments in new products and new workers over the past few years. Businesses actually do not want shots in the arm or quick fixes. They want to know what the landscape will look like a few years down the road. And, until now, that is not something the President has been willing to do. He has not been able to bring himself to let go of government's grip--which brings me back to a different approach which some of us have been proposing for some time now, and which the White House continues to resist. Simply put, we think Washington should take a little break from the massive spending programs the President likes to refer to as ``bold'' solutions. Quite frankly, we are not very good at them, and anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying very much attention to Washington over the past few years.

No one believes government doesn't have a role to play. Of course it does. But it is not the center of the universe and it should stop pretending to be the center of the universe. What we need is a shift in thinking when it comes to thinking about how government's role in the economy should work. We need to shift the center of gravity away from Washington and back to the innovators and entrepreneurs, the engineers and the shop floor managers who will be at the heart of our recovery. We need to be serious about it.

The President is forever eager to embrace big proposals whenever government is at the helm, but when it comes to doing the kinds of things job creators want, he is suddenly quite timid. He will agree to a tax cut as long as it is temporary. He will agree to reverse a job- killing regulation, but only if he knows he has gotten dozens of other doozies in the pipeline right behind it. We need to do a lot better than that. We need the President to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling them. I mean, you do not lift a single regulation and suddenly claim to be Margaret Thatcher. The Environmental Protection Agency alone has dozens of other new rules in progress. The Labor Department has dozens of rules of its own in progress. The administration's proposed utility standards would increase costs for every family and business in America. One of these new standards, for boiler emissions, would endanger literally tens of thousands of jobs. New rules for cement plants would strike a blow right at the heart of our manufacturing and building sectors. New rules regulating coal ash would endanger thousands of jobs.

Then there is the ObamaCare bill, which has to be counted as one of the most far-reaching and comprehensive single sources of government regulation ever devised. Though this bill has still not yet taken effect, the myriad of rules that will be imposed on every American have been written as we speak, and so far those regulations already run to nearly 10,000 pages.

Republicans will spend the next weeks and months arguing in favor of a robust legislative agenda aimed at blocking or repealing some of the most pernicious rules and regulations so business can breathe again and begin to hire, and the American worker, not Washington, can help this economy get moving again.

Putting the American people back in charge of our economy also means reforming the Tax Code and that is why, over the next weeks and months, Republicans will continue to make the case that Washington should get out of the business of picking winners and losers. We should strive to become more competitive by lowering the tax rate on American job creators that right now ranks as the second highest in the developed world, and we should level the playing field with America's competitors overseas by approving the three free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that have been languishing on the President's desk for nearly 3 years. The President himself acknowledges that these trade pacts will help create tens of thousands of jobs right here at home by vastly expanding the market for U.S. goods. He should send them to Congress today so we can finally ratify them.

Another thing we can do is reform the budget process. There is no good reason that nearly three-fourths of government spending is on auto pilot and that last year's spending levels should automatically carry over into the next, regardless of whether they are effective or affordable.

We need to continue to make the case for a balanced budget amendment. Budget reform is an essential part of getting Washington to live within its means. It needs to be a top priority.

None of these ideas are groundbreaking and they certainly should not be controversial. They are just common sense. Most importantly, they are rooted in a respect for the independence, the wisdom, and the power, as another U.S. President once put it, ``of a free people and the efficiency of free institutions.''

The President who spoke those words did so during another period of sluggish growth and high unemployment and the solution he proposed, not only for the sake of the domestic economy but also for the preservation of America's influence in the wider world, focused not unlike the one I have outlined here on alleviating the heavy burdens government had imposed on both individuals and businesses.

This is what he further said: ``The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and businesses is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by [the] . . . tax system.''

``Such an approach,'' he continued, ``would lead to a new interest in taking risks, increasing productivity, and the creation of new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth.'' I would only add that the same approach President Kennedy outlined with these words in 1962 is worth trying again today.

We have tried President Obama's approach. It has failed. It is time for something new. The new approach we are suggesting is not aimed at pleasing any party or constituency. It is aimed at nothing more than giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work Washington has not been able to do on its own. Once we do that, once we come together and agree to turn the keys of this economy back to the American men and women who actually drive it, I have no doubt that much of the acrimony that has marked our dealings here over the past several months will fade away.

