Floor Statements

Mr. President, we have entered our tenth year of fighting in Afghanistan, and we can never express our gratitude enough to the heroic men and women of our Armed Forces who continue the battle there. Many of them--nearly one-fifth of all U.S. forces in that country--are from units based in Kentucky: Fort Campbell, Fort Knox, the Kentucky National Guard, the Marine Corps and the Reserves.

I recently led a Congressional delegation to the region and spent some time in Afghanistan to see up close the progress our forces are making there in clearing out the Taliban and creating the opportunity for Afghan security forces to assume greater responsibility. During my visit, I had the honor of meeting many of the servicemembers from Kentucky. I told them that we are proud of them, we support them, we thank them for their service, and we pray for their safe return.

Forces in Afghanistan from Kentucky units number more than 18,000 strong. They have seen much military success--but in the process, many have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

The 101st Airborne Division, based out of Fort Campbell and known as the Screaming Eagles, endured a particularly hard year, losing more than 100 soldiers since last March. In fact, nearly one out of five American lives lost in Afghanistan in the past year has been lost from the 101st. The men and women who stood beside them honor their sacrifice by continuing the fight.

After a long deployment, many of the soldiers from the 101st are due to return home over the next few months, just as their brothers-in-arms from Fort Knox are deploying. About 3,500 soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division and the 703rd Explosive Ordnance Disposal Detachment will arrive in Afghanistan in the next few weeks or are already there. It is the biggest deployment from Fort Knox since World War II.

Hundreds of servicemembers from the Kentucky Air and Army National Guard are performing critical missions in Afghanistan as well. The 123rd Airlift Wing, the 2123rd Transportation Company, the 20th Special Forces Group and a Kentucky Guard Agricultural Development Team have all recently sent men and women to the fight, some who have served as many as six tours.

It was my honor to meet some of these brave warriors in person this month when I visited the headquarters of the 101st Airborne Division at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and also during my stop at Camp Leatherneck in the southern part of that country, the outpost for a number of Kentucky Marines.

These extraordinary men and women leave their loved ones thousands of miles behind and put on their country's uniform every day, with their lives in the balance. They have seen their friends and fellow soldiers and Marines make the ultimate sacrifice, and yet they fight on to accomplish a difficult mission. And they continue to make their country, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and this Senator very proud.

When we honor our servicemembers, we also honor their families, who endure the long months with a loved one gone and in harm's way. This country would not have the finest fighting force in the world without their sacrifice and support as well.

It is brave servicemembers like the ones I got to meet who keep this country free. When both the Senate and the House of Representatives met in joint session recently to hear the President deliver his State of the Union address, we did so under the cloak of freedom that these heroes provide. America is grateful for their service and their sacrifice.

I yield the floor.

My statement is pretty brief, if the Senator from Texas would not mind. I think Senator Stabenow is willing to let me do my statement and lay down my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very much for letting me make a brief statement about the amendment I am about to offer, and apologize for interrupting her comments.

What we have today is an opportunity--an opportunity--for the majority to reevaluate what it has done on the issue of health care and to take another path. It is no secret the American people don't like the health care bill that was passed last year. If you have talked with doctors or nurses or anybody else involved in health care over the last year, most of them will tell you they do not like it either. Employers, big and small, have been desperately trying to get the message across of how damaging this bill will be to their ability to create jobs. They tell us the impact of the bill is severe--higher taxes, penalties for hiring workers, new regulations that have already run to more than 6,000 pages, and mountains of new paperwork all at a time when businesses want to create jobs and millions of Americans are looking for one.

Don't take it from me. Here is how the National Federation of Independent Business puts it:

Small business owners everywhere are rightfully concerned

that the unconstitutional new mandates, countless rules and

new taxes in the health care law will devastate their

businesses and their ability to create jobs.

Yesterday, a Federal court in Florida found the crux of the law to be unconstitutional. So we have an opportunity today--an opportunity for all those who supported the health law--to reevaluate your vote and to listen to your constituents, who are desperately trying to get your attention. You can say, perhaps, this was a mistake, we can do this better or you can continue to dismiss the majority of the people in this country as not knowing what they are talking about.

It is not every day that you get a second chance on a big decision after you know all the facts. Today is one of those days. For all of us who opposed the health care bill, today we reaffirm our commitment to work a little harder to get it right. We can't afford to get it wrong.

