Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Mr. Jacob Lew to be Secretary of the Treasury. This is an important nomination. With our still-struggling economy and our growing fiscal problems, the next Treasury Secretary is going to have a lot on his plate. That being the case, we have worked on the Finance Committee to vet Mr. Lew, to examine his background credentials, and provide a complete picture of his qualifications for this post.

I wish to offer a few comments about our review process, what we have learned, and the reservations about the nominee that remain with me now that this process is complete.

Let me begin by saying a few words about the process itself. For well over a decade, the Finance Committee has followed a specified procedure when considering executive branch nominations. Sadly, that procedure was not followed in the case of Mr. Lew.

After publicly announcing Mr. Lew's nomination, the White House waited 16 days before submitting any of his paperwork. That was an atypically long delay and, in addition to slowing the vetting process, it ensured Mr. Lew would not be confirmed in time to prevent a vacancy at the Treasury Department. A nomination hearing was scheduled to be held only 12 calendar days after the paperwork was received, even though the nominee had not answered all of the questions submitted to him.

That is simply not the way our process has worked in the past, and the undue haste seriously hampered our ability to thoroughly examine Mr. Lew's background and his qualifications.

Once the hearing was completed, as is customary, members of the Finance Committee submitted written questions for the record. Since that time, anonymous administration sources have decried the very notion that members of the Finance Committee had the audacity to ask hundreds of questions of Mr. Lew as part of their constitutional advice-and-consent responsibilities.

Let me be clear. I will vigorously defend the right of any Member of Congress, regardless of party, to ask questions of nominees until they are satisfied they have obtained all the relevant information, and especially in the case of the Treasury Secretary, which is one of the most important assignments in our government today and always has been. If we go all the way back to the time of Alexander Hamilton, we know what he meant to this country by establishing the financial system of this country as the Secretary of the Treasury.

In the case of Mr. Lew, there were several reasons why he ended up being asked numerous questions. First, the nomination process, as I mentioned, was abbreviated due to the haste of the administration. That meant the questions which through the course of ordinary business could have been resolved

through discussion had to be asked in written form.

Second, due to the general unresponsiveness of the administration to requests for information over the last few years, there is a pent-up demand for information and any semblance of responsiveness from the executive branch.

Third, Mr. Lew's responses to many questions have been opaque. He has dissembled often. That being the case, it seemed the only way to get answers to straightforward questions was to continue to ask for clarifications in an attempt to break through the wall of obfuscation Mr. Lew had constructed. I have no doubt he could have answered most of these questions in much less numerical form than he did.

Even after extensive questioning, there remain several serious concerns with Mr. Lew's background, his lack of responsiveness, and the evasive manner in which he answered many questions which were posed to him. Unfortunately, many of these concerns will go unaddressed, as Mr. Lew seems to be following the standard stonewalling strategy used by so many officials in the Obama administration.

For years now administration officials have gone out of their way to be unresponsive to information requests from Congress, and that is simply unacceptable. Far too often, legitimate inquiries submitted to the executive branch go unanswered for months at a time. Requested deadlines are discarded. Indeed, in some instances information requests are ignored entirely. When responses are given, substantive and direct questions are given meaningless political answers. This has gone on far too long and it needs to stop.

Mr. Lew, for his part, has promised me that he would be responsive to inquiries submitted by Members of Congress. While his answers to questions throughout the confirmation process give me reason to doubt his commitment to being responsive, I intend to hold him to that process moving forward. I believe he is an honorable man and I believe he will try to do this.

I wish to take a few minutes to address some additional substantive concerns I have about Mr. Lew, his background, and his qualifications for this post.

Let's consider Mr. Lew's Citigroup years. At Citigroup Mr. Lew was managing director and chief operating officer of two units, Global Wealth Management and Citigroup Alternative Investments. Mr. Lew claimed repeatedly while managing, directing, and operating those Citigroup units he essentially undertook back-room operations such as firing people, moving office space, integrating computer systems, eliminating redundancies, and things of that nature.

Mr. Lew has also repeatedly stated he did not design financial products at Citigroup, make portfolio decisions or, in his words, opine on investments. In fact, when asked about investment products which were marketed and sold by the Citigroup units he oversaw, he could not remember any specific details.

It needs to be noted some of those investments ended up generating enormous losses for investors. For example, funds called MAT, ASTA and Falcon, which were marketed, sold, and managed by the Citigroup units Mr. Lew oversaw ended up being the subject of lawsuits and successful arbitration claims, where success was based on investors convincing arbitrators the funds were misrepresented and mismanaged by Citigroup. The losses to investors from these funds numbered in the billions. In fact, some financial advisers at Citigroup protested internally the misrepresented securities caused enormous damage to Citi's reputation.

One of Mr. Lew's bosses at Citigroup argued on behalf of the investors and against Citi's stock price and bottom line by saying the investors had been wronged and should be made whole. She was subsequently fired.

From all information I have seen, Mr. Lew did not similarly stand up for wronged investors while on Wall Street. Perhaps it is because he did not know what was going on in the firm or at his firm. We don't really know. Despite the fact the funds in question led to probably the largest losses in the history of the units Mr. Lew oversaw, Mr. Lew claims that he cannot recall anything about them. If you ask anyone familiar with the funds and controversies surrounding them, they will say you would need to have been away on a desert island to not have heard about the problems that these funds faced. Yet, once again, Mr. Lew continues to deny having any memory of them.

At the same time Mr. Lew claims while he was at Citigroup he learned a lot about financial markets and the dangers of risk. Indeed, he cited his experience at Citi as a qualification to be Treasury Secretary, even though he appears to have little recollection about any of the actual details of his work at that time, or at least his financial details.

The question remains: How could Mr. Lew operate, manage, direct units and also be in charge of staffing decisions without having any knowledge of the financial products that were marketed, sold, and managed by these very same units? It remains unclear.

Had there been a traditional vetting process, perhaps we could have gotten to the bottom of this mystery. As it is we are only left to speculate, as you can see.

In addition to Mr. Lew's lack of knowledge about some of the high- profile failures of the units he was overseeing, there are legitimate concerns relating to his compensation while at Citigroup.

On January 29, 2009, President Obama made remarks about Wall Street, saying that institutions were ``teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them.''

The President also remarked on Wall Street bonuses at the time, saying:

That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

About Wall Street executives, he said:

There will be a time for them to get bonuses. . . . Now is

not the time.

Elsewhere he referred to Wall Street bonuses as ``obscene.''

In late 2008 and early 2009, American taxpayers provided over $45 billion--that is with a ``B''--in direct assistance to Citigroup and backed hundreds of billions of Citigroup assets. At the same time, in January 2009, Mr. Lew reportedly received over $940,000 in compensation, most of which was a bonus for work performed in 2008 when Citi was on the verge of collapse. The bonus came a day before Citi received yet another infusion of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to prop up the company. That was the day before Citigroup received the infusion of billions of dollars that he got that bonus.

There is, at the very least, a contradiction between the President's rhetoric with regard to Wall Street and his decision to appoint Mr. Lew to be Treasury Secretary. However, rather than acknowledging any such contradiction, Mr. Lew has simply repeatedly told us all that his compensation was in line with what other similarly situated executives received.

As I have said before, that justification seems a bit like saying: Gee, Dad, everyone was doing it. Unfortunately, that type of reasoning is exactly what led to the financial crisis.

In addition, an employment agreement Mr. Lew had with Citigroup had a clause stating that his guaranteed incentive and retention award would not be paid upon his exit from Citigroup. However, there was an exception indicating that he would receive that compensation ``as a result of his acceptance of a full-time high-level position with the United States government or regulatory body.'' It remains unclear how this exception is consistent with President Obama's efforts to, in his own words, ``close the revolving door that carries special interest influence in and out of the government.''

Of course, as has been widely reported during the course of our vetting process, we found that while he was at Citigroup, Mr. Lew actively chose to invest in a hedge fund that served as a venture capital-like fund that invested primarily overseas. The fund Mr. Lew invested in was based in the Cayman Islands at the infamous Ugland House that so many Democrats have viciously decried as a tax haven. In fact, in 2008, while campaigning for President, then-Senator Obama said that the Ugland House was ``either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world.''