Even more importantly, though, we will have done something good for the country and for the millions of Americans who are looking for Washington

not so much to do more but for the first time in a long time to do less so they can finally do what it takes to get this economy moving again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. We did attach special importance to the deadlines for the committee to vote and the Congress ultimately to act. And we did not intend for failure to meet other deadlines in the title to cause the joint committee bill to lose its privilege.

Mr. President, over the past few weeks, Congress has been engaged in a very important debate. It may have been messy, it might have appeared to some as though their government wasn't working, but in fact the opposite was true. The push

and pull Americans saw in Washington these past few weeks was not gridlock, it was the will of the people working itself out in a political system that was never meant to be pretty.

You see, one reason America isn't already facing the kind of crisis we see in Europe is that Presidents and majority parties here can't just bring about change on a dime, as much as they might wish to from time to time. That is what checks and balances is all about, and that is the kind of balance Americans voted for in November. The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November's election with a very clear mandate: Put our Nation's fiscal house in order. Those of us who had been fighting the big government policies of Democratic majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together, we have held the line, and slowly but surely we have started turning things around. That is why those who think that no problem is too big or too small for government to solve are very worried right now. They are afraid the American people may actually win the larger debate we have been having around here about the size and the scope of government and that the spending spree may actually be coming to an end. They can't believe those who stood up for limited government and accountability have actually changed the terms of the debate here in Washington. But today, they have no choice but to admit it.

I know for some of our colleagues reform isn't coming as fast as they would wish, and I certainly understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I am encouraged by the thought these new Senators will help lead this fight until we finish the job. I want to assure them that today, although they may not see it this way, they have actually won this debate.

In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington. First, it creates an entirely new template for raising the Nation's debt limit. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the fact that never again will any President, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people, and, in addition, without having to engage in the kind of debate we have just come through. Because, you see, whoever the next President is will be back asking to raise the debt ceiling again, and it will provide another opportunity for us to focus on the subject raised by the request to raise the debt ceiling.

So we will be back at it--probably in the early part of 2013--trying to continue to make progress toward reducing the size and scope of government and reducing our spending. This kind of discussion isn't something to dread, it is something to welcome. While the President may not have particularly enjoyed this debate we have been through, it is the debate Washington very much needed to have.

As for the particulars, this legislation caps spending over the next 10 years with a mechanism that ensures these cuts actually stick. It protects the American people from a government default that would have affected every single one of them in one way or another. It puts in place a powerful joint committee that will recommend further cuts and much-needed reforms. It doesn't include a dime, not a dime, in job- killing tax hikes at a moment when our economy can least afford them. Crucially, it ensures the debate over a balanced budget amendment continues and that it actually gets a vote.

This is no small feat when one considers that last week the President was still demanding tax hikes as part of any debt ceiling increase, and that as recently as May, the President's top economic adviser said it was ``insane'' for anybody to even consider tying the debt ceiling to spending cuts. It is worth noting that 2\1/2\ months later, that adviser is no longer working at the White House and the President is now agreeing, as a condition of raising the debt ceiling, to trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

Let me be clear: The legislation the Senate is about to vote on is just a first step. But it is a crucial step toward fiscal sanity and its potentially remarkable achievement given the lengths to which some in Washington have gone to ensure a status quo that is suffocating growth, crippling the economy, and imperiling entitlements.

We have had to settle for less than we wanted, but what we have achieved is in no way insignificant. We did it because we had something Democrats didn't have: Republicans may only control one-half of one- third of the government in Washington, but the American people agreed with us on the nature of the problem. They know government didn't accumulate $14.5 trillion in debt because it didn't tax enough. If someone is spending themselves into oblivion, the solution isn't to spend more; it is to spend less.

Neither side got everything it wanted in these negotiations, but I think it was the view of those in my party that we tried to get as much in spending cuts as we could from a government we didn't control. Our view was we would get as much in spending reduction as we could from a government we didn't control. That is what we have done with this bipartisan agreement.