I urge my colleagues to move beyond party affiliation. Look at the facts before us. If everyone in this Chamber evaluated this bill for what it is, we would repeal it right now, and then we would begin to work on achieving our mutual goal of delivering health care at a higher quality for lower cost. Let us not miss this opportunity.

Amendment No. 13

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas, and I yield the floor.

If I may, Mr. President, I believe this is the first opportunity the new Senator from Missouri has had to address the Senate and his colleagues, and he certainly has chosen a most important topic to begin his career here in the Senate. I wish to express my admiration not only for the comments he just made on what many of us believe is right near the top of the list of America's priorities but also his extraordinary service in the House of Representatives over the last 14 years and also to welcome the Senator from Missouri to the Senate. As I indicated, he certainly picked an appropriate topic on which to make his maiden speech to the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the colloquy which the majority leader and I are working on at the moment will reflect the entirety of our understanding. But with regard to comments about how we got to this place, let me just say, first to my good friend from Nevada, on several occasions I heard both him and the President of the United States talk about how much was accomplished in the last Congress. I am often perplexed as to which was the case. Either an extraordinary amount of legislation was passed and signed or the Senate was obstructing. They could not both be true.

I suspect the real view that most historians will have is that the last Congress passed a great deal of very significant legislation. Then we had a referendum on that November 2, and the American people changed the equation.

Without getting back into that or a litany of complaints by the minority--the Senate has heard them before. The principal complaint the minority has had over the last 2 years is the number of times the tree has been filled and we have been unable to offer amendments. We are all aware of grievances on both sides.

As is often the case in the Senate, we have worked together through Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer to come to an agreement as to how the Senate will go forward and the procedures that will be employed. We will have votes later, consistent with the precedents of the Senate, at the thresholds that are required under Senate rules. Then we will move on with the people's business.

I am optimistic that my good friend, the majority leader, and I can convince our colleagues that we ought to get back to operating as the Senate did as recently as 3 or 4 years ago. When bills came up, they were open for amendments, we voted on amendments, and at some point the bill would be completed. I know we can do that. I think it is the right way for the Senate to operate.

I thank my friend, the majority leader, for his leadership in working through this difficult period of rules consideration.

I say to my colleagues in closing that the colloquy which we will have will reflect the entirety of our understanding as to how we go forward. Then we will have the votes later which will give the Senate a chance to go on record about some changes that have been agreed to and some that are being proposed that are not agreed to.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. Senators in both of our parties agree that there has been a significant

breakdown in the Senate, though I am sure there are different perspectives on the causes of the breakdown. We both recall that in the not too distant past, when the minority and majority were reversed, we both had somewhat different perspectives on these issues. But know that the majority leader and I both care about this institution and the vital role it plays in our democracy.

I am happy about the reforms that we will be adopting today. The rules create many rights--for individual Senators, for the minority, and for the majority leader. But, with rights come responsibilities and Senator Reid and I have discussed how to ensure that we return to a better balance between those two this Congress, and that the twin hallmarks of the Senate--the right to debate and amend legislation--are restored.

And, in my caucus, I have many Senators who have complained that the majority leader has abused his ability to ``fill the amendment'' tree, preventing Senators from offering and debating amendments that they believe are important, especially when a matter has not gone through committee or cloture is filed too quickly.

I agree that both sides should do their best to reinstitute regular order, where bills come to the floor and Senators get amendments. Of course, there will be times when there is no consensus and when either side may want to use all its rights to defeat a bill. But we should endeavor to work together to follow the regular order where practicable and use our procedural options with discretion. And, I will do my best to ensure that other members of my caucus respect this.

I want to close by clearly reaffirming my view that if we are going to change Senate rules, we must do so within those rules. As rule 5 states, the Senate is a continuing body, and the rules continue unless changed within the parameters of the rules.

I strongly reject this notion that a simple majority can muscle their way to new rules at the beginning of a new Congress. I believe this is a flawed approach. Majorities come and go. My Democratic colleagues should be wary of attempting this maneuver because they will not always be in the majority. The Senate is not the House of Representatives, and our Founding Fathers never intended it to be. What some of my colleagues in the majority propose would damage the institution and turn the Senate into a legislative body like the House where a simple majority can run roughshod over the minority. I would oppose such an effort to change the rules with a simple majority in this Congress or the next Congress, regardless of which political party is in the majority. I ask the majority leader to join me in rejecting this effort.

I agree that the Senate spends too much time dealing with a growing number of nominees. It makes sense to reduce the number of positions confirmed and free up committee staff to focus on other nominees or legislation. I appreciate the work of these Senators and look forward to passing this legislation as soon as it is complete.