Throughout the 2012 campaign, President Obama repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney for having funds invested in the Caymans. If I recall it correctly, Mitt Romney's funds were in a trust he

had no control over. In making such investments, Governor Romney was, in the words of the Obama campaign, betting against America. One can only wonder whether while serving as White House Chief of Staff for President Obama, Mr. Lew supported this line of attack.

Once again, Mr. Lew has repeatedly refused to acknowledge any contradiction or hypocrisy between the President's rhetoric and his own actions, defending himself only by saying that this investment was done legally and transparently. I think the same probably could have been said about Governor Romney's investments as well, which were in a blind trust.

The contrast between the President's past vilification of certain financial activities and individuals and Mr. Lew's very participation in those activities is striking. Yet we are now essentially being told that people should do as administration officials say, not as they did.

In addition to concerns about Mr. Lew's record, I have serious disagreements with him when it comes to policy. For example, in response to written questions, Mr. Lew backtracked from the administration's previous positions on the need for entitlement reform. At one time, commonsense reforms, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, were on the table for the Obama administration. Such ideas have apparently been discarded by the President, and Mr. Lew has made it clear he shares that discarding position.

As a Social Security and Medicare trustee, the Treasury Secretary cannot simply wish away the problems with our entitlement programs. If he is confirmed, and I believe he will be, Mr. Lew will be tasked with addressing these problems. Sadly, it appears he will be just another voice in the Obama administration against taking meaningful action on entitlements and in favor of higher taxes--a repetitive theme at least all of us Republicans are getting very sick of. The use of the word ``balance''--my gosh, what a perversion.

I think I have made my concerns about the Lew nomination very soundly and very clear. That being said, I have always believed that whoever is President, including our current President, whom I like--any President, regardless of party--is owed a certain degree of deference when choosing people to work in his administration. Therefore, though I personally would have chosen a different person for this position, I intend to vote in favor of Mr. Lew's confirmation.

Obviously, my vote in favor of Mr. Lew comes with no small amount of reservation, and I don't fault any of my colleagues for choosing to vote against him. Indeed, I share many of their same concerns. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Lew has promised to be responsive to Members of Congress and their requests for information. I expect him to be responsive to the Senate Finance Committee and to the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Democrats.

He has also promised to work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems facing our Nation. I believe Mr. Lew can, and hopefully will, do that. My hope is he does not view these promises as merely boxes checked off on the way to confirmation.

If confirmed, Mr. Lew will be the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and not the Secretary of the ``Obama treasury,'' although indirectly he will be. His first job is to the United States of America, and he might have to argue strenuously against some of the White House positions on financial matters and Treasury matters. He has to work for all the American people and not simply one political party.

If he does those things, I will be willing to work with him all the way, and I have to say I expect him to. I expect him to be the honorable man he has told me he is and that I believe him to be; otherwise, I couldn't vote for him, especially under these circumstances.

However, I have to say, if he fails to live up to the promises he has made, if he becomes just another Obama acolyte using his high-powered position in the administration to attack political opponents, I will personally be sorely disappointed and hurt by it. If that ends up being the case, he will have no greater adversary in the Senate. I don't want to be an adversary. I want to help him turn this country around. I want to be an asset to him up here, and I want him to be an asset to our country down there--and up here when he comes.

Given my many reservations and concerns about Mr. Lew, I hope he and the President take note that I am bending over backward to display deference to the President's choice of Treasury Secretary. This gesture, I hope, will not be in vain.

I can contrast Mr. Lew's positions when he worked in the Clinton administration. Many Republicans felt he was a straight-up guy, and I was one of them. I have suggested to him that we would like to see that type of person manage our Treasury rather than the partisan person we have seen in the last couple years. True, the position he had at the White House was a partisan position, and I make a great allowance for that.

I personally like this man. I personally believe he is a good man. But I also believe sometimes we can get so caught up in politics that we don't do what we know we should do. I am hoping he will. I believe he will. If he does, he is going to have a lot of support from me.

I wish to thank my chairman of the committee. He has always been very honorable and very straightforward. I understand a lot of the pressures he has had throughout this process, having been chairman a number of times myself in the Senate and experienced that stress. I want everybody to know this is an important position, this is an important human being, and I hope he lives up to all he has the capacity to live up to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO opinion letter dated September 4, 2012, and the TANF Information Memorandum dated July 12, 2012.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which is being introduced in the House by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them.

One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure many of them oppose doing so when it comes to parental consent.

What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money than about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning.

If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents.

This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across state lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. Without this common sense requirement, abortion providers and advocates actually advertise how minors in states that require parental involvement can get abortions elsewhere. This perverse practice undermines parents and puts young girls at greater risk. Fifty-seven Senators of both parties, including 23 still serving in this body today, voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006.

I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of states have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which is being introduced in the House by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them.

One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure many of them oppose doing so when it comes to parental consent.

What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money than about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning.

If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents.

This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across state lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. Without this common sense requirement, abortion providers and advocates actually advertise how minors in states that require parental involvement can get abortions elsewhere. This perverse practice undermines parents and puts young girls at greater risk. Fifty-seven Senators of both parties, including 23 still serving in this body today, voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006.

I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of states have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Madam President, today the Senate should have been able overwhelmingly to support reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but the majority made that impossible. In fact, S. 47 is not really a reauthorization bill but a bill to use the Violence Against Women Act to venture into new ideological territory. For that reason, I cannot support S. 47 but am a cosponsor of the true VAWA reauthorization bill introduced by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Two decades ago during the 103rd Congress, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I worked with Chairman Joe Biden to develop legislation to combat domestic violence and sexual assault against women. That first passage of the Violence Against Women Act had bipartisan support, although it was by no means without controversy. I took more than my share of criticism from the right, but it was the right thing to do, and I worked to promote a genuine bipartisan consensus behind this legislation.

In 2000, I again cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act which was included in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, and the Senate voted 95-to-0 for the conference report. I cosponsored the VAWA reauthorization bill again in 2005, and this time the Senate passed it by unanimous consent without even a roll call vote. Clearly, the trend has been toward broader support.

Unfortunately, the majority today has deliberately stopped that trend. The majority has insisted on injecting into this legislation highly controversial and divisive provisions that were guaranteed to fracture the growing support that VAWA has enjoyed in the past. Many of us asked them not to do it this way but to address these issues separately so that there could be hearings and proper debate. Instead, the majority chose to use VAWA as cover for sidestepping the legislative process on these issues.

Let me give just one example. One of those divisive issues concerns the jurisdiction of courts on Native American reservations. Section 904 of S. 47 would give tribal courts jurisdiction over nontribal individuals in domestic violence cases. This presents numerous constitutional problems. Native American reservations are sovereign nations, and key provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights have been interpreted not to apply there. This legislation lists certain rights to be afforded nontribal defendants but not only stops short of guaranteeing all constitutional rights but also does not provide for direct review of convictions in U.S. courts. I simply cannot support depriving American citizens of constitutional rights and judicial protection.

I want to applaud my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, who has been trying mightily to correct this grave constitutional defect in S. 47. He has negotiated in good faith in a principled and fair way. Like me, he wants to support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But like him, I will do so only on the appropriate constitutional and policy grounds.

I have cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act three times. I voted last year to reauthorize it and will do so again today. But while I support reauthorizing VAWA, I cannot support using VAWA as a vehicle to enact divisive and controversial new measures that have not been properly evaluated on their own terms. Had the majority taken the same approach as we did in 2000 and 2005, this legislation would have been passed and signed into law months ago. Instead, the majority has destroyed the bipartisan consensus in favor of unconstitutional and divisive efforts to favor special interests.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time in quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, right now the Federal deficit stands at roughly $16.4 trillion. I don't know how anyone can hear that number and not be appalled, nor do I believe there will be, over 10 years, $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. In fact, I don't see any deficit reduction except, perhaps, bringing our soldiers back, but that is not particularly deficit reduction since it looks as though we are going to have difficulty maintaining the military with the strength it has had in the past.