This is not the deficit-reduction package I would have written. The fact that we are on a pace to add another $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years is certainly nothing to celebrate. But getting it there from more than $9 trillion the President continued to defend until recently is no defeat either. Slowing down the big government freight train from its current trajectory will give us the time we need to work toward a real solution or give the American people the time they need to have their voices heard.

So much work remains. To that end, our first step will be to make sure Republicans who sit on the powerful cost-cutting committee are serious people who put the best interests of the American people and the principles that we have fought for throughout this debate first. But before we move to the next steps, I would like to say a word about some of those who made today's vote possible, and I will start with Speaker Boehner.

It should be noted that he helped set the terms of this debate by insisting early on that we would oppose any debt limit that didn't include cuts that were greater than the amount the debt limit would be raised, and he stuck to his guns. The Speaker and I worked shoulder to shoulder over the past few months, and it certainly has been a pleasure. He has been a real partner, and I assure my colleagues we wouldn't be here without him.

So I want to thank the Speaker and the entire Republican leadership in the House for standing on principle, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues in the Senate for their determination, their ideas, and their support. We wouldn't be here without them either.

I thank my friend, the majority leader, for his work in getting this agreement over the finish line. We may disagree a lot, but I hope everyone realizes it is never ever personal. I think today we can prove that, when it comes down to it, we will get together when the greater good is at stake.

I also thank the President and the Vice President and everyone on their staffs who believed, as we did, that despite our many differences we could all agree that America would not default on its obligations. It is a testament to the goodwill of those on both sides that we were able to reach this agreement in time. Neither side wanted to see the government default, and I am pleased we were able to work together to avoid it.

This bill does not solve the problem, but it at least forces Washington to admit that it has one. The bill doesn't solve the problem, but it forces Washington to admit that it has one. It puts us on a path to recovery. We are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance, but there should be absolutely no doubt about this: We have changed the debate, we are headed in the right direction, and people are wondering how it happened. Well, it happened because the American people demanded it.

So in the end, we are back to where we started. The only reason we are talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of Washington instead of growing it is because the American people believed they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. They spoke out and we heard them. It is only through their continued participation in this process, and

lawmakers who are willing to listen to them, that we will complete the work we have begun.

As Winston Churchill once said:

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is

also what it takes to sit down and listen.

I can't think of a better way to sum up this last year and, in particular, these last few months right here in Washington than that.

The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington, and they want to see that we are working together to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn't get us there, but for the first time in a very long time I think we can say to the American people that we are finally facing in the right direction. For that, we have them to thank.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a young woman from Owensboro, KY, who lost her life while in service to her country. U.S. Navy LCDR Jane Lanham Tafoya was assigned to the Naval Branch Health Clinic in Manama, Bahrain, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She died from non-combat related causes on September 19, 2006. She was 43 years old.

For her heroic service, Lieutenant Commander Tafoya received many awards, medals and decorations, including the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with Gold Star, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and the Navy Pistol Shot Medal with Sharpshooter Device.

Lieutenant Commander Tafoya had served for 18 years in the Navy. Before her assignment in Bahrain she had served at the Naval Hospital and Naval Reserve Center in Philadelphia, the Bureau of Medicine here in Washington, DC, the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune, NC, aboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, and at Navy Environmental Preventive Medicine Unit 2 in Norfolk, VA. In Bahrain she was working as an industrial hygienist.

Born in Daviess County, KY, Jane was a graduate of Owensboro Catholic High School, Murray State University and Temple University. Her mother, Avis Lanham, remembers Jane as a smart student who enjoyed learning, got all As in school, and loved to read. In high school Jane played softball and volleyball, and she was on the Murray State intramural bowling team.

Avis says that Jane loved to travel, and she loved being in the Navy. And Jane ``could always see the good in people,'' Avis says of her daughter. Whenever something negative was said about a person, Jane would just respond with, ``Well, nobody's perfect.''

We are thinking of Jane's loved ones today, including her husband John Tafoya; her daughters Rachel and Natalie Tafoya; her mother Avis Lanham; her brother and sister-in-law Brad and Kathy; her sister and brother-in-law

Phyllis and Kenny; and many other beloved family members and friends. Jane was preceded in death by her father Marvin Bill Lanham.

