Floor Statements

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, yesterday afternoon the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy which said that when the legislation Speaker Boehner is now revising reaches the President's desk, unnamed senior advisers will recommend that the President veto it.

I have a question for these senior advisers: what about this legislation is so offensive that you would rather see the Nation default on its obligations than have the President sign it into law?

From what I can tell, the only thing in this bill the President has not already expressed his support for either publicly or privately is that it does not get him through his election without having to engage in another national discussion about the debt crisis that has brought us to this point.

So I would ask these senior advisers whether that is a position they want to put the President in. Do they really intend to suggest that he veto the Nation into default for political reasons?

That is how I read the threat. And I think that is how the rest of the country would read it too.

So this morning I would like to reiterate my strong support for Speaker Boehner, the House Republican leadership and this plan to prevent default and reduce Washington spending.

I also want to commend the Speaker for his efforts and his determination.

This has not been an easy process, but I hope through it all the Nation sees how hard the Speaker has worked to ensure our Nation avoids calamity while safeguarding the American dream.

The Nation has had a chance to see the Speaker at his best over the past few days.

Unlike the President, he not only put forward actual legislation to prevent this crisis, he is keeping his promise to cut spending more than any increase in the debt limit--with no tax hikes.

What about the President's plan? When asked about the President's plan, his aides point to a speech and a veto threat.

With all due respect, Congress cannot vote on a speech, and a veto threat would not prevent default. The fact is Republicans have offered the only proposal at this point that attempts to get at the root of the problem and which actually has a chance of getting to the President's desk.

That is why we will continue to press for the legislation Speaker Boehner has proposed, and that is why we will fight against anything that pretends to solve the problem but doesn't--including the bill from Senate Democrats that proposes the largest debt limit increase in history, while falling $\1/2\ trillion short on the cuts it claims to provide.

This crisis our Nation faces at this moment has a very simple cause and is easily understood: Washington spends a lot more money every year than it takes in. Do that every year and the debt piles up. Now we have reached the point where our deficits and debt are so large they are suffocating job growth, threatening the wider economy, and imperiling entitlements.

It took more than two centuries for Washington to amass a debt of $10.6 trillion. But just 2\1/2\ years after President Obama swore the oath of office, it is higher by more than one-third. Based on the President's actual policies, the situation is expected to get much worse.

In just 5 years' time, under President Obama's budget plan, the Federal Government will spend almost as much money just to cover the interest on its debt as it will on national defense. Over the next 10 years, the President's policies will add more than $9 trillion to the debt.

This is why S&P revised its long-term credit outlook for the United States, not because we haven't authorized the President to spend more

money but because he is asking for so much of it.

Yet, incredibly, the President's budgets would do nothing to reverse this trend. So he can claim to be interested in a solution, but what he put on paper makes the problem worse.

Right now, the President is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling by more than it has ever been raised before in our history--even as the Nation is teetering on the edge of a crisis caused by that very debt.

Let me repeat, our Nation is facing a crisis because of the size of our debt, and the President of the United States, the man Americans elect to be the steward of our economy, is threatening to veto any bill that doesn't add more than $2 trillion to the debt ceiling, the largest increase in history.

The President is not taking a stand on cuts. He is not taking a stand on reform to entitlements. He is not insisting on reforms. Forget all that. What he wants more than anything else is more room under the debt ceiling to get him through the election. He has said that is his bottom line.

I remain as committed as ever to resolving this crisis in a way that will allow us to avoid default without raising taxes and to cut spending without budget gimmicks.

There is only one option that does that and that is the one Speaker Boehner has proposed, and that is being improved as we speak.

I yield the floor.

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

Last night, the President explained to the Nation the crisis we face right now as he sees it. His hope was to lift the debate out of the gritty legislative particulars, and we all understand that. Unfortunately, the situation the President described last night bears very little resemblance to the realities on the ground right here in Washington.

I know the President would rather give speeches about our problems than resolve them, but he wasn't elected to talk about the United States; he was elected to lead it. In our system of government, that means working with people and a Congress with which you sometimes disagree. This is not a unique situation. Other Presidents have been in a similar situation where they had to work with a Congress composed of people, many of whom disagreed with them.

Last night, the President rejected not just the only proposal that has passed either House of Congress, he rejected the only plan the Democrats have proposed as well, a plan that would increase the debt limit without raising taxes. Just a few days ahead of a potential default, the President announced that he is the only person in Washington still calling for a massive tax hike, even as his party has dropped their own demands for what we know will make the current unemployment situation even worse.

In short, the President is now clinging to two things we all know Congress can't support: a massive tax hike and the biggest debt limit increase in history aimed, in his own words, at getting himself past the next election. As Speaker Boehner said last night, that is just not going to happen. There is bipartisan opposition to it in Congress. So it was deeply irresponsible, in my view, for the President of the United States to present the American people with a false choice last night between tax hikes on the one hand and default on the other.