Think about it, $16.4 trillion. It is incredible. The Federal Government is currently operating with just $25 million of so-called headroom underneath a statutory debt limit which, to be more precise, is $16.394 trillion. We are told that we reached the debt ceiling at the beginning of the year, and in order for the government to pay for obligations without further borrowing, Treasury has been using so- called ``extraordinary measures,'' such as changing the finances of certain Federal savings plans.

Sadly, the use of such measures has become the norm under this administration and under this Senate majority, where budget and debt decisions are continually made through last-minute, closed-door deals. I don't think the American people can stomach another cliff scenario. I don't think they

want to turn on the news and see another clock counting down to the latest in a string of perfectly avoidable crises.

There is a better way to legislate. I am not talking about some novel or unheard of approach. I am talking about doing things through the regular order. Anyone watching the Senate operate over the last few years probably doesn't know what I am talking about. There is a process that has been established to facilitate compromise and move even controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line.

Under this process bills are assigned to committees where they are debated and discussed in hearings and markups. Committees are able to consider and process proposals before legislation is brought to the Senate floor. While this system isn't perfect, moving a bill through the committee greatly improves its prospect for passage in a divided Senate.

This isn't meant to be a civic lesson. I know my colleagues understand how the committee process works. As we debate yet another major piece of legislation that hasn't gone through a committee, I don't think a reminder is out of order. We need to return the Senate to regular order, which includes processing budgets through the Senate Budget Committee and processing the debt limit through the Senate Finance Committee.

We are told if we pass this legislation, the administration will be able to borrow to be able to pay off incoming obligations until May 19. Then, presumably, we will be back to the use of ``extraordinary measures,'' which as I understand it will get the government through the end of July before we are once again talking about a possible default.

That is not the way to run a government. Prospects of more debt limit impasses and threats of future defaults serve only to elevate uncertainty among the American people about whether the Federal Government will honor its financial obligations. Unfortunately, this administration has continued to play on this uncertainty for political purposes. Rather than working with Congress to resolve our fiscal mess, the President throws out suggestions that Social Security recipients would not receive their benefits or that our troops would not get paid. Indeed, it seems that the President is more interested in engaging in political fights and manufacturing straw men than he is in eliminating threats to the fiscal security of our Nation's seniors and our troops.

At the same time, we wait for the first Senate budget in 4 years. I was heartened when I heard the news that the Democratic leadership plans to move forward with a budget this year. However, I am disappointed by indications that no effort will be made in the budget to rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs. I hope that is not true because, to borrow a phrase from the President, ``We can't wait.'' Entitlement reform can't wait.

Even the trustees of Social Security and Medicare have stated that the entitlements are unsustainable, and they urge quick action. Those trustees include senior officials in the Obama administration who could hardly be viewed as deficit hawks.

These are the problems our Nation faces. Our fiscal and economic well-being literally hang in the balance of these debates. If the Senate is going to be up to the challenge of fixing these problems, we are going to have to start doing things differently. We shouldn't wait until the Nation's finances reach yet another cliff sometime this summer before we start talking again and addressing our unsustainable fiscal situation. That is not what the American people want to see, and that is not the direction in which we should be going.

I believe my colleague from Montana feels the same way; that we can start the talks now in committees and do the things we should in committee and report bills to the floor. Even if we can't support them, at least they will be done the right way. A return to regular order would provide a potential solution, but it wouldn't require that we begin work immediately; that we don't just wait until the last minute and have these decisions made in the office of the majority leader.

Even if we were to pass the stop-gap debt limit suspension measure before us, there is precious little time for us to act. I have suggested and will continue to suggest that the Senate Finance Committee begin to engage now on a longer term debt limit solution. The bill before us would only eliminate the prospect of Federal default until sometime in the summer. That means if we go through regular order, we have only a few months at best to debate, have hearings, process proposals, and make decisions.

I am not under any illusions this process will be easy. If we want to avoid another cliff scenario in late July, this is the best way to go forward. It is the best path forward.

We don't need any more last-minute deals to avoid going over cliffs. We certainly don't need any more countdowns or threats of default and downgrades to our Nation's credit rating. Of course, we don't need to wait in the hopes that President Obama will finally break his string of failures to arrive at a so-called grand bargain. We have the tools at our disposal to address these problems, but, as I said, we need to start now, immediately.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on the committee--those on both sides of the aisle--to reach a long-term solution on the debt limit. I believe this process can put us on a path to tax and entitlement reform, which is the key to righting our Nation's fiscal course and putting us on a better economic footing.

The measure before us is not a long-term solution to the debt ceiling or our fiscal predicament, nor is it intended to be. I am convinced that if we want a long-term solution, and if we want to avoid facing yet another cliff, we need to restore regular order in the Senate. I think anything short of that is not going to work.

We have good people on both sides of the floor, people who love this country, people who really can work together if they will. We have committees set up to take care of these problems, but they are being bypassed. We must find ways of working through the committees.

We have a number of people on both sides who need to deal with the uncertainties, the problems and the difficulties in these fiscal matters. I have confidence in our chairman and in his leadership, and I know this is not his fault. I think he would prefer regular order, as would I. It puts a lot more burden on us as committee members, but that is where it ought to be. We ought to be able to face these problems.

We have excellent people on both sides on the Finance Committee. I would like to see the Finance Committee do its work and have the confidence that we should and get this done in a proper manner, in the right way, before we go off the fiscal cliff again or before we need to be faced with the fiscal cliff.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the debt limit alone, under the current administration, had been increased by over $5 trillion. That is simply unsustainable.

Not to worry, I have recently been told. We have made massive progress toward promising deficit reduction. I hear this even though we have not seen any significant actual reduction.

I have been hearing bold claims by my friends on the other side of the aisle about having attained trillions in budget ``savings'' and deficit reduction in just the past couple of years alone. They have gone so far as to say that we have had $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction legislated in the past 2 years. Of course, the deficit reduction has not been realized. It represents promises and plans that even Democrats seek to undo. It is amazing to me that they make these claims.

I have heard bold claims that we have somehow legislated deficit reduction totaling as much as $3.6 trillion from my friends on the other side. I have heard that deficit reduction that has been promised can be broken down to an 80-to-20 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes.

While I often applaud creativity, I have to say these deficit reduction claims and the ratio of spending reductions to tax hikes is more than creative. It is more like Enron accounting, and if you were running a company in the private sector and made such claims, you would probably end up in jail.

Let me make a few brief comments on the Democrats' Enron accounting of deficit reduction.

First, the so-called spending cuts they identify have not yet been realized, and even they are working hard to undo some of them, if not all of them.

Second, the so-called spending cuts are only cuts if you are selective in the starting point you use to measure whether spending is being cut. Relative to what spending levels would be, had we not had a Democrat spending spree, spending has increased even if you include plans put forward in the Budget Control Act, which have not yet been realized.

Third, the spending-cut-to-tax-hike number thrown around by my friends on the other side of the aisle counts only one discrete tax hike--the one associated with the fiscal cliff bill.

Why do Democrats want to entirely ignore the massive tax hikes associated with ObamaCare that have already gone into effect, with more to come?

Fourth, spending cuts that my friends on the other side of the aisle are banking on when they devise their Enron accounting have not yet been set in place. Until fiscal year 2013 comes to a close, those spending reductions have not actually occurred, and Congress has a long history of promising cuts without delivering.

It is ironic to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle fight tooth and nail against any true reductions in the outsized spending of the current administration. Then when budget realities force consideration of reductions, and legislation is passed promising reductions, Democrats boast of having cut spending to reduce deficits.

Finally, when it comes to actually implement any spending cuts, Democrats want to undo them and replace them with yet more taxes. That is what we are hearing from the other side with regard to the sequestration.

I believe our country faces a large spending problem and that our debt is too big and grows too fast. I believe presenting a picture of our finances that would pass muster only in the Enron accounting department is a disservice to the American people. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want more tax hikes to pay for more spending, then they should just say so. And some of them do, by the way, and I compliment them for doing that, even though I think it is crazy. Cloaking their desires in manufactured claims that we have somehow cut spending 4 to 1 relative to tax hikes is simply dishonest. And I do not think I have been wrong in calling it Enron accounting.

