Floor Statements

Madam President, as the Senate gets back to work this week, it is worth noting that a sea change appears to have taken place in Washington over the past few weeks. Just 2 months ago, the President proposed a vision of government that ignored the fiscal crisis virtually everyone else in the country knows we need to address. And Democrats in Congress proposed that rather than cutting Washington spending, we instead raise taxes on oil and gas companies, who, as we know, would pass it along to American consumers in the form of higher gas prices, at a time when gas prices are double what they were a mere 2 years ago.

In other words, it wasn't that long ago that both the White House and Democrat leaders in Congress were doing everything they could to ignore the Nation's $14 trillion debt and to preserve the massive growth in government that they have presided over the past 2 years. But at some point in the past few weeks, Democrats in Washington finally got the message. The ground shifted and spending reductions Democrats recently described as ``extreme'' and ``draconian,'' they are now calling ``historic'' and ``commonsense.'' The debate has turned from how much to grow government to how much to reduce it.

This is a major departure from the standard Democrat position--and it suggests one of two things: either Democrats in Washington are finally waking up to the fact that our only hope of averting the kind of disaster we are seeing unfold in Europe is by forcing Washington to live within its means, or they have made a political calculation that Americans will no longer take them seriously if they continue to pretend otherwise. But either way, there now appears to be a bipartisan agreement in Washington that something serious must be done. Which brings us to an announcement by the

Obama administration's top political advisor over the weekend that the President will change his position on entitlement reform, the deficit, and debt in a speech he will deliver tomorrow afternoon.

According to the administration officials, the President will now propose an outline of his goals in these areas. Apparently the President is finally ready to acknowledge problems that the rest of the country has been waiting for him to address. It is unfortunate that he had to be dragged into this discussion. But those on the left and right who have been clamoring for presidential leadership on these issues have to welcome the President's long-awaited decision to engage on them.

We all look forward to hearing what the President has to say, but it is my hope that in doing so, he offers more than the outline his political adviser suggested. As we know, House Republicans have put forward a detailed plan that seeks to preserve and protect Medicare for current beneficiaries and strengthen Medicaid, in part, by giving States more flexibility to implement it. At a time when thousands of baby boomers are retiring every day, putting even more pressure on our already overburdened finances, creative solutions like these are needed.

Hopefully the President will put forward a plan that does not just pay lipservice to the commitments we have made to seniors and the poor, but which acknowledges the unique problems that this generation and a rising generation of Americans face. Too often, it seems, Democrats in Washington claim to be interested in helping those in need, when what they really seek is to protect big government. Meanwhile, Republicans are developing solutions that will enable us to keep our commitments to seniors even as we create new opportunities for the young and middle class with low-tax policies that lead to private sector job growth. Whereas Republicans see America growing its way to prosperity, Democrats seem to want to constrict opportunities for everyone, so everyone is forced to do with less--except, of course, the politically connected and those who are lucky enough to get a waiver.

But at least the President is joining in the conversation. Hopefully that conversation is an adult one, and does not devolve into the kind of unhelpful scripted, and frankly juvenile, name-calling that we saw in the closing hours of the debate over the continuing resolution last week. We all know that both sides will have to play a part in addressing the crises we face, so we would do well to leave all dishonest rhetoric aside. Both sides want to preserve what is best about America. If both sides acknowledge that up front, as we move from a conversation about billions to trillions, we will have much progress even though we have much work ahead of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate our new Senator from Wisconsin, a very important addition to our caucus and to the Senate--a man who has actually run a business, actually employed people and created wealth in his State and our country. Having someone in the Senate who knows how to do that at this critical moment is absolutely essential, and I congratulate the new junior Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, when most people think about Kentucky, three things usually spring to mind immediately: horses, college basketball, and bourbon. What few people realize, however, is that it is only in the past few decades that premium bourbon has had much of a presence outside Kentucky at all. Just 30 years ago, bourbon was one of the fastest-declining spirits in America. And yet today, the industry supports 10,000 jobs in Kentucky; more than 1.5 million people have visited the Kentucky Bourbon Trail in the last 5 years; and every distiller in the State is adding capacity. So bourbon's come a long way, and if you ask folks in Kentucky, most of the credit goes to one man, whose 35-year run at the helm of the world's most famous bourbon distillery comes to an end this week.

I am referring, of course, to Mr. Bill Samuels, Jr., the longtime president of Makers Mark. Bill's dad may have come up with the formula for premium bourbon, but it is because of Bill's vision and tenacity that the rest of the world knows about it today.

