Floor Statements

Mr. President, on July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus. Thirty-seven years later, Turkish troops continue to occupy 37 percent of the island. The invasion and occupation resulted in the deaths of more than 5,000 Cypriots and made some 200,000 Cypriots refugees in their own land.

Since 1974, more than 75 resolutions have been adopted by the U.N. Security Council and more than 13 by the U.N. General Assembly, calling for the return of the refugees to their homes and properties and for the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Cyprus. In addition to these Resolutions, the European Court of Human Rights has in various judgments held Turkey responsible for the violation of the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of Greek Cypriots, such as the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the right to respect for family life, the right to the protection of property and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Building on past meetings in November 2010 and January 2011, President Christofias again this month met with Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Eroglu in the presence of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Geneva, where they agreed to intensify discussions on the difficult ``core issues'' of the negotiations, including the sharing of power and authority between the two communities of Cyprus, territorial adjustments, property issues, and the issue of the withdrawal of foreign troops, security and guarantees. The Cypriot government is working in good faith to achieve a viable agreement and I remain supportive of the Cypriot government's insistence that this process remain a Cypriot-led process, with any solution agreed upon by the Cypriots and for the Cypriots, without any external arbitration or timeframes, while recognizing that a solution cannot be reached without the full and constructive cooperation of Turkey.

As Cypriot-Americans join with Cypriots from throughout the world in this effort to unify their homeland, and as they seek to secure an economically prosperous state free of illegal occupation, I will stand by them. I will work to ensure that the Turkish occupation comes to an end.

This week, we remember those who perished in the invasion of Cyprus, and honor those who survived and who continue to live under Turkish occupation. We have not forgotten and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.

Remembering together the events of July 20, 1974, in solidarity gives reverence to historical events we cannot afford to forget as we move forward to a peaceful, just solution and a hopeful tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I know we are on the MILCON appropriations bill, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to talk about a pressing issue before the country today; that is, how we will work to resolve the Nation's obligations to its creditors and what the failure of doing that means to the Nation and to each and every American. I rise to ask a simple question of my Republican colleagues: When is an entitlement not an entitlement? Apparently, given the rhetoric

and actions of some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the answer would be that an entitlement is not an entitlement when it benefits an entitled class of wealthy Americans. In the Republicans' ideological haze that is swirling around Washington these days, it is only an entitlement when it goes to the middle-class families, to students, to seniors, to the disabled, to the downtrodden, and the dispossessed.

Those entitlements, according to the Republicans, should be on the chopping block. But entitlements to the wealthy can never be on the table, despite the fact that our current Tax Code allows the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in America to pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the average New Jersey family--less than the average New Jersey family.

What Republicans will ultimately do, their goal in this debt negotiation, is outlined in the House-passed budget that ends Medicare as we know it, the baseline of retirement security for our seniors, what was the retirement security of my mother in the twilight of her life as she struggled against Alzheimer's, after having worked a lifetime to help build a family and be part of contributing to a community. She would not have lived in the dignity she deserved in the twilight of her life but for Medicare as we know it--and it makes a middle-class life in America more expensive and less accessible.

It seems to me the policies of our Republican friends would make sure the rich get even more rich at the expense of the middle class. They think the rich are entitled to all the tax loopholes they get but seniors and the disabled, they do not need the health benefits they are getting. We call this leadership? Do they call it leadership, to stand on ideology and send this Nation into default?

Default basically means being a deadbeat. I think average Americans understand what being a deadbeat is all about. We teach our children to meet their responsibilities. We say do not incur a debt, but if you incur that debt, meet your responsibility--pay it. But now we have leaders in this Nation who say let's have this Nation be a deadbeat, and we would leave a senior citizen who lives--I know some of our friends here who may not have an appreciation of this--who lives month to month only on Social Security, standing hopelessly on the front porch waiting for a check that may not come. You call that leadership?

We call it leadership to risk increasing interest rates on mortgages when families are struggling to pay at the current rates on student loans, on car payments, on credit cards that middle-class families can ill-afford now? They call it leadership to risk leaving a wounded veteran without a benefit check or active military men and women, their families, without a paycheck?

They call it leadership to risk a spike in prices that increases the cost of groceries and gas and potentially costs a middle-class family in New Jersey an additional $1,500? They call it leadership to risk an end to unemployment benefits to States, leaving those already struggling in this economy at risk of losing what little they have?