I agree with the majority leader that this Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress. I do support the idea that the Senate should be able to move forward and complete action on matters with broad bipartisan support. Neither party has all of the solutions to the problems our Nation faces. Many of the successes of past Congresses have been the result of bipartisan cooperation and input. I look forward to such cooperation and input in this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and career of Mr. Willard ``Bill'' Lowery, who passed away on December 20, 2010. He was 80 years old. As a beloved member of his community in Burnside, KY, Bill was a prime example of a man who poured his heart into serving and protecting his family, his community, and his country.

Born in Pulaski County, KY, Bill not only served his community selflessly, but touched the lives of all who had the pleasure of meeting him. He courageously served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, and continued his public service as a Burnside police officer. It is no wonder that Bill's friendly demeanor and dedication earned him the position of chief of police, which he held for 6 years.

Bill continued to serve his community as an employee at the Pulaski County Detention Center, a member of Blue John Baptist Church, the American Legion Post 38, and, even more impressively, as a 50-year member of the Burnside Masonic Lodge. It is evident that the people in this close-knit community respected and valued Bill's tireless dedication, when more than 50 residents, including fellow police officers, lined the streets of Burnside following his funeral procession to pay their respects.

I could surely continue to praise the works and accomplishments of this hard-working and humble man, but I would simply ask that my colleagues join me in remembering this unsung hero, who showed incredible character and relentless dedication in service to his community, his country, and the Commonwealth. My thoughts go out to his beloved wife Wanda, his son Eugene, his two daughters, Alice and Penny Jo, 6 grandchildren, and 14 great-grandchildren, and many other beloved friends and family members.

The Commonwealth Journal in Somerset, KY, recently published a story about Bill Lowery. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, first, I would like to express my strong support for the resolution on the floor honoring the victims and the heroes of the Tucson shooting, and I thank Senators Kyl and McCain for submitting it.

Let me take this opportunity to express once again my sympathy to the families of those who lost their lives that morning and to join with all those who are persevering in prayer for the injured, including Congresswoman Giffords, whose condition, thankfully, still appears to be improving day by day.

We will never forget the heroism of those who sacrificed their own safety that morning in Tucson for the good of those around them nor the dedication of those who attended to the wounded immediately after the shooting both at the scene and in the hospital rooms in the days that followed.

We thank all of them for giving us, in the midst of this horrific event, some reason for hope and a powerful example of service to follow.

It is my hope that today's resolution will help in some way to preserve the memory of the dead, the injured, and the heroes of Tucson.

Hopefully, out of this terrible national tragedy the rest of us can draw strength and inspiration, grow in concern for those around us, and deepen our sense of purpose about the work we do here every day.

State of the Union Address

Mr. President, for 2 years I have insisted again and again that the two parties can and should work together on legislation that would spur the economy, create an environment for good private sector jobs, and put our Nation on a stronger footing for the future. Last night, the President did the same. So this afternoon I would like to accept the President's offer to work together just as I did after last year's State of the Union.

I agree with the President that we can and should work together to increase, without Federal mandates, production of more domestic sources of energy, including nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas; on strengthening and protecting our borders and enforcing immigration laws; on increasing U.S. exports by completing free-trade agreements with South Korea but also Panama and Colombia; on medical liability reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits; on finding a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations of Americans; on finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan; and on simplifying the individual Tax Code and reducing our corporate tax rates, which are making it harder and harder for U.S. companies to compete around the world.

Working together in all these areas would help the economy by encouraging the creation of private sector jobs, improving security, and helping us keep our commitments to our children and our parents. I take the President at his word when he says he is eager to cooperate with us on doing all of it.

But achieving each of these things should be an end unto itself. It cannot be contingent on some cynical bargain whereby one party agrees to secure the border as long as the other party agrees to amnesty for illegal immigrants; where one side agrees to increase domestic energy exploration as long as the other side agrees to cripple the economy with higher fuel prices; where one side agrees to fight terror as long as the other side agrees to artificial timelines and preordained withdrawal dates--in other words, a bargain whereby the party offering to work together has no real intention of working together at all. And too often that has been the approach this President and his party have taken over the last 2 years.