The first thing you could say about Bill Samuels is that rarely in the history of American commerce has there been a better marriage between a man and a product than the one between him and Makers Mark. To many Kentuckians, he is an instantly recognizable figure. You could say that what Colonel Sanders was to chicken, Bill is to bourbon. And so it is appropriate that the first job he ever had, at the age of 16, was driving the colonel around. You couldn't ask for a better teacher than Harlan Sanders if you wanted to learn how to promote a product, and, if that product was bourbon, you couldn't ask for a better hometown than Bardstown, KY. Bill's godfather and next-door neighbor was Jim Beam, and Bill can trace his family's tradition of bourbon making in Bardstown back seven generations to 1844.

A dramatic change in the family business came in 1953, when Bill's father, Bill Samuels, Sr., decided to abandon the old family recipe, bought the smallest distillery in the State, just outside of Loretto, and got to work on a more premium product. Bill, Sr. never really thought of the family business as much more than a hobby, so Bill, Jr. went off to college where he studied engineering and earned a law degree. But the family business retained a certain attraction, and soon the younger of the two Bills had to make a choice: practice law, or accept his father's offer to work with him for half the money. The other terms of employment weren't much better. Bill's dad told him that they did three things and three things only at the family's distillery: ``We make whiskey, we

count money, and we sell whiskey''--and that his dad was in charge of the first two.

Bill knew the family's bourbon had a future beyond its small but loyal customer base, and over the next several years he would put together the strategy to prove it. Where most businesses focused on telling people why they should buy their product, Bill would let the people who already liked Makers Mark do the talking. Bill's view was that if he focused on maintaining quality, the demand would grow on its own, one happy customer at a time. The real turning point came in 1980, when a reporter from the Wall Street Journal started making inquiries about this distillery outside Loretto, KY, that seemed to be in high demand. The front-page story that followed called Makers Mark a model of inefficiency by choice. It noted that the Samuels' produced only 19 barrels of bourbon a day compared to an industry average in the hundreds, and described a cadre of loyal fans who liked it so much they would pay a premium to get it.

The response was overwhelming. Bill, Jr. followed up with a series of clever ads that underscored just how small the distillery was, and how difficult it had become to keep up with demand, which of course only increased it. Soon, Makers Mark exploded onto the national and international stage as a premium brand, and an entire premium industry emerged for Kentucky, which today produces more than 95 percent of all bourbon produced in the U.S.

Bill's genius for marketing and his love for Kentucky has always extended well beyond the family business. Over the years, he chaired an astonishing 27 different boards, including those at the University of Louisville, Bellarmine University, and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. To the amusement of his friends, he rcently signed up for Leadership Kentucky, a program typically reserved for young businessmen or women or newcomers to the Sate who want to learn more about Kentucky.

For a guy who is about as well known in Kentucky business as Colonel Sanders, it doesn't make much sense. But it makes perfect sense to people who know Bill. And whether he is showing up unexpectedly at some bar in Dallas or Chicago and buying a round of drinks, greeting visitors at the distillery in Loretto, or showing up at an event in a 12-button suit, Bill is one of those rare businessmen who has always been great at getting attention without showing a trace of ego. He has done it by focusing on the needs of his community, insisting on quality, and sticking to the winning formula that made Makers Mark a success. Those who have worked with Bill will tell you he is prone to self-deprecation, but this week Kentuckians across the State will have an opportunity to commend him on a job well done. And on behalf of all who have benefited from the vision and creativity of Bill Samuels, Jr., I would like to thank him for his dedicated service to the Commonwealth, and to wish him well in all his future endeavors. Knowing Bill, he is probably just getting started.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed in my leader time.

Mr. President, the American people have heard a lot of excuses over the past few days as to why it is that we are staring at a potential government shutdown here in Washington.

Democrats are saying the holdup is over social issues. This plays nicely into the political strategy they have decided on to distract people from their own fiscal recklessness.

Republicans say the holdup is over the need to reduce Washington spending--that Democrats, including the President, would rather see the government shut down than to allow a reduction in the size and scope of Washington that is perfectly reasonable by any objective standard.

Those are the competing messages. And generally speaking, people will probably agree with the party they tend to vote for. But whichever side you come down on, two things are not in dispute in this debate: First, that the whole reason we are in this mess is that Democrats abdicated their responsibility to keep the government funded through this year. And second, that Democrats have rejected the only plan out there that keeps the government open--the bipartisan troop funding bill--for no apparent reason.