They call it leadership to risk Medicaid payments to States for disabled seniors in nursing homes who have no other options but amazingly allow a millionaire who owns a stable of racehorses a depreciation allowance on the Tax Code on those racehorses? That is an entitlement we should not touch? That is leadership? Bottom line, it is estimated that about $125 billion worth of bills, on average, may have to be put off if we don't deal with meeting the Nation's obligations.

It is not leadership if the dollar plummets and America loses. It is not leadership if no one follows but the far rightwing of the Republican Party. If we are going to balance the budget by limiting entitlements and subsidies and earmarks, perhaps we should begin with those entitlements in the Tax Code that benefit those who are the wealthiest in the country. Perhaps we should look at ending entitlements for rich oil companies that receive $2 billion a year. They receive in just two tax breaks that the code gives them $21 billion over the next 10 years. Yet, oh, no, we can't touch that, but we can tell some senior that, in fact, they have to be on the chopping block; that Medicare has to end as we know it.

How about $6 billion for ethanol producers or how about the racehorse depreciation allowance or the billions year after year that defense contractors think they are entitled to? How about investing in new bridges and tunnels and a new state-of-the-art transportation system in New Jersey instead of Kandahar?

Our friends on the other side who believe we should balance the budget by spending cuts alone are more than willing to bargain away student loans, bargain away prescription drug coverage, even bargain away nursing home care for the elderly parents to protect entitlements for big oil companies, billionaire corporate executives who travel the world in private jets, and millionaires who believe they are entitled to all of the tax loopholes they are getting now after the biggest tax cut in history--entitled to tax cuts but not obligated to create American jobs, contrary to the false rhetoric we hear from the other side about a correlation between entitlements for the wealthy and job creation.

The hard rightwing of the Republican Party has come to the table willing to give up nothing--unwilling to accept an offer by the President and Democrats of trillions of dollars in spending cuts, potential savings in entitlement programs, and tax reform options, all of which they have been demanding, unless we agree to protect the entitlements that exist for the wealthy. Not even a single penny on the revenue side of the option. Don't touch those entitlements for the big five oil companies. Don't touch the entitlements for the corporate jets. Don't touch the entitlements for the racehorses. Don't touch any of those entitlements giving the tax breaks and having a code where an incredible universe of corporations in America don't even pay at the end of the day by using all of the provisions of the code, anything toward the common good.

They come to the table with nothing. They look America in the eye and tell us we cannot cut subsidies to big oil companies. We cannot put entitlements to the wealthy on the table because in their ideological haze, they conveniently, through this political sleight of hand, label any attempt to end those tax breaks, those entitlements, as a tax increase on what they like to call the job creators. Their excuse for such an irresponsible bargaining position: trickle-down economics. I have heard this so many times over the time I have been in Congress. But the problem is nothing has ever trickled down. Yet those same entitlements for the entitled, the $5 trillion entitlement the Bush tax cuts would cost going forward over the next decade that we are told at the outset would create jobs, would turn out to be the greatest failed jobs program in American history.

I look at how those tax breaks are skewed to the wealthiest. I understand the opportunity to help middle-class families, and I promote that because they are the ones who spend in this economy and create demands. But the way those tax cuts are skewed to the wealthiest, $5 trillion, I ask my friends: Where are all the jobs that were supposedly going to be created as a result of that? Where are all the jobs these Republican entitlements to the wealthy are supposed to produce? Where are they? When middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet, pay the bills, keep their jobs, their health care, their homes, entitlements to the entitled are the most reckless kind of spending.

This is the irresponsible Republican entitlement spending that should be on the table, the very entitlement spending that contributed to our current debt, and yet our friends on the other side continue to protect these entitlements.

They will not vote to raise the debt limit unless we cut entitlements for the working middle-class families of this country, but they protect entitlements for the wealthiest Americans. They are holding a gun to our heads at a critical time in our economic history, but we need only to look back at how often Republicans, themselves, have raised the debt limit.

As we can see from this chart, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, George W. Bush had seven increases of the debt ceiling, increasing it by 90 percent for the largest increase in history, a total of over $5 trillion that includes the entitlements for the wealthy that they

will not put on the table in the name of shared sacrifice even if it means America defaults on its debt and becomes a deadbeat and sends a ripple-effect throughout the world and its economies that come back crashing on our shores in the United States. So it is amazing me.

Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. Mr. President, 18 times in 8 years, a total percentage increase of 199 percent, amounting to $1.8 trillion, which in today's dollars would be $4 trillion. Mr. President, 18 times, Ronald Reagan. George Bush, 7 times, for $5.3 trillion.

That amount, by the way, under the Bush years, ends up being, what. What is it equal to? The Bush tax cuts, $5 trillion.

They will not raise the debt limit to protect the good faith of the American financial system, to protect middle-class families who have already lost so much under Republican economic policies that led us to the brink of economic disaster. The whole confluence of what happened in September of 2008 where we had these Bush tax cuts totally unpaid for, denying the Federal Treasury those moneys, at a time in which we had two wars raging abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new entitlement program unpaid for, and a marketplace that instead of being a free market--which I support--became a free-for-all market in which investor decisions ended up becoming a collective risk to the entire country, and that is what we have been facing.

Instead of meeting this responsibility, they favor cuts in entitlements to the seniors, to the disabled, to families struggling to make ends meet, to students seeking to get the college education that could help fuel America's prosperity. That is what we saw in the House Republican budget that passed but are willing to decimate our Nation's economy to protect entitlements for the rich. They have dug in their heels and walled off irresponsible, unnecessary tax breaks for big oil companies. They have walled off entitlements to multibillion-dollar corporations and millionaires who need no entitlements because they believe--blinded by their ideological haze--the rich are entitled to their outrageous giveaways even if it means ballooning the deficit and sending the Nation into default on its debt. Entitlements for these special interests, cuts for everyone else.

Republicans prefer to talk about cutting entitlements rather than what it really means--rather than cutting Social Security, rather than cutting Medicare, rather than cutting Medicaid--because cutting entitlements seems so esoteric. It is not very personal. But we all know our families, our mothers and fathers who may be getting their health care on Medicare or one of them who may be sitting in a nursing home on Medicaid or a poor child who is getting their health care being taken care of on Medicaid, we know our friends and neighbors with disabilities, and we understand what those challenges are.

Let's be clear. The only entitled people Republicans are talking about in this debate are those who already enjoy enormous benefits under the Tax Code, both individually and corporations that feel entitled to these pretty outrageous tax breaks.

Oil companies, as I heard from the executives who appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, clearly feel entitled to $21 billion in subsidies. Millionaires and billionaires think they are entitled to the Bush tax cuts. Corporate titans think they are entitled to tax breaks for their private corporate jets, and Republicans think these are the only entitlements worth protecting.

It is time to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and middle-class working families. It is time to stop protecting government handouts to the entitled class at the expense of the middle class and telling America in good economic times that it stimulates the economy and in bad times that it is a job creation policy.

The truth is, it is neither. It is simply an entitlement program for an entitled small class of Americans who are not struggling to make ends meet or pay the mortgage or afford health care or find another minimum wage job to put food on the table. This stark contrast of wealth in the Nation is in the numbers.

The 400 wealthiest taxpayers--those who get the most out of Republican entitlements--had an average income in 2008 of $270 million, almost $300 million. That amounts to an hourly wage of about $31,000 an hour. Their average tax rate was about 18 percent. In contrast, the median New Jersey household earned about $64,777 the entire year as opposed to just 2 hours. That equated to 2 hours for the richest 400 people, and yet they paid an average of 21.2 percent. They paid a higher percentage of less of their wages than those 400 top earners in the country.

A first lieutenant at Fort Dix, NJ, earned about $52,000. He paid an average tax rate of 18.9 percent. So I ask, looking at these numbers, what should be on the table and what should not? The fact is, we are offering solutions. We are simply asking for fairness and for our friends on the other side to bring something to the table other than a political ideology and an unrealistic ultimatum, all in order to protect an entitled class that needs no protections. I don't usually agree with the conservative columnist David Brooks, but as I have said on this floor before, I agree with him when he says, ``The members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their Nation's honor . . .

They are willing to stain their Nation's honor.

I agree when he wrote that ``if the debt talks fail independent voters will see Democrats as willing to compromise but Republicans were not.''

Although this is not even about that. At the end of the day, this is about the Nation. This is about our economy. This is about trying to get people back to work. This is about trying to ensure families can realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. This is about the United States of America, a beacon of light to the rest of the world, the gold standard in terms of credit and meeting its obligations, continuing to be that gold standard and that beacon of light or becoming a deadbeat in the world.