The real choice is this: a bill that can get us past this moment of crisis, that cuts Washington spending, and that actually gets through Congress, or one that can't. Republicans have offered the only proposal that attempts to get at the root of the problem and that actually has a chance of getting to the President's desk. That is why we will continue to press for the legislation Speaker Boehner has proposed, and that is why we will fight against anything that pretends to solve the problem but doesn't. The majority leader proposed a plan yesterday that is nothing more than another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

The decisions we make in the next 72 hours will have a real impact on every American. These decisions should be made based on how they will affect the people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

The President can claim to be concerned about this impending crisis, but one question continues to linger above every press conference he has called or every speech he has delivered: Where is his plan to resolve it? Republicans have proposed multiple plans that have support in both parties. It is time for the President to put his electoral interest and preferences aside and do what is needed. Americans are waiting. Americans are waiting for the President to do what they elected him to do--not to lecture but to lead.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, as visitors walk through the Capitol for the first time, they eventually come across a plaque near one of the entrances on the East Front that memorializes an event which took place 13 years ago yesterday.

It was 13 years ago that Officers Jacob Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice to protect all who were working and visiting the Capitol on that Friday afternoon.

And every year at this time, we take a moment to step back from our work, put aside our differences, and remember these good men whose sacrifice stands as a permanent reminder of the debt we owe to them, and to all those who continue to put themselves on the front line every day to defend the rest of us--from the Capitol Police force, to local law enforcement officials, to those serving overseas.

America has always been blessed to have men and women rise up in every generation who are willing to put their Nation ahead of their lives. Today, we honor two in particular who did so in this building. Officer Chestnut was a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, a loving husband, and a father of five.

Detective Gibson had served 3 years on Congressman Tom DeLay's protective detail. Both had served 18 years on the Capitol Police force. A friend of Detective Gibson's recalled shortly after the shooting that just a few days before, John told him he had never had to draw his weapon on the job. Yet despite being mortally wounded on the day he died, John did not hesitate to return fire, wounding the intruder. Calling upon his instincts and training, Detective Gibson's actions saved many lives that day.

Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson exemplify the best America has to offer. And that is why we honor them here today.

My friend the majority leader is a former Capitol Police officer. He understands more than anyone in this Chamber the honor and dedication, as well as the risks associated with the job. I know he joins me in honoring Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson, as well as all Capitol Police who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and this institution.

To all members of the Capitol Police force: thank you for your service and your professionalism. Your duties do not go unnoticed. And on this day that we remember Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, I would also like to take a moment to remember the families of these good men who have been so deeply affected by this tragedy. Our prayers continue to go out to them. May God continue to protect them as their loved ones protected us.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words now about the ongoing debt ceiling discussions.

I think the American people can be excused for being a little confused at this point as to what is going on here in Washington and a little bit frustrated. I am too, frankly.

There is no reason in the world that the American people should have had to wake up this morning unsure of whether Washington was going to resolve this problem.

Candidly, as of Saturday afternoon, I had no doubt that a solution was at hand.

That is just what we did. We came together in good faith and decided to do the right thing. Everyone agrees default wasn't an option, so we put together a responsible proposal that prevented default while reducing Washington spending.

Republicans and, yes, some Democrats, have been clear for months that tax hikes couldn't be part of the package. We have also been clear that serious cuts would have to be part of any package.

So taking all this into consideration, the responsible path forward was clear to everyone: a plan that avoided default and required additional savings before any further increase in the debt ceiling.

Leaders from both parties in both Houses agreed this was the right path forward legislatively. The only thing to do at that point was to present this bipartisan solution to the President.

What was the President's response? Unfortunately, to demand the largest single debt increase in history, $\1/2\ trillion more than the previous biggest increase Democrats approved 2 years ago when they controlled both Congress and the White House.

This was the President's justification, as he put it on Friday:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend the

debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

That is a direct quote from the President of the United States. There is absolutely no economic justification for insisting on a debt limit increase that brings us through the next election. It is not the beginning of a fiscal year. It is not the beginning of a calendar year. Based on his own words, it is hard to conclude that this request has to do with anything, in fact, other than the President's reelection.

Look, Congress has raised the Federal debt limit 62 times since 1972. The average length of an increase over that period is just over 7 months. But now the President says it has to be nearly 2 years. Why? So he can continue to spend as he pleases.

This weekend, we offered the President a bipartisan proposal to avoid default so we could have the time we need to put together a serious plan for getting our house in order, and he rejected it out of hand-- not for economic reasons, understand, but, as he put it, ``to extend this debt ceiling through the next election.''