Take health care. For more than a year, we offered to work with the White House and Democrats on a bill that would incorporate the best thinking on both sides. They refused every step of the way. In the end, they got the bill they wanted: a massive government-driven system that creates an unknowable number of new bureaucratic entities and two massive new government entitlements, which is already leading people to lose the care they like, which nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed predict will lead to worse care, and which is causing already struggling businesses to struggle even more with a mountain--a mountain--of new mandates and fees. It is only after this disastrous bill has become law that the President says he is now interested in making it better, even as he belittles the legitimate concerns so many Americans continue to have about it.

He has taken the same approach to spending and debt. Two years ago, the President came to Congress and told the country we needed to invest in the future through a trillion-dollar stimulus that was supposed to be a model of transparency and efficiency. Within a year, this bill, which was sold to us as the answer to our Nation's economic woes, had become a national punch line, a tragic waste of money. And 2 years after that investment in our future was signed into law, what do we have? Nearly $3.5 trillion more in debt and nearly 3 million more Americans out of work.

These out-of-work Americans do not want to sit around and wait for the Democratic vision of the future to appear, compliments of the experts in Washington. They are not particularly moved by someone's vision of what America could look like 40 years from now if only they hand over more of their paychecks or more of their freedoms now. They want a job. They want Washington to stop trying to help them and let them help themselves.

So the President talks a good game, but call us skeptical, because when all of the applause is over and the speeches are through, the debt is higher, more and more wasteful spending and job-stifling regulations come to light, and millions of Americans are still asking the same simple, persistent question: Mr. President, where are the jobs?

The President made some good suggestions on areas where we could work together, and we stand ready to do so, just as we have in the past. But we have now seen enough to know that what the President says and what the President does are two very different things. He has called for investments in energy before and we got the stimulus. He called for working with us on trade. We are still waiting. He said before we need to get serious about the debt, even as it reached dizzying new heights as a result of his policies. He speaks like one who recognizes that spending is out of control, and yet his response is to propose that we lock in spending levels we already know are completely unsustainable. This isn't progress. This is an admission of defeat. Americans don't want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels. They want cuts-- dramatic cuts--and I hope the President will work with us on achieving them soon.

To put it simply, the President still sounds as though he is trying to have it both ways. His tone may be changing, but based on past performance we will remain skeptical until we see actual results. Republicans have pledged to the voters that we will do everything we can to cut wasteful government spending, work to lower the debt, get government out of the way of economic growth, and to work to repeal the health care bill, even as we replace that health care bill with the kind of commonsense reforms people actually want. The President has shown he is willing to talk about some of these things. Let's hope he surprises us by showing a new willingness to do more than that--to actually work with us on achieving real results.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I understand there is a bill at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I wish to start this morning by acknowledging the news from last week that three of our colleagues will be leaving us when their current terms expire. Senator Hutchison has been a trusted adviser of mine, a leader in the Senate, and a dear friend. Senator Conrad has been a leader on the budget. He has done a lot to alert the country to the fiscal problems we face as a Nation. Senator Lieberman has been a consistent and courageous leader on defense and national security issues. We will be sorry to see them go. They have all been a great credit to this body.

Madam President, every grade school student knows that all three branches of the Federal Government in Washington are equal, but as every Member of Congress quickly learns, the President sets the agenda. Never is that more apparent than on the day of the State of the Union Address. This year the President will be speaking to a Congress that looks very different from the one he spoke to last year. The voters sent a clear message in November that when it comes to jobs and the economy, the administration's policies have done far more damage than good.

One very positive thing that the President could do tonight is to acknowledge they have a point. He has tried to do so indirectly in recent weeks by hiring new staff and by speaking in tones of moderation, but it takes more than a change in tone to improve the economy. It takes more than a change in tone to reduce the debt. It takes more than a change in tone to help create the right conditions for private-sector job growth. It takes a change in policy, and the early signals suggest the President isn't quite there yet.

The President has talked recently about working together to improve a regulatory climate that stifles business innovation and job growth. Yet he has not acknowledged the extent to which his own policies have stifled growth. Over the past 2 years, his administration has issued more than 130 economically significant new rules or 40 percent more than the annual rate under the last two Presidents. What is worse,

the new health care bill will alone create 159 new bureaucratic entities and it is exempt from the President's proposed regulatory reforms. The health care bill, which will create 159 new bureaucratic entities, is exempt from the President's proposed regulatory reforms. This is bad news for small business that was already struggling to get by in a down economy and which is now grappling with how to afford all the new mandates in the new health care bill.