Today the Senate honors this loving wife, mother, and daughter for her long career of service. And we salute the sacrifice that LCDR Jane Lanham Tafoya made, half a world away from her native Owensboro home, on behalf of a very grateful Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the majority leader yield on that point?

If we were to vote, I assume we would have significant notice for our Members because many Members would like to leave the Capitol if we are not going to be voting.

Madam President, this is an important moment for our country. I appreciate the majority leader's comments and want to say a few words to our colleagues who have been so patient over the past several days and whose ideas and encouragement have been so helpful in getting us to this point.

First of all, let me reiterate that before any agreement is reached, Republicans will meet to discuss the framework that the White House and congressional leaders in both parties think would meet our stated efforts to cut spending more than the President's requested debt ceiling increase, prevent a national default, and protect the economy from tax increases.

To that end, I would like to say to my Republican colleagues that we will be holding a conference meeting in the morning to discuss the framework and to give everyone a chance to weigh in. But at this point I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is now a framework to review that will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending. And we can assure the American people tonight that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations.

If the Senator would yield, I expect he has not done that in 30 years.

Mr. President, there is nobody in the Senate I respect and admire more than my counterpart, the Democratic leader. But we have been subjected, last night and again just a few moments ago, I would say to my colleagues from Wyoming and Idaho, to some Orwellian discussion about what is a filibuster. Most Americans, when asked the question ``What is a filibuster?'' would believe it was delaying something--delaying something.

So we have the astonishing development here that my good friend the majority leader is delaying a vote on something he wants to pass. We were prepared to have this vote last night. We are prepared to have this vote momentarily. We are prepared to have this vote at any point.

I want to disabuse my good friend of the notion that somehow it is going to pass. We just--he has not seen it yet, but we just delivered a letter to his office with 43 of my colleagues on it saying they are not going to vote for it. The House of Representatives is going to speak at 2:30 on this issue. They are not going to vote for it.

With regard to the 60-vote threshold, let me quote my good friend the majority leader:

March 5, 2007: ``In the Senate, it has always been the case, you need 60 votes.''

January 30, the same year: ``60 votes are required for just about everything.''

Now, look, we know that on controversial matters in the Senate, it has for quite some time required 60 votes. So I would say again to my friend, it is pretty hard to make a credible case that denying a vote on your own proposal is anything other than a filibuster.

We know that August 2 is Tuesday. The American people are frustrated with us. They want us to come together and reach an agreement. The measure my good friend is offering is not acceptable to the Senate, is not acceptable to the House, will not pass. I think the American people would appreciate it if we go on and get that out of the way and get serious about talking.

With regard to talking, let me say who ought to be in the talks. The majority leader, myself, the Speaker, and the minority leader of the House spent most of last weekend talking to each other. In fact, we were called down to the White House for a meeting around 11 o'clock on that Saturday, and I suggested the President give us a chance to go up to the Hill and see what we could work out together. We came close enough together to where my good friend, the majority leader--while I understand he believes he didn't fully endorse it but at least went down there to advocate what we thought we could agree to on that Sunday afternoon. The President said no.

I became convinced that even though my friend, the majority leader, and I would love to work this out, we can't do it by ourselves. It has to have the only person who can sign something into law. There are 307 million Americans, but only 1 can sign something into law.

My suggestion to my good friend, the majority leader, is let's vote on his proposal. It is not going to pass. Let's get to talking to the administration again in the hopes that we can come together behind something that can pass both the Senate and the House and be signed into law before Tuesday.

I don't blame anybody for being confused about what has been going on in Congress this week. I will take a moment to explain what is going on right now.

Last night, the Democrats, who control the Senate, proposed a bill that would lead to the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the United States and which completely ignores the roots of this crisis. This bill has one goal: to get the President through his next election without having to have another national debate about the consequences of his policies. The President wants to make sure this kind of debate doesn't happen again, even as he gets Democrats in Congress to give him permission to add trillions more to the debt. That is what the Reid bill does. It is not going anywhere, as I described. It will not pass the Senate. It will not pass the House. It is simply a nonstarter.