I would go even further and say the American public will see right through these efforts to protect entitlements for a privileged class while those Americans who struggle every day to build the foundation of America, the cuts go on their backs. They come to the table with nothing other than an ideological fixation that prevents them from negotiating in good faith, prevents them from putting the interests of the country ahead of their narrow political interests.

I have read some of the comments about this issue as it relates to: Well, you know, do we end up giving President Obama the ability to get reelected? This is not about President Obama. This is about the United States of America. This is about our country. This is about being responsible at one of its most critical times. This is about getting the country back on track. It is about giving the private sector faith and confidence that we are not going to default on our debt, that we are going to meet our obligations. It is about telling investors in the world the United States is still a good place to invest. And when those investments are made, jobs are created, people go to work, once again they have the dignity of work taking place; they are able to spend in the economy, the economy grows, that creates other jobs, other opportunities, and we move toward fulfillment once again of the great American opportunity.

That is what this debate is all about. It is a debate about each and every one of us. The sooner our friends realize it is not about a political equation, it is not about who wins and loses in a political context, it is about the Nation, the better. If we can fix our attention to the needs of the Nation, then I have to believe we can meet this challenge in a balanced way. Clearly, if Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and if George Bush raised it 7 times, then this time, the first time under President Obama it needs to be raised, which is merely to pay the obligations we already have, I have to believe responsible people will come forward and say yes and do it in a way that isn't on the backs of middle-class working families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask unanimous consent that a law clerk on his staff, Brendan Forbes, be granted floor privileges for the week of July 18, 2011.

Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned that our Republican colleagues, in their ideological haze, have lost sight of the facts and the real people at home whose lives will be affected by the choices we make. They are lost in an ideological haze, a political dust storm that is distorting the facts and confusing process and policy with political propaganda.

As the conservative columnist David Brooks has said, ``A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing.'' He calls it ``the mother of no-brainers.'' But it is true, as many have said, that this Republican Party is not your grandfather's Republican Party. It is not even Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. This Republican Party is so far to the right that it cannot even see the center, where ideologies converge and good governance begins. This Republican Party sees the processes governing as one-sided--their side and no other.

Today, those on the far right wave the Constitution that established a form of government to protect us from tyranny yet see any form of compromise as defeat and the only clear victory is total surrender to their position.

Here we are, working to try to ensure that reason prevails. We have offered the largest spending cuts in a generation, asking that those cuts be accompanied by closing tax loopholes and ending tax giveaways and unreasonable subsidies to those who need them the least. But because almost every Republican has signed Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform pledge to never ever raise any tax, and because they define closing tax loopholes as a tax increase even when the recipients themselves have said they do not need those tax breaks, we are forced into this position, hoping that logical, moderate voices on the other side will rise up, demanding that we do what is right for the American people.

In my view, ending subsidies to big oil companies does not fall under that pledge. Only in Washington would Republicans call ending $21 billion in tax breaks for big oil companies that will make $144 billion in profits a tax increase. It is not. It is not a tax increase; it is a measure of fairness. It is exactly what we need to do under the circumstances, and it is a reasonable offer by those of us on this side of the aisle.

Our job, in a representative democracy, is to represent the values of those who sent us here to do what is right for them, not wave a pledge and conveniently interpret the elimination of oil subsidies for multibillion-dollar profitable corporations or ethanol subsidies to the tune of $2 billion as a tax increase. That is nonsense. We are offering a reasonable compromise, as that conservative columnist David Brooks says, ``the mother of no-brainers.''

Even USA Today said in their editorial:

Compromise is an essential part of democracy, but

negotiating with Republicans over taxes has become as futile

as trying to bargain with the Taliban over whether girls

should be allowed to attend school.

That is a pretty stark comparison, I admit, and I may not have gone that far. But, frankly, our Republican brethren seem to hold to their ideology almost as religiously. They see all things in black and white. They act as though they believe those who disagree with that ideology are unpatriotic or heretics, and that the only truth is their truth. What they have forgotten is that negotiating with those with whom we disagree and reaching a compromise is what good governance is all about.

There is another falsehood. Spending is not a Democratic value, as our friends on the other side of the aisle would have us believe, but a Republican reality. It was the reckless spending of Republicans combined with a reckless tax policy and an ideology that let Wall Street run wild, turning a free market into a free-for-all market, that brought us to where we are today.

Let's remember, it was not long ago that the budget was, in fact, balanced during another Democratic administration when we had budget surpluses as far out as the eye could see. The day President Clinton left office he handed the incoming President a $236 billion surplus with a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the following 10 years.