Frankly, I am getting a little sick of it because they throw these figures around as though they are really tax cuts, and they are not tax cuts, and they never will be according to my friends on the other side in what their actions show. So it is important that we get rid of the fuzz and get rid of the buzz and get rid of the phony stuff and the Enron accounting and start realizing that we need to have some real tax reductions.

Frankly, we need to have some real spending reductions. Even if we cannot get tax reductions, we ought to all be working on spending reductions. We ought to be looking at every aspect of this economy, every aspect of our budget, every aspect of our legislation, and we ought to be looking for as many spending reductions as we can find.

Spending is out of control. Even today, you know they are going to be spending well over 22 percent of GDP, according to the best of estimates. The economic results of yesterday that were in the paper of this slow growth ought to be waking up everybody on both sides of the aisle that we are not doing our job. The reason we are not doing our job is because we phony up these numbers that are not really spending reductions, and then we act like everything is hunky-dory, when, in fact, things are not hunky-dory.

We are in real trouble in this country, and it is inexcusable to let the greatest country in the world have to go through this type of charade because we are unwilling to face the music that every individual family in this country has to face on balancing their budgets and on balancing ours.

I think it is time to cut the charade and quit talking about spending reductions that do not materialize and amount to nothing but Enron accounting.

Mr. President, I ask that both sides be charged equally for the time we are in a quorum call.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Innovation--or I-Squared--Act of 2013. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator Chris Coons, without whom this bill would not have materialized. All four of us worked very closely together, and each one of us deserves total credit for this bill. Together, we have crafted one of the first bipartisan immigration bills in this Congress, one that is designed to address the shortage of high-skilled labor we face in this country. This shortage has reached a crisis level. For too long, our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--fields. As a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets, such as Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Salt Lake City, are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers.

It is critical that we not only recognize this shortage of high- skilled workers but also understand why it exists. Increasingly, enrollment in U.S. universities in the STEM fields comes from foreign students, and despite our urgent need for workers in these fields, we continue to send these foreign students--potential high-skilled workers trained at American universities--back to their home countries after graduation.

Recently I was in a meeting with several leaders in the technology industry where it was mentioned that between 2010 and 2020, the American economy will annually create more than 120,000 additional computer science jobs that will require at least a bachelor's degree, and that is just mentioning one aspect of this. This is great news for many of our computer science students. Unfortunately, that is the end of the good news. Each year only about 40,000 American students received bachelor's degrees in computer science. In other words, there are approximately 80,000 new computer science positions every year in the United States that cannot be filled by the available American workforce. I might add that these are positions which need to be filled so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. Simply put, U.S.-based companies have a great need for those trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field, but at least right now, there are not enough Americans trained and ready to fill these jobs.

We cannot continue to simply hope American companies do not move operations to countries where they have greater access to individuals trained in these STEM fields. We cannot continue to ignore this problem; it is that simple. Continued inaction causes us to miss out on an important opportunity, especially since, as the American Enterprise Institute has confirmed, 100 foreign-born workers with STEM degrees create an average of 262 additional jobs for native-born workers. Those countries would love to have their American-educated Ph.D.s and other highly educated individuals return and boost their economy--not only from their acquired skills but also by creating these new jobs as well. An updated, high-skilled immigration system is directly tied to creating jobs

and spurring growth across all sectors of our economy. We cannot afford any further inaction on this issue.

The I-Squared Act of 2013 addresses the immediate short-term need to provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America's STEM education. I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy.

I mentioned my three prime cosponsors on this bill, each one of whom deserves credit for this bill, each one of whom has been a pleasure to work with, each one of whom adds a great deal to getting this bill passed. I personally thank the Senators for working with me on this issue and allowing me the privilege of working with them on this issue.

Let me turn some time over to Senator Klobuchar, who, along with Senators Coons and Rubio, has been a prime mover on this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Coons, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Rubio. As my colleagues can see, it is a real pleasure to work with these three partners and others as well. I particularly wish to thank each of my colleagues for the helpful overview they have given on this bill. It has been a real pleasure for me to work with these three very innovative leaders in the Senate.

As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, by eliminating per- country

limits for employment-based green cards, recapturing lost employment- based immigrant visas, exempting certain classes of immigrants from the annual green card limit, and creating a new and sustainable funding stream to enhance the U.S. STEM education pipeline, we will help America's innovative industries recruit and retain high-skilled talent to more effectively compete in today's global marketplace, and it will make us more competitive.

We have heard from many industry stakeholders that support the I- Squared Act of 2013. To date, we have received letters of support from the following organizations that support this bill: Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard Company, Facebook, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, BSA The Software Alliance, Compete America, the Semiconductor Industry Association, TechNet, the Technology Association of America, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Internet Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, TechServe Alliance, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA--The Wireless Association, Sabre Holdings, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and just to mention one other, Immigration Voice.

Mr. President, working with Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons, I have to say is a real privilege for me. These are three very fine additions to the Senate. In the case of Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coons, they are two respected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Rubio, in my view, is one of the most knowledgeable Senators we have on immigration policy and, as we can see, a terrific leader in so many other ways. We send a strong message that both sides of the aisle can come together to craft bipartisan legislation to address one of our country's most urgent economic needs.

Yesterday, eight of our colleagues unveiled a framework to overhaul our Nation's immigration system. I am proud of them. I commend them for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to reform our immigration laws. It is very much needed. One of the leaders is, of course, our own Senator Rubio, as well as Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, and others as well whom I hate to not mention, but I think my colleagues get the point. Similarly, the work of Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Coons, and I have done in crafting the I-Squared Act of 2013 was no easy task and represents hours of negotiations with interested stakeholders and has garnered, as my colleagues can see, widespread industry support.

The I-Squared Act makes sense. I hope our language to reform the high-skilled immigration system is considered by this body in the immediate future. I would surely like to hear a little bit more from Senator Klobuchar, if she would care to make some additional points. I don't mean to take all the time.

Mr. President, I wish to particularly thank my colleagues--Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar--for their work on this bill. It is obvious from their statements here today they have a great deal of commitment to these important issues.

I-squared is a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have come to be educated in our American universities have the ability to stay with their families and contribute to our economy and our society.

This bill is good for workers, it is good for businesses trying to grow, and it is good for our economy.

I am pleased with the momentum we already have seen on this bill through industry support and within the Senate itself.

I am pleased to announce that Senators Flake, Shaheen, Heller, Blumenthal, Hoeven, Nelson, and Warner have agreed to be original cosponsors of the I-Squared Act, and I encourage many more of my colleagues to support and help pass this bill. It is long overdue. It is well thought out. We have run it by the top people in this country. Frankly, it has a lot of support so far. We have not even gone out and tried to get cosponsors, and they are starting to come naturally. I hope we can get the Senate to call up this bill. Of course, I think we are all interested in going beyond this bill too, in doing true immigration reform that will help our country to continue to maintain itself as the greatest country in the world.

I wish to thank my colleagues. This has been a real privilege to serve with them on the floor today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Innovation--or I-Squared--Act of 2013. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator Chris Coons, without whom this bill would not have materialized. All four of us worked very closely together, and each one of us deserves total credit for this bill. Together, we have crafted one of the first bipartisan immigration bills in this Congress, one that is designed to address the shortage of high-skilled labor we face in this country. This shortage has reached a crisis level. For too long, our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--fields. As a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets, such as Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Salt Lake City, are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers.

It is critical that we not only recognize this shortage of high- skilled workers but also understand why it exists. Increasingly, enrollment in U.S. universities in the STEM fields comes from foreign students, and despite our urgent need for workers in these fields, we continue to send these foreign students--potential high-skilled workers trained at American universities--back to their home countries after graduation.

Recently I was in a meeting with several leaders in the technology industry where it was mentioned that between 2010 and 2020, the American economy will annually create more than 120,000 additional computer science jobs that will require at least a bachelor's degree, and that is just mentioning one aspect of this. This is great news for many of our computer science students. Unfortunately, that is the end of the good news. Each year only about 40,000 American students received bachelor's degrees in computer science. In other words, there are approximately 80,000 new computer science positions every year in the United States that cannot be filled by the available American workforce. I might add that these are positions which need to be filled so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. Simply put, U.S.-based companies have a great need for those trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field, but at least right now, there are not enough Americans trained and ready to fill these jobs.