Senate Republicans refuse to go along with this transparently political and deeply irresponsible ploy to give the President cover to make our debt crisis even worse than it already is. Forty-three of us, as I indicated, have now signed a letter to the majority leader pledging that we will not vote for his $2.4 trillion debt limit amendment, which, if enacted, would result in the single largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the United States.

Moreover, as I indicated earlier, we will soon know with certainty that this bill can't pass the House of Representatives, as they will be voting on it shortly.

Since there is no possibility this bill will be enacted into law, I say again to my friend that he can hold the vote on his proposal here and now. We are ready at any point to go on and have that vote and not waste another minute of the Nation's time on this reckless piece of legislation we know will not pass.

Earlier this week, the majority leader told the Speaker of the House he was wasting the Nation's time by proceeding with a bill Senate Democrats pledged to block, which the majority leader himself helped put together but which he decided to oppose, as I indicated, after the President said he didn't like it.

The question now is this: Why would my friend, the majority leader, waste the Nation's time by refusing to vote on his own bill--his own bill--which we also know will fail? Why would he not take his own advice and get it over with? The answer seems to be obvious. The Democrats are running out the clock. They want to delay the hard work of negotiation until the August 2 deadline they have been warning us about all summer.

The Democrats' entire strategy this particular week, since last Sunday, has been to run out the clock so the Nation focuses more on the August 2 deadline than their own failure to do something about the underlying problem.

Republicans have now passed two pieces of legislation that would put us on a path to fiscal sanity--not one but two have passed the House of Representatives. Democrats spent the last few weeks figuring out how to avoid that particular bill.

Democrats have spent their time talking about the tea party instead of talking about a solution. They have done absolutely nothing but stand in the way of a meaningful solution to this crisis and criticize Republicans for having the audacity to suggest we might try to balance the books.

Now we are reduced to this. They would not even allow a vote on their own bill. They are delaying the inevitable so they can avoid doing anything responsible. It is simply indefensible.

Once again, I ask my good friend the majority leader to let us vote on his legislation. Let's get this irresponsible bill that we know will fail up for a vote so we can get down to the real work of negotiating a solution to the crisis with, as I indicated, the only person in America who can sign something into law, the President of the United States.

The lesson from last weekend is, anything two parties agree to here doesn't mean a thing if the President decides he doesn't like it and that the Democrats will abandon their own agreements if the President doesn't support them. Look, I don't blame them. I have been leader in the party when we had a Republican President. It is a tough spot. One is not a free agent. But we don't have time to go through that again. We have a couple days to work this out, and we cannot do it without the President.

Republicans have proposed solution after solution to this crisis. It is time for our friends on the other side, including the President of the United States, to figure out how we are going to come together and solve this problem.

I yield the floor.

Will my friend yield on that?

Then it proves my case, if that is the case. We cannot reach an agreement without the President. We tried to. I will concede the point. My friend says he didn't actually agree to that. I take his word for it. But it makes my point that there simply is no way, under our constitutional system, for my friend and I to work this out. We have to have the President at the table. I think the approach we tried last weekend--we both agree it did not lead to an agreement.

If my friend will yield, I think the answer is a bill the President agrees to sign. That is what we were trying to achieve last weekend. We don't have time to ping-pong stuff across the Hill anymore.

I think the majority leader and I are probably in basic agreement that, with 2 days left, the only legislation Congress has time to deal with, and should deal with, is something the President says he is willing to sign. I am certainly not critical of the President for not spending time on this. He has spent enormous time on it. But we have not gotten a result yet.

Mr. President, I will wrap up my comments by pointing out again the comments from my good friend, the majority leader, about the nature of the Senate. He said it has always been the case that we need 60 votes. We all know that. It is widely known in the country as well. Most people believe a filibuster means we are trying to delay something.

I wish to make clear to the American people Senate Republicans are ready to vote on cloture on the Reid proposal in 30 minutes, in an hour, as soon as we can get our colleagues over to the floor. We are ready to vote. By requiring 60 votes, particularly on a matter of this enormous importance, is not at all unusual. It is the way the Senate operates.