Time is running out. With all due respect to the President, we have more important issues to worry about than getting through the next election.

A bipartisan plan to resolve this crisis was literally within our reach this weekend. The President has to know this approach is the responsible path forward, and we ought to put it back on the table.

Congressional leaders of both parties have shown they are willing to work in good faith. I suggest the President reconsider their offer rather than veto the country into default.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 5 months ago, President Obama unveiled the only concrete statement he has made to date on our Nation's budget crisis, a 10-year budget plan so preposterous, so unequal to the moment that it was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 97-0. The President's response to this crisis was to pretend it didn't exist.

Two months later, the President doubled down on his vision for a future of debt by demanding that Congress raise the debt limit, without any cuts to spending or a plan to rein it in. It was a total abdication of leadership and it wasn't sustainable.

So over the past several weeks, the President has been doing his best impersonation of a fiscal moderate. He has talked about balance and left it to others to fill in the blanks.

Here is what Democrats in Congress have proposed as a solution: more spending and higher taxes to a debt crisis.

Yesterday, with the clock ticking, we heard reports of a volcanic eruption among Democrats at the suggestion that we should solve this crisis by focusing on reducing Washington spending.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated. If you are spending more money than you are taking in, you need to spend less money. This isn't rocket science. We could solve this problem this morning if Democrats would let us vote on cut, cap, and balance and join us in backing this legislation that Republicans support.

But the first step in solving a problem is to admit you have one, and too many Democrats refuse to admit that Washington has a spending problem. That is why Republicans have insisted that we focus on spending in this debate.

The reason we have a $14 trillion debt is because no matter how much money Washington has, it always spends more; and the only way to cure the problem is to stop enabling it. Americans get it, and I want to thank every American who has spoken out in favor of cut, cap, and balance. Today, the American people will know where we stand.

A vote to table this bill is a vote to ignore this crisis even longer. A vote to get on this bill is a vote for getting our house in order.

I urge my Democratic colleagues one more time to reconsider their position. Join us in support of a future we can afford.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Paul Smith, a physician whose story has been chosen to be recorded as part of the London, KY, ``Living Treasures'' project.

Dr. Smith's career path began when he graduated pre-med from Cumberland College in 1949 at age 19. After attending the University of Kentucky, where he hitchhiked to class every day, Dr. Smith was accepted into the University of Louisville medical school. Unable to obtain a rural scholarship through traditional channels, Dr. Smith received a scholarship from the Tri-County Women's Club in Knox, Whitley, and Laurel counties. The only condition was that he return to one of the counties and practice medicine there for 4 years.

Before being called up for service in the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Smith worked for a doctor in Cumberland, where he met his wife. After a year of dating, Dr. Smith and his wife of 53 years, Ann, were married and moved together to the Lake Charles Air Force base in Louisiana. Their daughter Jan was born on base as Smith trained and served as a doctor.

After completing his service with the Air Force, Dr. Smith moved to London and opened up his own practice. He routinely made dozens of house calls to London residents--both in the city and out in the country. Dr. Smith also offered OB services and often worked in the emergency room of nearby Marymount Hospital when other doctors were too busy.

After 38 years of dedicated service to the London community, Dr. Smith retired in 1998. Even in his retirement,

Dr. Smith volunteers at the free medical clinic run at the Community Christian Church.

The State of Kentucky is lucky to have individuals like Dr. Paul Smith, who dedicate their lives to better those of others. As he has shown us all, Dr. Smith is truly a great Kentuckian.

Mr. President, the Laurel County-area newspaper the Sentinel Echo recently published a detailed interview with Dr. Smith and his wife in which they discuss Dr. Smith's accomplishments and contributions. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will begin debate today on cut, cap, and balance, the plan approved earlier this week in the House. This means Senators will now have the opportunity to go on record either in support of balancing our books or against it.

This is an opportunity for everyone to take a stand. It is an opportunity to say that a government which borrows more than 40 cents of every $1 it spends is not sustainable and very much needs to change its ways. It is an opportunity to stand with those who believe Washington needs to heal its addiction to spending now, not make more false promises of spending restraint sometime later.

The President's veto threat of this legislation is telling. Many of us learned a long time ago to pay more attention to what this President does than what he says. Anyone who has witnessed his reckless spending habits over the past 2\1/2\ years or sat across the negotiating table with him over the past few weeks could be forgiven for being skeptical of his recent attempts to come across as a fiscal moderate.

I will just say this: There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this President is as deeply committed to a government we cannot afford as he was on Inauguration Day.

That is why we have decided to bring our case directly to the American people with the cut, cap, and balance plan, which forces Washington to get its fiscal house in order with a constitutional amendment.