We cannot continue to simply hope American companies do not move operations to countries where they have greater access to individuals trained in these STEM fields. We cannot continue to ignore this problem; it is that simple. Continued inaction causes us to miss out on an important opportunity, especially since, as the American Enterprise Institute has confirmed, 100 foreign-born workers with STEM degrees create an average of 262 additional jobs for native-born workers. Those countries would love to have their American-educated Ph.D.s and other highly educated individuals return and boost their economy--not only from their acquired skills but also by creating these new jobs as well. An updated, high-skilled immigration system is directly tied to creating jobs

and spurring growth across all sectors of our economy. We cannot afford any further inaction on this issue.

The I-Squared Act of 2013 addresses the immediate short-term need to provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America's STEM education. I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy.

I mentioned my three prime cosponsors on this bill, each one of whom deserves credit for this bill, each one of whom has been a pleasure to work with, each one of whom adds a great deal to getting this bill passed. I personally thank the Senators for working with me on this issue and allowing me the privilege of working with them on this issue.

Let me turn some time over to Senator Klobuchar, who, along with Senators Coons and Rubio, has been a prime mover on this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Coons, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Rubio. As my colleagues can see, it is a real pleasure to work with these three partners and others as well. I particularly wish to thank each of my colleagues for the helpful overview they have given on this bill. It has been a real pleasure for me to work with these three very innovative leaders in the Senate.

As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, by eliminating per- country

limits for employment-based green cards, recapturing lost employment- based immigrant visas, exempting certain classes of immigrants from the annual green card limit, and creating a new and sustainable funding stream to enhance the U.S. STEM education pipeline, we will help America's innovative industries recruit and retain high-skilled talent to more effectively compete in today's global marketplace, and it will make us more competitive.

We have heard from many industry stakeholders that support the I- Squared Act of 2013. To date, we have received letters of support from the following organizations that support this bill: Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard Company, Facebook, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, BSA The Software Alliance, Compete America, the Semiconductor Industry Association, TechNet, the Technology Association of America, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Internet Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, TechServe Alliance, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA--The Wireless Association, Sabre Holdings, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and just to mention one other, Immigration Voice.

Mr. President, working with Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons, I have to say is a real privilege for me. These are three very fine additions to the Senate. In the case of Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coons, they are two respected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Rubio, in my view, is one of the most knowledgeable Senators we have on immigration policy and, as we can see, a terrific leader in so many other ways. We send a strong message that both sides of the aisle can come together to craft bipartisan legislation to address one of our country's most urgent economic needs.

Yesterday, eight of our colleagues unveiled a framework to overhaul our Nation's immigration system. I am proud of them. I commend them for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to reform our immigration laws. It is very much needed. One of the leaders is, of course, our own Senator Rubio, as well as Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, and others as well whom I hate to not mention, but I think my colleagues get the point. Similarly, the work of Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Coons, and I have done in crafting the I-Squared Act of 2013 was no easy task and represents hours of negotiations with interested stakeholders and has garnered, as my colleagues can see, widespread industry support.

The I-Squared Act makes sense. I hope our language to reform the high-skilled immigration system is considered by this body in the immediate future. I would surely like to hear a little bit more from Senator Klobuchar, if she would care to make some additional points. I don't mean to take all the time.

Mr. President, I wish to particularly thank my colleagues--Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar--for their work on this bill. It is obvious from their statements here today they have a great deal of commitment to these important issues.

I-squared is a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have come to be educated in our American universities have the ability to stay with their families and contribute to our economy and our society.

This bill is good for workers, it is good for businesses trying to grow, and it is good for our economy.

I am pleased with the momentum we already have seen on this bill through industry support and within the Senate itself.

I am pleased to announce that Senators Flake, Shaheen, Heller, Blumenthal, Hoeven, Nelson, and Warner have agreed to be original cosponsors of the I-Squared Act, and I encourage many more of my colleagues to support and help pass this bill. It is long overdue. It is well thought out. We have run it by the top people in this country. Frankly, it has a lot of support so far. We have not even gone out and tried to get cosponsors, and they are starting to come naturally. I hope we can get the Senate to call up this bill. Of course, I think we are all interested in going beyond this bill too, in doing true immigration reform that will help our country to continue to maintain itself as the greatest country in the world.

I wish to thank my colleagues. This has been a real privilege to serve with them on the floor today.

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

Mr. President, I join with Senator Baucus in commending Mr. Goldberg for his service. As Principal Deputy Inspector General, and throughout his career with OIG, Mr. Goldberg's efforts have directly benefited the American people by protecting Federal health care, public health, and social programs from waste, fraud, and abuse, and recommending to HHS actions to improve program effectiveness. Mr. Goldberg has led OIG to achieve unprecedented results in combating health care fraud and abuse. He has marshaled OIG's resources to counter this epidemic through a sophisticated, multifaceted, and innovative strategy.

For example, Mr. Goldberg has spearheaded OIG's efforts to join with the Justice Department to establish Medicare Fraud ``Strike Force'' operations--elite teams of investigators and prosecutors, supported by advanced data analysis--in 9 key locations. These Strike Forces have charged more than 1,400 defendants, who collectively have billed Medicare for more than $4 billion. Simultaneously, OIG has pursued more traditional civil, administrative, and criminal cases. Under Mr. Goldberg's leadership, OIG has generated record-breaking returns for the Medicare Trust Fund and taxpayers--including court-ordered recoveries, fines, restitution, and settlements totaling more than $6 billion in 2012.

But not all of his results can be measured in dollars. During Mr. Goldberg's tenure, OIG produced a landmark measurement of adverse events from hospital stays; reported and testified on overutilization of antipsychotic drugs for nursing home patients; and recommended actions to protect the safety of the Nation's food supply. Mr. Goldberg has also championed fraud prevention by taking the message directly to the health care industry. He has built coalitions with industry to promote a culture of compliance and transparent practices to safeguard Federal health care programs, and he pioneered a series of guidances that set the standards for how to meet Federal health care program requirements.

We wish Mr. Goldberg the very best in his retirement and thank him for his exemplary record of service to the government and the American people in protecting Federal programs from fraud, waste, and abuse and in promoting the health, well-being, and civil rights of all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask that following my remarks, the senior Senator from Rhode Island be granted permission to speak.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a matter that is of the greatest importance. Our Nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The national debt stands at a current whopping $16.4 trillion with annual trillion-dollar deficits having become the norm with the current administration. Put simply, unless we change our course, our debt threatens to cripple our economy and saddle future generations with bills they will not be able to pay.

Federal spending has been growing and will continue to grow at a rate that outpaces government revenues by leaps and bounds. Despite some claims to the contrary, the difference simply cannot be made up by increasing taxes. We do not face a problem with not taxing enough in this country; we have a spending problem.

Moreover, in the runup to the fiscal cliff, we had a national discussion on increasing taxes. Taxes were increased and the revenue discussion is done. It is time to turn our attention to our country's runaway spending problem and our unsustainable entitlement programs. The only way we can make meaningful progress toward reducing our deficits and eliminating our massive debt is to focus on the main drivers of these problems. The main drivers of our debts and deficits is not a lack of revenue; it is our entitlement programs.

Let's take a look at our two main health care entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid. In just the next 10 years, the Federal Government will spend more than $12 trillion on Medicare and Medicaid. Let's put that in perspective. That is $12 trillion on just two programs. That is more than the entire economies of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Spain combined. If we do not act to slow the rate of growth in these two programs, they will consume roughly 10 percent of our entire economy by the year 2035.

Medicare, by itself, spent nearly $480 billion last year. Over the next 10 years, it will spend more than $7 trillion. In fact, by the end of that same 10 years, we will be spending more on Medicare than on our entire national defense. The prospects for Medicare solvency only get worse as time goes on. Over the long term, Medicare has nearly $39 trillion in unfunded liability. That is $328,404 for every American

household in this country. Fixing Medicare will not just be a matter of trimming off some fat and waste. The problems with the program are systemic.