The President has talked about streamlining and reducing the burden of government. Yet the health care bill he has signed is already increasing the cost of care and forcing people out of their existing coverage. The debate over this bill continues and the President and Democrats in Congress continue to defend it. But when nearly two-thirds of doctors surveyed predicted it will make health care in America worse, Americans are right to be concerned. It should tell us something that of the 19 doctors currently in Congress, 18 of them support repeal of the health care bill.

The President has talked about the need to cut spending and reduce the debt. Yet over the last 2 years his policies have added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, much of it through a stimulus that promised to keep unemployment--now hovering just below double digits-- from rising above 8 percent. And now we hear that he plans to stick with the same failed approach of economic growth through even more government spending with a call for ``investments'' in education, infrastructure, research, and renewable energy.

We have seen before what Democrats in Washington mean by investments. In promoting the failed stimulus, the President referred to that too as an investment in our Nation's future. Fourteen times alone during his signing statement he referred to the stimulus bill's investments. We all know how that turned out.

The first stimulus, we were told, would include critical so-called investments in education, infrastructure, scientific research, and renewable energy--the same areas we are told he will focus on tonight. Only later did we learn that some of these critical investments included things such as repairs on tennis courts, a study on the mating decisions of cactus bugs, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a plant database, and a $535 million loan to a California solar panel maker which, instead of hiring 1,000 new workers as planned, just laid off 175 instead.

This is what happens when the government decides to pick winners and losers without considering what the marketplace wants. Competitors are left out in the cold, employees get a false sense of security, and taxpayers are left holding the bag. Unfortunately, the President does not seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. But taxpayers now know that when Democrats talk about investments they should grab their wallets.

So I am all for the President changing his tune, but unless he has a time machine, he cannot change his record. If we are going to make any real progress in the areas of spending, debt, and reining in government, the President will have to acknowledge that the policies of the past 2 years are not only largely to blame for the situation we find ourselves in, but that unless we do something to reverse their ill effects, the road to recovery and prosperity will be a bumpy one.

The President has spoken in the tones of a moderate many times. He did so in his campaign. He has done so in countless speeches. He has a knack for it. I have no doubt he will do so again tonight. But speeches only last for as long as they are delivered. Americans are more interested in what follows the speech and, in the case of this administration, Americans have good reason to be skeptical. Time and time again the President has spoken in a way that appeals to many, then governed in a way that does not. My hope is he will leave that method aside. A better path, in my view, is the one Republicans have been proposing for 2 years, one that respects both the wishes of the public and the two-party system.

Last year, prior to the President's State of the Union, I proposed a number of areas where I thought the two parties could find common ground and work together to help the economy. The President ignored just about everything I proposed. So when the pundits ask whether there are areas where the two parties could come together, I would say yes, I have proposed several of them, but the Democrats don't seem to be interested. Some have suggested that in this new post-election environment I might find a more receptive audience. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I wish to propose once again a few areas where I believe the two parties can work together in the weeks and months ahead.

I believe the parties can and should work together on energy initiatives that expand America's domestic energy supply and make us less reliant on foreign sources; on expanding exports and creating jobs through free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; and on reforming corporate taxes so American businesses are more competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. These are just a few of the things we can do beyond the symbolic gestures and the posturing to help the economy.

Beyond that, we must work to cut spending and to rein in the size and scope and cost of government. The voters have been crystal clear on this point. By proposing more government spending tonight, the President is not only defying their will, he is refusing to learn the clear lesson of the failed stimulus--government may create debt but it doesn't create jobs.

I think we have a lot of work to do in bringing the two parties together in a program that will actually address the problems we face. But there are reasons for optimism. The President's change in tone is an acknowledgement at least that something has to change, as was his willingness to work with Republicans last month to keep taxes from going up on anyone. In the coming weeks and months Americans will be looking to him to come around on spending and debt as well, and Republicans will be working hard to persuade him to do so.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I am aware that the number of presidential appointees has grown substantially. According to the bipartisan Commission on Public Service report from 2003, President Kennedy took office in 1960 with only 286 positions to fill by Presidential appointment. Many of those required Senate confirmation. About 40 years later, President George W. Bush faced a total of 3,361 Presidential appointment slots to fill. I am sure the current President faced a similar number of appointments.

I agree the Senate should establish a working group to examine this issue. Surely, Senators Lieberman and Collins have bipartisan respect and should be a part of any such group on executive nominations. Senators Alexander and Schumer are good choices to spearhead this effort. I look forward to working with the majority leader and my colleagues in the coming weeks as we finalize this proposal.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.