The President says he will veto it, but does not say why. And Democrats in Congress would not vote for it, even though it funds the Defense Department and keeps the government operational and makes reasonable cuts in spending.

In other words, what Democrats are saying at this point is that they had rather see the government shut down either because they would not accept a modest amount of spending cuts that fall well within the range of what Democrats previously described as reasonable, or because they would not reinstate a longstanding policy related to one American city that Members of both parties, including Presidents of both parties, have approved repeatedly in the past.

The majority leader said yesterday that this particular provision relates to an issue that we have been unable to reach agreement on for 40 years. My response is that this is actually one of the few areas of agreement both parties have agreed about on this issue for years.

Let's be very clear about this: if the government shuts down, it is either because Democrats are pretending that a previously noncontroversial provision is suddenly out of bounds. Or they refuse to take another baby step in the direction of balancing the government checkbook, something we know the American people want. Neither reason is worth a shutdown especially when neither side actually wants one. And that is why I believe there will be an agreement here shortly. I have been in many negotiations over the years. I assure you, these are not unresolvable issues.

So my suggestion this morning is that both sides sit back and give the negotiators a few more hours to work this out.

Let Senator Reid talk with his conference. Let the Speaker talk to his. And let's just hold off on the speculation and the back and forth for a little while here. Both sides are working hard to reach the kind of resolution Americans want.

A resolution is within reach. The contours of a final agreement are coming into focus. There is virtually nothing in the troop funding bill Republicans in the House passed yesterday that will not be included in a final package.

Let's not disrupt and derail that agreement.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the majority leader, and Speaker Boehner for their outstanding work during this difficult negotiation. We had an opportunity tonight to decide whether we wanted to repeat history or make history. Had we chosen to repeat history, we would have allowed a government shutdown. Instead, we decided to make history by implementing in the middle of this fiscal year, as the majority leader indicated, substantial reductions in spending. These reductions are in the billions. Once we get through this process, by the end of next week we will move on to a much larger discussion about how we save trillions by enacting, hopefully, on a bipartisan basis, a budget that genuinely begins to get on top of this problem. The problem, as we all know, is $14 trillion in debt and over $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

The President has asked us to raise the debt ceiling, and Senate Republicans and House Republicans--and I hope many Democrats as well-- are going to say: Mr. President, in order to raise the debt ceiling, we need to do something significant about the debt. My definition of significant is that the markets view it as significant, the American people view it as significant, and foreign countries view it as significant.

So for tonight, again, I congratulate the majority leader and the Speaker. This is an important first step but just the beginning of what we need to do to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. President, I rise today to give recognition to one of the Commonwealth's most unique and historic areas, Laurel County, KY, which celebrated its 185th birthday on March 5, 2011. Located in Kentucky's eastern coal country, Laurel County was named after the trees that grow along the banks of the Laurel River. A county full of rich history and tradition dating back before the Civil War years, Laurel County first established their government and began business in 1826. Organized through a general assembly, it was the 18th county created in the Commonwealth.

London, the largest town in Laurel County, also celebrated its 185th birthday this year on March 6. Although named after London, England, the town's festive characteristics gave it a name in its own light. In proximity to beautiful landscapes which were explored by the likes of Daniel Boone and Levi Jackson, the two parks that bear their names, the Daniel Boone National Park and the Levi Jackson Wilderness Road State Park, have been hailed as two of the most sought-after vacation spots in the country. Cumberland Falls State Resort Park as well as numerous hiking and bike trails also showcase some of the best scenery the Bluegrass State has to offer. Well-known names such as national best- selling author Silas House, former University of Kentucky star and NBA basketball player Jeff Sheppard, and the infamous Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Colonel Harland David Sanders have all called Laurel County home.

Whether you are sampling a taste of fried chicken at the World Chicken Festival, enjoying a country music show at the Renfro Valley Entertainment Center on a Friday night, or taking in the scenery of the challenging Redbud Ride bike trail, Laurel County has a little something for everyone. Maybe it is a combination of these one-of-a- kind attractions, the pristine beauty of its natural landscape, and its strong sense of southern Kentucky hospitality that makes Laurel County so welcoming and intriguing. Whatever it is, it keeps people coming back for more.

Mr. President, 185 years later, these vacation crossroads still tell a story. Atop the peaks overlooking the Cumberland Gap where the small, yet crucial Battle of Wildcat Mountain was fought in the Civil War to the crystal clear waters of Laurel Lake, I am sure there will be many more stories to tell in the future.