Let's talk about Medicaid for a moment. Things are not much better with that program. The Federal Government spent $261 billion on Medicaid in 2012 and the States themselves spent about $196 billion, bringing the total cost of the program to $457 billion in a single year. In the next 10 years, Federal Medicaid spending as a share of the U.S. economy is set to grow by 37 percent. The Federal Government will spend more than $4.4 trillion on the program over that time.

According to the National Governors Association, Medicaid represents the single largest portion of total State spending, which accounted for an estimated 23.6 percent of State budgets last year. Between Medicare and Medicaid, we have two programs that threaten to swallow not only the Federal Government but State governments as well. We simply cannot afford to keep these programs running on autopilot, nor can we afford to tinker around the edges when we talk about reform. If we are serious about addressing our Nation's debt, Medicare and Medicaid need structural reforms.

Today, I wish to lay out five specific reform proposals that could help to rein in entitlement spending and put our Nation on a better fiscal course. These are reasonable, rational ideas that have all enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. I believe they should be included in any deficit reduction package.

No. 1: We need to adjust the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Raising the retirement age is simply common sense. It would reflect increases in life expectancy and align Medicare eligibility with that of Social Security. This idea was supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and it was included in the bipartisan deficit negotiations in 2011.

In addition, prominent Democrats, including former Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad and House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen, have expressed support for raising the retirement age as part of the discussion on retirement reform. Raising the retirement age is not just a Republican idea. Members of both parties have supported it.

No. 2: We need to modernize the Medigap Program by limiting supplemental Medicare insurance plans from covering initial out-of- pocket expenses for Medicare beneficiaries. In 2010, on average, Medicare made $9,765 per beneficiary. The average out-of-pocket expense coming from copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles for beneficiaries was $1,679. Almost 90 percent of Medicare recipients use some kind of supplemental insurance to offset some of their out-of-pocket costs. Almost 30 percent of beneficiaries have so-called Medigap policies that provide first-dollar coverage.

Multiple studies have found that this 30 percent--the ones with Medigap insurance policies--use about 25 percent more services than those without similar coverage. This overutilization of services leads directly to higher costs for all seniors on Medicare. Limiting first- dollar coverage will encourage seniors to make better health care choices and ensure the highest quality outcome while lowering costs for the entire Medicare Program.

This policy was supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and it was part of the Biden-Cantor deficit reduction negotiations in 2011. In addition, the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee included this idea as part of a set of cost-sharing reforms in their 2011 deficit reduction proposal. The President's own 2011 deficit reduction package included a similar proposal to reduce costs associated with Medigap insurance plans.

Once again, this is a policy that both Democrats and Republicans should be willing to get behind.

No. 3: We need to simplify Medicare beneficiary cost sharing while protecting seniors from catastrophic health costs. Currently, Medicare cost sharing--copays, deductibles, et cetera--varies significantly depending on the type of service being provided. Beneficiaries now have separate deductibles for inpatient care under Part A and physician and outpatient services under Part B. This overly complex benefit structure is difficult for beneficiaries to navigate, and it promotes overutilization. By streamlining the cost sharing and creating a single combined deductible for both Part A and Part B, we can make it easier for seniors to use Medicare more efficiently and reduce costs associated with overutilization.

At the same time, we should institute an annual catastrophic cap to protect seniors who face serious health events which will provide seniors with much needed financial security. This was another policy supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. It was also a part of the Coburn-Lieberman Medicare proposal introduced in the last Congress. It is, in every sense, a bipartisan proposal.

No. 4: We need to increase quality and lower costs on Medicare by introducing competitive bidding into the program. By allowing private health plans to compete with traditional fee-for-service Medicare, we can provide seniors with their guaranteed Medicare benefit while at the same time reducing costs and improving the quality of care.

Entitlement reforms should draw upon market-oriented solutions. Increased competition will allow seniors to choose for themselves based on transparent cost and quality information--if they want to use the traditional Medicare program or a private health plan. This is the type of structure seniors enjoy under the Medicare Part D which has controlled costs and is very popular among beneficiaries.

This is not a Republican fantasy or a conservative plan to gut Medicare, as some may claim. Democrats have supported this approach over the years as well. President Clinton proposed a major set of Medicare reforms in 1999 that included a version of a premium support system. Alice Rivlin, OMB Director under President Clinton, recently worked with Senator Pete Domenici on a Medicare reform bill that included a defined premium support plan. In addition, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden worked with the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to develop a similar proposal in the 112th Congress. So while there may be some resistance to this particular idea, it has enjoyed bipartisan support.

Finally, No. 5: We need to strengthen Medicaid for patients and States through realistic reforms. Setting per capita limits on Federal Medicaid spending would put the Medicaid Program on a sustainable budget and, when combined with increased flexibility for patient- centered reforms at the State level, would reduce costs and improve patient care across the board. As with other ideas I have mentioned, this is a bipartisan proposal.

In 1995, President Clinton introduced a Medicaid reform plan that included a per capita cap on Federal Medicaid spending. At that time, all 46 Democratic Senators, including several who are still serving today, signed a letter to President Clinton expressing support for this proposal. In addition, in October of last year, former Democratic Senate majority leader Tom Daschle publicly expressed support for per capita caps on Medicaid spending as a way of ``guaranteeing the benefits of the Medicaid program.''

So there we have it--a concrete, bipartisan approach to reforming our health care entitlement programs and restoring fiscal sanity here in Washington.

I know it is popular to talk in abstractions around here when it comes to reforming our entitlement system, but these are specific ideas that have enjoyed the support of both Republicans and Democrats over the years. This is precisely what has been missing from the current debate over deficit reduction.

Entitlement reform is not a matter of choice; it is a necessity. That being the case, it is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is a challenge facing our entire country. My proposals, which have all enjoyed bipartisan support, will help ensure future generations have a viable and sustainable safety net in place. Far from being offered out of any sense of ``suspicion'' about government safety net programs, as a cynic might suggest, my proposals are designed to help sustain these important programs.

I believe these types of proposals are a good starting point for a serious discussion about entitlement reform. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to be part of this conversation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to say a few words about my colleague Jim DeMint. We have had a lot of really good people during my service here on both sides of the aisle. I have friends who have passed on and who made such a difference around here. I have to say that Jim DeMint has been a rock-ribbed conservative who I think has made a great difference in this body and for whom I have a lot of respect. I have profound gratitude that he has fought as hard as he has for the principles he believes in, most of which I believe in.

I wish him Godspeed as he works over at the Heritage Foundation. I can't imagine a better place for somebody who loves the issues, wants to play a role, has played a role, understands this body, understands the political nature of this country, and has been very active in trying to change this country for the better. Jim has those kinds of abilities. I wish him well, and I sure hope he will have a great time while he is over at the Heritage Foundation. I have great respect for him. I think most people who really know him have great respect for him. I always respect people who really do what they believe, and Jim DeMint has exemplified that as well as anybody I know.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about important issues facing us as we work to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, the TANF Program. Poverty has risen to a crisis level in our country. In 2011 there were 16.1 million children in families with incomes below the poverty level.

The pernicious effects of poverty have implications for children's health, education, and well-being. Research has demonstrated that there are significant associations between poverty and problems with children's health, cognitive development, behavior, emotional well- being, and school achievement. These problems are exacerbated for families in extreme poverty, where the annual income is less than half of the poverty level. In 2011 there were over 7 million children in the United States living in extreme poverty.

Poverty is also a risk factor for child abuse and neglect. Data assembled by the Center for Law and Social Policy reveals that poverty is the single best predictor of child maltreatment. Children living in families with annual incomes below $15,000 were 22 times more likely to be abused or neglected than those living in families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more.

According to a report from the Children's Defense Fund, ``Children of color continue to suffer disproportionately from poverty.'' The Children's Defense Fund cites data showing that more than one in three African-American children and more than one in three Hispanic children were poor in 2011, compared to a 1-in-8 ratio among White non-Hispanic children.

These families face huge challenges navigating the bare necessities of daily life. Fresh healthy food can be rare. Unsafe housing contributes to chronic child health issues such as asthma. Transportation to and from work, the grocery store, and the doctor can be infrequent and unreliable.