I will not belabor it any further. We are happy to vote at any time the majority leader thinks it would be appropriate to vote on his proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the fact is that the only way we are going to get an agreement before Tuesday is to have an agreement with the President of the United States--the only person in America of the 307 million of us who can sign something into law. I am more optimistic than my friend the majority leader. We have both talked to the President today, talked to the Vice President several times. I think we have a chance of getting there.

What I think is not helpful is the process we are going through here on the Senate floor: having show votes over live quorums, having reluctance on the part of the majority to have a vote on a measure they favor, which we have been prepared to vote on since last night.

Look, we need to be in a position where all of us in the leadership can come back here and say that we think we have reached a framework of an agreement we can recommend to our Members and be briefing our Members. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can reassure the American people we are going to get a result on a bipartisan basis. So that is what I am working on, and I am not interested in scoring any political points. I am interested in getting an outcome for the American people, and the only way that can be done is with the President of the United States, and we are going to continue to work on that, get this problem solved, and let everybody in the country know we are not going to default for the first time in our history. That is how I am going to spend my time until we get that outcome and I can come up here and recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, these are direct quotes from my friend the majority leader. He says: ``In the Senate it has always been the case you need 60 votes.'' ``Always been the case you need 60 votes.'' This is the majority leader of the Senate. For him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude, in a body that requires 60 votes for almost everything, is going to be done with 51 votes makes no sense at all. I object.

Mr. President, I might say I actually cut short a conversation with the Vice President to come out here for this important vote on a live quorum. I would like to get back to work so we can hopefully solve this problem.

It seems to me it would be a good idea for the majority to decide to allow the vote on the proposal they say they are in favor of; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending cloture motion occur at 6:30.

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

Mr. President, it is not surprising that I have a little different take on what has been happening in the last few days than my colleague, the majority leader.

Let me explain what has been going on in Congress this week. The American people have been waiting on us to do something to prevent default. They want us to end this crisis right now. Over in the House of Representatives, we have the Speaker of the House doing his job. Speaker Boehner has been doing the hard work of governing, working day and night to put together a bill that can actually pass the House of Representatives and end this crisis now. He should be commended for his efforts.

What about over here in the Senate? The contrast could not be starker. Rather than working in the last few days toward a solution to the crisis the way the Republican majority in the House has, the Democratic majority in the Senate has been wasting precious time rounding up ``no'' votes to keep this crisis alive. Rather than being responsible and doing their duty and coming up with a bill that can actually pass, they have been busy signing up people for the ``not good enough'' caucus and ginning up opposition to everything else.

Lawmakers should be working a solution to the crisis, not a blocking strategy. Our Democratic friends in the Senate have offered no solutions to this crisis that could pass either Chamber--not one. Instead, all day long yesterday we got chest-thumping comments about how they are going to kill any piece of legislation that comes over from the House, that it is dead on arrival.

Democrats are out bragging about how they are going to prolong the crisis instead of doing the hard work of trying to solve it. That includes the President.

Look, if the President hadn't decided to blow up the bipartisan solution that Members of Congress worked so hard to produce last weekend, we would be voting to end this crisis today.

Instead, Democrats in Congress are still talking about blocking a solution to the crisis, and the President is rolling out new mileage standards today. Let me repeat that. Here we are a few days from when the Secretary of the Treasury says we will be in a default situation, and the President of the United States is rolling out new mileage standards today.

How about this: How about a plan from Democrats in Washington that can pass both Chambers, prevent the crisis, and protect Americans from a worsening economy?

I suggest to my friends on the other side this morning that they start taking their responsibilities as a majority party a little more seriously because at this point, the only people who are disregarding the consequences of default are Senate Democrats--not the Republicans in the House but Senate Democrats.

Republicans have been doing the hard work of governing this week. It is about time our Democratic friends join us.

I yield the floor.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Is it the majority leader's intention, after we have the vote on tabling the proposal that came over from the House, to file cloture on the Reid budget?

I say to my friend, we would be happy to have that vote tonight. And I will also mention to my friend that the House of Representatives intends to vote on the Reid amendment tomorrow afternoon at 1 o'clock. In order to accommodate the schedules of Senators, we would be more than happy to accommodate the majority and have the vote on the Reid budget tonight.