It is nice that some people are hoping the President has had a change of heart, but no one should be planning on it. Cut, cap, and balance cuts spending now, caps it in the future, and only raises the debt ceiling if it is accompanied by a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget.

That is what America wants, and it is what Washington needs. All we need is 20 Democrats to join us. At least 23 of them have led their constituents to believe they would fight for a balanced

budget amendment. The White House has called for a balanced approach in this debate. This bill does not just suggest balance, it actually mandates it. So I strongly urge my Democratic friends to join us in supporting this legislation.

Let me note in closing another virtue of the cut, cap, and balance plan. It does not raise taxes. Why is this a good thing? There are many reasons Americans do not like tax hikes. First, they know government is bound to waste the money. Americans have seen what government does with new tax revenue: It wastes it on things such as turtle tunnels. Second, it never uses it to pay down deficits and debt. So if you are concerned about the size of our debt, then raising taxes is a sure way to ensure that nothing gets done about it--absolutely nothing.

The reason we have a debt crisis is government spends every cent it gets--and then some. Sending Washington more money will not solve the problem, it will enable it.

Our tax system certainly is not perfect. But until Washington can prove it is responsible with our tax dollars, we should not be sending it more of those tax dollars. That is why Republicans have focused on cuts in this debate, and that is why every one of us--Democrat and Republican--should support cut, cap, and balance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it has been reported that the White House has made an internal decision not to send Congress three long- pending free trade agreements before the August recess. I wish to be able to reiterate that I, for one, remain as committed as ever to passing these job-creating agreements into law as quickly as possible, given the condition of our economy.

As I see it, every sticking point seems to have been resolved. The White House initially said it needed a deal on trade adjustment assistance on the substance. I think they have gotten that. Then they said they needed an agreement on the process. I believe we have achieved that.

I, myself, am personally committed to working with the majority leader to ensure a fair floor process for my Members so they have an opportunity to try to amend a stand-alone trade adjustment assistance bill separate from the three free-trade agreements. That way, if the administration can generate the votes it needs, TAA will pass on its merits.

I think we have a pretty clear path in front of us at this point. I recognize that the calendar is tight, that we have got a lot of other urgent business to take care of around here, so I don't expect to finish any of this before August. Still, I think the administration should submit the agreements anyway as a show of good faith with our trading allies in Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Then we can work to pass them when we return. The administration has received everything it has publicly asked for on TAA. It is time to show they are serious about creating jobs and getting those deals done.

This is an opportunity to create jobs in America for Americans. It was snarled needlessly by the suggestion that TAA be dropped inside these agreements. That now has been cleared up. We are going to have an opportunity to ratify all three of these trade agreements, which will be good for the country, and the TAA issue will be dealt with separately, and all indications are that the votes are there to pass the TAA bill.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Elaine Hays, whose story has been chosen to be recorded as part of the London, KY ``Living Treasures'' project.

Born in Elkhorn City, KY, on March 19, 1924, Mrs. Hays has lived in and been a part of the Kentucky community her entire life, and has called London home since 1949. She is the granddaughter of Austrian and German immigrants, and even has one ancestor who was on the McCoy side of the famous Hatfield-McCoy feud. Growing up in the Floyd County community of Betsy Layne, Mrs. Hays saw firsthand the development of the coal mining industry, as well as the devastating effects of the Great Depression.

After receiving her degree in home economics from Western Kentucky University, Mrs. Hays, sister to three war veterans, opened and subsequently ran a cannery at the Belfry High School in Betsy Layne where she was already working as a home economics teacher. Mrs. Hays wanted to help both the Nation and the families of Betsy Layne during the war by preserving food.

Mrs. Hays married her husband Earl in 1947 and taught alongside him at Belfry High until 1949. After an extensive interview process, The Hayses were hired by Sue Bennett College as teachers and program developers. Mr. Hays was to set up and run the college's farm which supplied food for the college dining hall, while Mrs. Hays was to develop a home economics program. In later years, Mrs. Hays became a ``first lady'' of sorts when Earl was chosen to become president of the college, a position he filled from 1958 to 1985. In between teaching and raising her two sons, Jim and Lon, Mrs. Hays still found the time to entertain students and other guests of the college. The eventual closure of Sue Bennett College was a somber day for Mrs. Hays, and her family alike, but its influence on their lives has been unforgettable.

Mrs. Hays retired in 1998 after working in the education field for 55 years.

After Earl's death in 1999, her retirement has been made happier by her three grandchildren.

Kentucky is lucky to have women such as Mrs. Elaine Hays who put aside their own needs in order to better serve their family and their community. It is an honor to record Mrs. Hays' story, for it is a story of an outstanding Kentuckian.

The Laurel County-area newspaper the Sentinel Echo recently published an article detailing the life, accomplishments, and contributions of Mrs. Hays' life and career. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.