Programs funded through TANF--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program--provide cash assistance to families struggling in deep and persistent poverty. TANF is a block grant to States for their use in ending dependence on government benefits and, more broadly, to promote child well-being. TANF Programs can also provide work support such as transportation assistance and childcare for families working to get themselves out of poverty and into decent-paying jobs. In addition to safety net and work support programs, TANF also funds a number of child welfare programs that, when effective, reduce the number of children in foster care and help keep families together.

When TANF was enacted, many States used the funding stream in an effort to move welfare recipients into work. However, over time the focus of TANF in many of these States has shifted from working with job-ready adults to a funding stream largely dedicated to funding purposes unconnected to job readiness.

For many years I have expressed concern that nationwide over 50 percent of able-bodied adults receiving cash assistance are reported to engage in zero hours of work-related activity. Additionally, I have raised concerns that most States are not able to meet the Federal work- participation rate. This work-participation rate requires that a State engage half of its cash assistance caseload in specified work-related activities for a certain number of hours each week.

If you ask the average middle-class American how many able-bodied adults receiving welfare should be engaged in work or work-related activities, my guess is the answer would be all of them. It should be shocking to the American people that most States are not able to engage half of their welfare caseloads in such activities.

Furthermore, I have raised concerns that there is a considerable amount of TANF spending on child welfare programs that goes unaccounted for and is not coordinated with possibly duplicative spending administered by State child welfare agencies.

Authority for TANF expired at the end of 2010. Unfortunately, although this is a matter of serious concern, the Obama administration has never proposed a 5-year reauthorization of the TANF Program. Instead, on July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a document, which they inaccurately described as an ``Information Memorandum,'' to the States claiming on behalf of the Obama administration unprecedented waiver authority over TANF work rules.

This action provoked a swift and strong condemnation from members of the legislative branch and rightly so.

Many Members of Congress believe the welfare waiver document constitutes an excessive and unwarranted overreach on the part of the executive branch. The Government Accountability Office agreed with us and has determined that the July 12, 2012, document is, in fact, a rule as defined by the Administrative Procedures Act and as such should have been submitted to Congress for review.

Since the welfare waiver is considered a rule, like all rules, it is subject to a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. The Senate Parliamentarian agrees with the GAO, and she has advised that for purposes of the CRA, that is, the Congressional Review Act, this rule should be considered to have been received by Congress on September 10, 2012, even though the administration failed to submit it as required by law.

The CRA provides the Senate with a procedure for expedited consideration and a vote on a resolution of disapproval during a certain window of time so long as at least 30 Senators have signed a discharge petition to bring the resolution to the floor. I have introduced such a resolution, S.J. Res. 50, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to the authority to waive Federal welfare work requirements under section 407 of the Social Security Act. Having introduced it within the required timeframe under the CRA and having obtained enough signatures on a discharge petition, it is within my rights as a Senator to call for a vote on my resolution prior to the Senate's adjournment this year.

Now, I am not naive, nor am I overly idealistic. I am well aware that the vote on S.J. Res. 50 would likely fall along party lines, and this is disappointing. It is clear that the administration's purpose in granting themselves this waiver authority is to undermine a work-first approach to getting welfare recipients or clients off the rolls. This has been the desire of many critics of Clinton-era welfare reforms since they were enacted.

The administration has not been forthcoming at all about what they want to substitute for a work-first approach. In the past, absent strong Federal performance standards, States have allowed activities such as journaling, exercise, or assisting a neighbor, just to name a few, to count as work for the purposes of welfare eligibility.

Here is why I have such a problem with this shift in policy: I believe most people receiving welfare are unhappy with their situation and want to be able to work. Even with assistance, families trying to survive on cash-assistance welfare are living in desperately impoverished circumstances. The reasons some families have to go on welfare can be, of course, complicated. Many adults on welfare struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues. These barriers to work prevent adults on welfare from having work-readiness skills. Additionally, inactivity and the lack of attachment to the workforce can exacerbate mental health and self-medicating tendencies and create a downward spiral for these families, and it can be very hard to reverse course.

Over the years, research has consistently revealed that a work-first approach to welfare, combining an intense effort to engage recipients in work-related activities to foster an attachment to work with a blended array of work supports, such as education and training, has the greatest degree of success in getting clients off of welfare.

The reason I am so vehemently opposed to the administration's scheme to undermine the welfare work requirements is that I believe it will hinder, not help, the effort to get adults off welfare and into the workforce. Put simply, allowing activities that are not work to count as work will not get people off welfare.

The administration and their apologists have not even tried to make a policy case for their non-work-first approach. Instead, apologists of the administration's welfare waiver rule generally attempt to obfuscate and distract from the fact that the Obama administration granted themselves waiver authority to bypass the legislative branch with the goal of weakening welfare requirements.

Let's take a look at some of their arguments. Right out of the gates, supporters of the administration's policy argue that members of the legislative branch asserting their rights in the face of executive overreach were simply trying to give the Romney-Ryan campaign an issue.

Well, in case anyone hasn't heard, the country recently held an election, and President Obama was reelected. There is no longer a Romney-Ryan campaign, so that distraction falls away.

Apologists of the executive overreach have also tried to muddy the issue by suggesting that the administration is giving the States what they asked for. For example--and I take this a little personally--in an effort to create a false justification for their power grab, the Obama administration has repeatedly misrepresented the views of the State of Utah. It is true that when asked by the administration what they wanted in a TANF reauthorization, some States indicated the desire for more flexibility, but there was never any indication that the States wanted the administration to go around Congress to provide this flexibility.

According to the Government Accountability Office, between 2000 and 2009--during the Clinton, Bush, and even the Obama administration--HHS consistently told States that they had no waiver authority under TANF. So States naturally and rightly assumed that any requests for waivers would have to go through Congress. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 6 months since HHS granted itself authority to waive welfare work requirements, not a single State has applied for one of these waivers. In other words, any argument that the need for State flexibility is so urgent that the administration had to bypass Congress to give it falls by the wayside. Once again, we see a distraction crumble under the weight of the facts.

Another distraction raised by supporters of the administration is comments from a former House Ways and Means staffer to the press indicating that he thought additional flexibility for States might not be a bad idea. Of course, this same staffer also said that unilaterally establishing these waivers without consulting Congress was not the way to go. If that is the best expert opinion supporters of the administration can come up with to support this shift in policy, they have clearly failed to make their case.

Once we cut through all of these distractions the administration and its allies have tried to throw in our path, we are left again with the heart of the matter. The Obama administration is trying to bypass Congress and enact policies that are not provided for under current law. Whether or not one agrees with the administration's change in policy, that simple fact remains and we ought to stand up for the prerogatives of the legislative branch. That is why we have three separate branches of government, so that we have some checks and some balances in our society.

As a Member of the Senate, I simply cannot stand by and watch the administration undermine the relevance of the legislative branch. I cannot stand by and see Members of the House of Representatives who have worked for years to develop expertise on welfare policy turned into potted plants.

But there is more than one way to stand up for the U.S. Congress. The country has been through an exhaustive and highly partisan election. Some call it a status quo election. The country has elected a Democrat to the White House and sent back a divided Congress. No one side can claim a mandate, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most people. What the American people want is for Democrats and Republicans and the President to work together to get things done for the American people, and get things done right for the American people. One of the things we need to get done is a comprehensive overhaul and reauthorization of TANF. Welfare-work requirements need to be updated and strengthened, certain loopholes need to be closed, and there must be increased transparency and accountability relative to TANF spending on child welfare programs and services.

In order to begin bringing all sides together, particularly after such an acrimonious political period, someone must make the first move. Therefore, as an act of good faith, in order to facilitate a collegial bipartisan working

relationship on TANF, I am putting my colleagues on notice that earlier today I sent President Obama a letter informing him that I will not insist on a vote on my resolution of disapproval during this session of Congress. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have asked President Obama to respond to my action by instructing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to withdraw the welfare waiver rule and submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization proposal to the Congress. If there are aspects of the welfare waiver rule the administration wishes us to consider, I hope they will include them in their proposal so they can be debated and negotiated here in Congress.