I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating Laurel County, Kentucky's 185th birthday. This is an exciting time for the people of Laurel County and the Commonwealth, and I send them my congratulations and best wishes for the future.

Mr. President, my good friend mentioned Henry Clay. He would approve very much of the bill the House will be sending over later today. And the abortion provision my good friend refers to is one Democratic leaders have previously supported. It is a measure that has previously appeared in appropriations bills and a measure that has been previously signed by the President. So obviously that is not what this matter is about.

As the majority leader indicated, the talks are continuing. But two positions

have emerged that are very clear. Throughout this debate, Republicans have consistently said that we prefer a bipartisan agreement that keeps the government running and provides critical funding and certainty for our troops. This is exactly what we have been working toward all along, and that is exactly what the bill the House Republicans are expected to pass today will do.

Importantly, this bill will also include a modest reduction in Washington spending--a reduction well within the range that even Democratic leaders have described as reasonable.

In fact, the bill House Republicans will send over to the Senate today is nothing more than a smaller version of the larger bill that Democrats say they want. So let's be specific, very specific.

The Obama administration and the Secretary of Defense have said they need an annual defense bill. The House bill we will get today does that. It passes the Defense appropriations bill. Senate Democrats have said they want the Government to keep running. The House bill we will get today does precisely that. Democratic leaders have identified a number of cuts they believe are reasonable. The spending cuts in the House bill we will get today go no farther than that. Democratic leaders have said they want no controversial policy riders. That is what we just heard our majority leader talking about. But the policy provisions in the bill we will get today are provisions that members of the Democratic leadership have already voted for and that the President himself has previously signed into law. It will be pretty hard to argue that is controversial.

Here is the bottom line: The bill does everything Democrats have previously said they want. It cuts Washington spending by an amount that Democratic leaders believe is reasonable. The policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by Democratic leaders and signed by this President. Most important, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open, the only one that is coming over from the House.

In other words, if a shutdown does occur, our Democratic friends have no one to blame but themselves because they have done nothing whatsoever to prevent it, since they have produced no alternative to the bill the House is sending over today. This is the only proposal currently on the table that will keep the government open.

There are two options at this point. Democrats can either take up and pass this reasonable bill that falls well within the bounds of what their own leadership has defined as acceptable or shut down the government. That is it, that is the choice. So rather than talking about a shutdown, I hope our Democratic friends join us in actually preventing one. There is only one way to do that, by quickly passing the House bill and sending it to the President for his signature before tomorrow night.

Mr. President, the President will meet today with Colombia President Juan Manuel Santos. We understand they will announce agreement on a long overdue free-trade agreement with this important trading partner and our best ally in South America. Republicans have been urging the President to act on this and on other critical trade deals for over 2 years.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea can provide up to 380,000 U.S. jobs. We know this deal alone would create tens of thousands of new jobs here in this country. At a time when millions of Americans are out of work and businesses are looking for opportunities to hire, there was no excuse to slow walk these deals.

We hope today's meeting marks a real step forward in concluding this trade agreement with Colombia. We expect this announcement means the President will be submitting all three trade agreements--Korea, Colombia, and Panama--in the very near future. We look forward to working with him to clear them through the Congress.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I congratulate the junior Senator from North Dakota for his initial speech here in the Senate and say to all of our colleagues that it should be no surprise that he was sent here by the people of North Dakota by an overwhelming margin. During his 10 years as Governor, the State enjoyed extraordinary success. At a time when many States were struggling financially, North Dakota had bulging surpluses and low unemployment, almost entirely as a result of the outstanding job then-Governor Hoeven did in representing the people of North Dakota. So, as I say, it is no surprise that they sent him to join us here in the Senate by an overwhelmingly large majority, and I congratulate him on behalf of all of our colleagues on his initial speech.

I will proceed on my leader time.

Madam President, across the country this morning, Americans are wondering what is going on in Washington this week. They want to know why it is taking so long to fund the government. Americans want to know how we got to this point, and they deserve an answer, so here goes.

Each year, the majority party in Congress is responsible for coming up with a budget plan that explains how they are going to pay for all the things that government does. It is not just a good idea--it is the law. Congress has been required to do it since 1974.

Last year, Democrat leaders in Congress decided they didn't want to do it. They didn't want to have to publicly defend their bloated spending and the debt it is creating. So Republicans have had to come up with temporary spending bills to keep the government running in the absence of any alternatives--and leadership--from Democrats.