Is that a consent?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that this is almost an out-of-body experience to have someone suggest a 50-vote threshold on a matter of this magnitude in the Senate. I am perplexed, Mr. President--genuinely perplexed--that my friend, the majority leader doesn't want to vote on his proposal as soon as possible. I object.

I object.

Would the Senator withhold?

I thank the majority leader.

I wish to commend the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for his determination and perseverance.

It wasn't easy, but Speaker Boehner has been working tirelessly over the past few months and especially over these past few days to build consensus within his party and to pass a bill through the House that would end this crisis and take an important step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

While Democrats in the Senate have been over here plotting about how they can prevent a solution to this crisis, Speaker Boehner rolled up his sleeves and did the hard work needed to prevent the crisis. So I thank him for taking his responsibilities as a legislator, as a leader, and as a citizen so seriously and getting the job done. He and the other Republicans in the House have now passed two bills that would not only end this crisis, but would actually do something about its root cause.

They know as well as I do that Washington cannot continue to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends and not expect a reckoning. It may not be this Tuesday. But unless we do something to rein in our spending and our debt an even bigger crisis will come. That is why House Republicans have insisted on including a provision in the legislation they just passed that would only allow Congress to raise the debt ceiling if it also passes a law that requires Washington to balance its books.

This isn't exactly a radical proposal.

If Congress's inability to live within its means is the reason for this crisis, then why not pass a law that requires it? It makes perfect sense to almost everybody in America except a few hundred Democrats in Washington.

But that has been the story of this whole summer.

A lot of people look at Washington right now and say what they are seeing is a dysfunctional government. This isn't dysfunction. What you see in Washington right now is Democrats refusing to admit they've got a spending problem, and fighting any attempt to get it under control.

That is what this is all about.

Just take a look at what has been happening here in the Senate over the past 48 hours.

Rather than do their duty and come up with a bill that can pass, Senate Democrats have been busy ginning up opposition to everything else. Senate Democrats have not offered a single solution to this crisis that has a chance of passing either Chamber in Congress. Think about that: we have been staring at this deadline for months. And the majority party in the Senate hasn't even made the effort to come up with a solution that could pass a Chamber they control!

They have put all their energy into defeating everything else.

The majority leader claims he has a plan.

Well, here is what it does.

It asks Congress to make the largest debt ceiling increase in history, without paying for it.

It creates a committee that has no real power to generate more savings down the road.

And it doesn't require us to balance our books.

Until yesterday, the only reason Senate Democrats had for opposing the House bill was that it didn't raise the debt limit beyond the next Presidential election.

Yesterday, they came up with another excuse. They said the debt limit increase doesn't last long enough to provide certainty to the markets.

Leave aside the fact that Democrats have spent the last 2\1/2\ years perfecting the art of creating economic uncertainty.

Leave that aside.

The fact is, of the 31 times the debt limit has been raised over the past 25 years, 22 lasted less than a year. And I don't recall any of the Democrats who voted for those increases expressing any concern about economic uncertainty.

The simple truth is this: Senate Democrats have no good reason whatsoever for opposing the bill the House just passed.

This bill was actually negotiated in direct consultation with the Democrat leaders who now claim to oppose it.

You want proof? Well, ask yourself this: why does the Reid bill have the same title as the bill the House just passed? Coincidence? Why do the two bills contain pages of identical text? Coincidence? Look through it yourself.

Look at the Democrat priorities that are in there. How do you think they got in there?

I will tell you how: because they put them in there.

So it is an absolute mystery to me why any Democrat in the Senate would have opposed that bill.

There isn't an argument against it that is left standing. And we would all be voting to approve it right now if President Obama hadn't told Democrats to oppose it last weekend. The only reason--the only reason--we are

even still talking about this crisis is because the President of the United States doesn't want to have another debate about his own fiscal recklessness before his next election.

One more thing.

Just so there is no doubt that Democrats in Congress have abdicated their responsibility by failing to produce a solution of their own, I have a suggestion. Let's test out the Reid bill. Let's call it up and vote on it tonight. See how it does. Let's see the fruits of the Democrats' labors. Let's see what they came up with as this crisis approached.