I have written to the President and told him I am committed to working with his administration as well as Chairman Camp and Chairman Baucus to enact comprehensive and meaningful welfare reauthorization early on in the 113th Congress. I made this offer to President Obama with good will and in good faith. However, if the President rebuffs my overture, the Congressional Review Act will afford me this opportunity for another vote on a resolution of disapproval next year. This is because even if the Senate meets in legislative session every day until January 3--including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, and all weekends--there will not have been 60 session days between the date the welfare waiver rule is deemed to have been submitted to the Senate and the convening of the 113th Congress. Since the 112th Congress will end before the full 60-session-day period has elapsed, the Congressional Review Act provides for another 60-day period to act on a disapproval resolution regarding this rule in 2013. I hope it doesn't come to that. Therefore, if President Obama does not withdraw the welfare waiver rule, submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization plan, and then work with Congress to enact meaningful, comprehensive welfare reform that strengthens work requirements and provides for improved accountability of TANF spending, I will be right back here in a few months exercising my right to demand a vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.

I sincerely hope it does not come to that. As my colleagues know, I have a long history of forging bipartisan compromises on welfare, among many other things. I was a key player during the 1996 consideration of welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President. In 2002, Senator Breaux and I worked with Republicans and Democrats to draft the so-called ``tripartisan'' agreement on welfare reauthorization. I stand willing to work again on a bipartisan basis on this important issue at this most critical time.

As Members of Congress, I believe we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those facing staggering challenges and deep and persistent poverty. We can begin to meet this moral obligation by strengthening and improving the TANF Programs for the working poor, the middle class, and children in the child welfare system.

In America today we have women who take their children with them rummaging through trash cans, hoping to find discarded soda cans so they can sell them back to stores. In America today we have families who every month must make painful decisions about whether to buy food or medicine or whether to pay to heat their home or put gas in their car. Many single moms have no good choices when it comes to providing childcare for their children while they attempt to find work. I can think of no group of Americans more deserving of having the Senate's time and attention directed toward crafting policies designed to help improve their lives.

If my colleagues look over my past 36 years, I have been there for these Americans. I was there in enacting TANF. I was there on a number of child welfare programs. I was there on the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I was there on the Americans With Disabilities Act, and countless other bills. These bills I worked on have helped to make a difference.

But I am concerned that increasingly, we are becoming a welfare society. A lot of people aren't going to go to work, and every time, every quarter, we find more and more people who won't even look for a job anymore. That is not the way to run a great country. That is not the way to help people to be self-sufficient, it is not the way to help people to be self-reliant, and it is not the way to keep a country great.

This is an important issue. I believe everybody in the Senate ought to stand up for the rights of the Congress. And I believe the President can show great good will here if he would do what I have suggested, which I think my Democratic colleagues would appreciate as well, and that is send up the 5-year reauthorization of TANF and of course withdraw that particular approach toward waivers that literally should not ever be granted without congressional consent. I think the President would come a long way by doing that and it would mean a lot to me personally. Let's hope we can get the President to consider these remarks this day because they have been delivered in good faith, hoping we will find solutions to these problems and, above all, hoping we can help our people.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to join everyone here in thanking Kay for her great service in the Senate. I have worked closely with her on a wide variety of issues. I have to say she is a fierce advocate. In fact, I have to say all our women Senators have been fierce advocates, and we have benefited from them being here.

Kay has paved the way for Senators--both male and female--to truly become

better Senators and in many cases great Senators. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a great Senator. She worked her guts out the whole time she was here. She is still here, but she is going to retire at this time and she has represented Texas well.

All I can say is she has been my friend all this time. When I needed help from her, she was always there. I tried to be there for her when she needed help as well. She has not only been a delightful person to be around but a very intelligent lawyer. She fought for what she believed--most of which I believed in--in a way nobody could truly ever get mad at Kay Bailey Hutchison.

She is a wonderful person, wonderful mother, and we are going to miss her terribly. This is a body where we could use a few more women Senators--maybe a lot more than a few. They are very good people who work very hard and not the least of whom is Kay Bailey Hutchison.

I remember at times when I had difficulties with the BRAC system and difficulties with special NASA problems, and so forth, we always worked together. We could always count on her to come up with intelligent solutions to some of the problems that should not have existed but did.

I have personally appreciated her very much during those times and in so many other ways as we worked together on legislation to help this country and as we worked to represent our respective States. I have so much respect for Texas, the people of Texas, and what they stand for. I have great respect for these Texan Senators who are two of the best we have ever had in the Senate.

Senator Hutchison has been an exemplary Senator, not just for women but for all of us. She has also set some standards that I think both women and male Senators are going to have to try to emulate.

I just want say to the Senator that we love her, we appreciate her, and we wish her the very best. We are going to miss her. This is one Senator who will miss her greatly, and I want her to know that. All I can say is God be with her.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the ongoing situation with the so-called fiscal cliff. To millions of Americans, what's happening here in Washington must be a mystery.

In less than 2 weeks, almost every single taxpaying citizen will face a massive tax hike if we don't act. For weeks now, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has been trying to get this President to come up with a fair, reasonable and balanced solution so we don't go over this cliff.

The President, thinking he has some sort of mandate after his reelection, has been less than reasonable. In fact, this President has proposed more and more spending, and more and more tax hikes in his proposals to the Speaker, while the Speaker is trying to stop these tax hikes and deal with our over $16 trillion debt. The President just can't take yes for an answer. He must think that if he keeps slow- walking these proposals that Republicans will get the blame--and members of his administration have even reveled that they would be more than happy if we went over the cliff.

What kind of cruel Christmas gift is that?

After the Speaker and the President exchanged offers this week, House Republicans are looking at having votes on two competing pieces of legislation as early as tomorrow. The first is legislation that passed this body over the summer--deeply-flawed legislation that every Democrat in this body supported.

I should note that I put forward a more common-sense alternative that would have extended all the current tax policy for 1 year during which time we could undertake a comprehensive overhaul of our bloated, broken tax code. I think I characterized it as putting it over for 1 year and dedicating that year to tax reform, which we all know needs to be done.

The second piece of legislation that the House will vote on is legislation that Speaker Boehner has called ``Plan B''--a more limited piece of legislation that extends almost all the current tax policy as is in the law today.

I understand that this ``Plan B'' is a plan of necessity. And while I understand that the Speaker continues to negotiate with the President to try and reach an agreement, the Speaker has put this forward to force action from this intransigent White House.

What does the Speaker's plan do?

The Speaker's plan would provide seamless permanent tax relief for American taxpayers who earn less than $1 million. For taxpayers earning above $1 million, the statutory rates on ordinary and capital gain income would be set at the level President Obama and Congressional Democrats have insisted on.

My preference is clear. I have legislation that this body voted on in August that shows what I believe is the better path.

I oppose tax increases very strongly and have said over and over that we should not be touching tax rates. But I

also understand, given the reality before us, that the Speaker has to move forward with a plan to force action.

Is it perfect from my perspective? No, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The Speaker, in my view, is the only person in these negotiations trying to find a resolution. I commend him--I admire him--I back him-- and I know he is working hard discussing this legislation with the members of the House Republican Conference as they move towards a vote.

I hope they support this plan. However, it turns out, if I was a member of the House, I would.

But I am a Member of the Senate and this leads me to ask: after the House passes ``Plan B'' and defeats the Senate Democrats' tax bill, what is it that Senate Democrats want to do?

The House will presumably send its bill to the Senate. Senator Reid and the White House have already said it is dead on arrival in the Senate. I find that very curious indeed since so many Democrats seem to have wanted exactly what the Speaker is giving them. Then they complain that the Speaker's plan isn't ``balanced,'' despite the fact that the President in a proposal was calling on more stimulus spending and for the continuation of so-called temporary stimulus tax provisions that the President now somehow wants to make permanent.

So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, what is it exactly that you want to do?

What is it that Senate Democrats and the White House want?

We are all waiting.

The American people are waiting.

Enough of the games. Put your money where your mouth is, and tell us what you think is better than what Speaker Boehner is ultimately going to put forward.

If I were in the House, I would be supporting Speaker Boehner. Frankly, I do support Speaker Boehner.

I yield the floor.