Republicans even passed a bill in the House that would keep the government funded through the rest of the current fiscal year, and which takes an important first step toward a smaller, more efficient government that helps improve the conditions for private sector job growth.

This House bill would save us billions of dollars on our way to a conversation about trillions. And Congressman Ryan has done a service this week by setting the terms of that larger debate--by outlining a plan that puts us back on a path to stability and prosperity.

Unfortunately, Democrats have made a calculated decision that they didn't want to have either debate--so they have taken a pass on both.

Frankly, it is hard not to be struck by the contrasting approaches to our Nation's fiscal problems that we have seen in Washington this week. On the one hand, you have a plan by Congressman Ryan that every serious person has described as honest and courageous. On the other hand, you have people like the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and the previous Speaker of the House dismissing that plan in the most cartoonish language imaginable.

While thinking people have seen in the Ryan plan an honest attempt to tackle our problems head on, ideologues on the left have seen a target to distort while offering no vision of their own to prevent a fiscal nightmare that we all know is approaching.

And they still haven't come up with an alternative to the various Republican proposals we have seen to keep the government up and running in the current fiscal year. They have just sat on the sidelines taking potshots at everything Republicans have proposed while rooting for a shutdown.

That is why the Republicans in the House have now proposed another bill this week that will fund the military for the rest of the year, keep the government operating, and which gets us a

little closer to a level of spending that even the senior Senator from New York has called ``reasonable.''

The fact that Democrats are now rejecting this offer, which even members of their own leadership have described as ``reasonable'' is all the evidence you need that Democrats are more concerned about the politics of this debate than keeping the government running.

Let's be clear about something this morning: throughout this entire debate, Republicans have not only said that we would prefer a bipartisan agreement that funds the government and protects defense spending at a time when we have American troops fighting in two wars. There is a Republican plan on the table right now that would do just that.

Democrats can accept that proposal, or they can reject it. But they can't blame anyone but themselves if a shutdown does occur. Because they have done nothing to prevent it.

With the clock ticking, I would once again encourage our Democratic friends to get on board with this proposal, and to support the kind of spending cuts that the American people have asked for--and that their own leadership has already endorsed.

Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote on an amendment that one leading newspaper described last week as one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. More specifically, this amendment, which is based on legislation proposed by Senator Inhofe, would prevent unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing a new national energy tax on American job creators.

Everyone knows that this attempt to handcuff American businesses with new costs and regulations is the last thing these job-creators need right now. That is why even Democrats in Congress have sought to secure the same kind of exemptions from the law for favored industries in their own States that we saw others from their party trying to secure for favored constituencies in the health care law.

Democrats from auto States tried to have the auto industry exempted. And Democrats from farming States tried to have farmers exempted.

What these efforts show, is that Democrats themselves recognize the dangers of these EPA regulations. Yet instead of just voting for the one amendment that solves the problem, they are hiding behind sham amendments designed to give them political cover.

Republicans have a better idea--let's try to make sure everybody is exempted. Let's not pick winners and losers. Let's let America's small businesses and entrepreneurs compete and grow on a level playing field without any more burdensome government regulations, costs, or redtape.

The amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Inhofe would do that.

The amendment would give businesses the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at the EPA is going to make their efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has. So once again, I thank Senator Inhofe for his strong leadership on this issue. He has led the way in protecting American jobs from this burdensome proposal with determination and common sense. He deserves the credit.

I also want to thank Chairman Upton and my good friend, Congressman Whitfield, for fighting against this effort by the EPA and moving legislation to prevent it in the House.

Madam President, there are some signs today the administration is beginning to take seriously a pending trade agreement with Colombia. Republicans have been urging the administration to act on this critical trade deal for months. This agreement would help American businesses compete on a level playing field with businesses overseas. It would help create American jobs. And it would help our relationship with an important ally in Latin America.

Hopefully these reports are true, and the President will send this agreement, along with similar agreements related to Panama and South Korea to Congress soon. This would be some very good news for an economy that needs it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate our new colleague on her initial speech related to the twin problems we have in this country of spending and debt, as well as to say to her that it is pretty clear to all of us that she is a worthy successor to our good friend Judd Gregg whose seat she now occupies and who was also a leader in this body--some would argue the leader in this body--on the questions of our Nation's fiscal crisis and how to get it in order. So on behalf of all of our colleagues, I congratulate Senator Ayotte.