The Speaker has sent over two bills that could end this crisis now. Let's call up the majority leader's bill and see if it will fly. And if it doesn't, then let's take up the House bill, pass it, and end this crisis now.

But Republicans have done our job.

Mr. President, I just wanted to ask my friend one more time. We have here a situation where the Senate has voted to table, in effect, the House-passed measure and the majority leader has filled up the tree and filed cloture on his proposal. As I indicated earlier, every single member of my conference here in the Senate would be happy to move up that vote.

As we all know, the markets are waiting to see if we are going to act. It strikes me that it might make sense for all of us on a bipartisan basis to go on and act as rapidly as possible. I believe every Member of the Senate has pretty well determined how they would vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to my friend's measure. Therefore, I would again ask consent that we immediately proceed to a vote on invoking cloture on the Reid amendment.

Mr. President, I don't want to belabor this. I would just finally point out that we are in the rather curious position that the House of Representatives tomorrow at 1 p.m. will vote on the Reid proposal before my friend and his conference are willing to let us vote on his proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think we all agree it is fairly routine to have the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, particularly on a matter of enormous significance such as this. It is almost unheard of to suggest that a matter of this magnitude would be dealt with at a 51- vote threshold.

Where are we? It is an interesting history lesson my friend gives us about various debates we have had in the past, but this is where we are right now. Where we are right now is our good friends on the other side do not want us to move forward with a vote on what they are advocating.

We just heard the majority leader talk about--could we have order in the Senate, Mr. President?

We just heard the majority leader making the arguments on the merits for his proposal. That is what we wish to move forward with. We would be happy to have the vote on cloture on his measure tonight so we could move forward and finally get a resolution here. We have the curious position the majority is in effect stopping action on its own proposal and the House of Representatives tomorrow will vote on the Reid proposal, apparently before the Senate will vote on the proposal of the majority leader.

Mr. President, the clock is ticking. In just a few days, the U.S. Government will no longer have the ability to borrow money to pay its bills--a situation the President and his advisers said would trigger an economic Armageddon.

I was shocked last night when 53 Senate Democrats issued a letter saying they intend to vote against the only piece of legislation that has any chance of preventing all this from happening. Even more shocking is the fact that Democratic leaders and the President himself have endorsed every feature of this legislation except one, and that is the fact that it doesn't allow the President to avoid another national debate about spending and debt until after the next Presidential election. Every other feature of the House bill was essentially agreed to earlier except for one--the President wants to avoid having another discussion about deficit and debt before the election. This assurance is the only thing the President and Senate Democrats are holding out for right now.

The Democrats can try to justify their opposition to the House bill any way they want. They can claim they are worried about a stalemate 6 months from now. They can ignore the fact that of the 31 times Congress and the President have raised the debt limit over the past 25 years, 22 of those debt limit increases lasted less than a year. President Reagan, in 1984, signed three bills in the course of his election year that raised the debt ceiling. It was not unusual. In fact, what is unusual is to ask for $2.7 trillion in debt limit increase. That is unusual. That is unprecedented.

So what is worse, a default now or a potential default 6 months down the road? Because if those 53 Senate Democrats follow through on their threat to filibuster the House bill, that is what they will be doing-- ensuring default now rather than working with us to prevent it later. Why would you want to do that? The answer is, to make the President's reelection campaign a little bit easier.

It is inconceivable to me that the President would actually follow through on this threat. After all, the President's first responsibility is to do what is best for the country, not his reelection campaign. The same goes for our friends on the other side of the aisle. It is inconceivable to me that they would actually block the only bill that would get through the House of Representatives and prevent a default right now. Inconceivable. It is inconceivable to me that they would do this for no other reason than to help the President avoid having another debate before the election about the need for Washington to get its fiscal house in order. But that is precisely what we may be headed for this weekend--guaranteed default or a bill that takes the specter of a default off the table, while giving us another opportunity to address the very deficits and debts that caused this crisis in the first place.

Senate Democrats are playing with fire, and it is hard to conclude they are doing it for any other reason than politics. So I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle this morning to rethink their position and join Republicans in preventing default.