When President Bush left office he had turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a $1.3 trillion budget deficit with projected shortfalls of $8 trillion over the next decade. He handed the new President an economy that was headed off the cliff into a near depression.

We have spent $786 billion, unpaid for, on President Bush's ill- advised, wrongheaded war of choice in Iraq because of some false allegations of weapons of mass destruction, a political experiment that distracted us from a war of necessity in Afghanistan, keeping us there far longer than necessary at an additional cost of $430 billion, unpaid for. The total cost for both wars, unpaid for, was $1.2 trillion.

The Republican Party that will not now agree to one penny in revenue and demands only more spending cuts has fought to make tax breaks for the wealthy permanent that would cost this Nation another $5 trillion. They have favored big business and Wall Street in a Tax Code that has resulted in major multibillion-dollar corporations paying no taxes-- yes, no taxes at all.

In fact, a detailed Government Accountability Office study of corporate income taxes from 1998 to 2005 showed that 55 percent of large U.S. corporations reported no tax liability for at least 1 of those 8 years. Yet those same Republicans will look us in the eye in defense of their defenseless position and tell us that most individuals do not pay taxes either. What they will not say is that those individuals who do not pay taxes do not pay taxes for a reason: They do not earn enough to pay income tax, and many of them are among the poorest of the poor. Only in Washington could such an indefensible position be accepted as defensible and logical.

Only in Washington could Republicans support policies that benefit the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class. Only in Washington could Republicans tell a construction worker in New Jersey, who has cut his budget to the bone and needs to work another job to pay the bills, that we do not need to end tax loopholes and tax breaks to help pay the Nation's bills; that we only have to cut more spending and give more money to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in the country who control 45 percent of all of the wealth in America and that they will create more jobs--notwithstanding the fact that 12 years of tax cuts for the wealthiest created virtually no jobs at all. When Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton increased the revenue side of the equation, it brought the greatest economic progress in the last half century.

But our Republican colleagues do not let the facts get in the way of their ideology.

The fact is, if Joe the construction worker in New Jersey cut his budget and his spending and has made the difficult choices about what he can afford and what he can't and still can't meet the bills he has to pay with the money he earns, then he has to get a second job or work more hours or find a way to increase his income. Yet our Republican colleagues will look that construction worker in the eye and tell him he doesn't need to earn more, he needs to cut more and then cut again. Cut to the bone, if necessary, but never, never do what needs to be done to increase the revenue side. Only in Washington does such an argument seem reasonable. Only in this Republican Party does such an absurd argument try to make sense.

Never before has America waged two wars at the same time, struggled to invest in our infrastructure to create new jobs--and done so at a time of decreased revenue--and not seen the need at least to discuss the idea of closing tax loopholes and tax breaks for Big Oil and multibillion-dollar corporations. Never before has any party claimed we can do all of that and at the same time balance the budget on the backs of seniors, students, middle-class families, and not even consider the shared sacrifice--a sacrifice that would end tax breaks for multibillion-dollar corporations that in many cases don't even pay taxes. Never before has such illogic passed for logic. But our Republican colleagues will not take yes for an answer. We have said yes to spending cuts, more spending cuts than we have seen in a generation. Now they must say yes to common sense, fair increases in revenue, and choose good governance over political ideology.

David Brooks, the conservative columnist to whom I referred, said, ``The members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their Nation's honor,'' meaning that the country will not meet its obligations. We teach our children that you have to meet your obligations, but this movement tells the country you don't have to meet your obligations.

He goes on to say:

If debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see

that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans

were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control,

independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused

this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit

to govern.

I would very rarely agree with Mr. Brooks, but I would agree his observations in this case are absolutely right. This is about not only standing up for the Nation's honor, it is about standing up for the Nation's obligations. It is about standing up to make sure there is a fair and shared sacrifice, not just on the backs of middle-class working families in this country and those who have the least among us. That is the choice Republicans would have us make. It is a wrong choice for the Nation, and I hope we get to some sense of reality in this Chamber that can help us move forward, have the Nation be upheld in its obligations both here and abroad and not start a ripple effect that will cause an enormous consequence to this Nation's economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret that our colleagues have objected to a consent request to go to some of the most critical issues the country is facing--to have the Finance Committee meet on trade agreements that could expand markets and ultimately create jobs in America, and that is what we need in America--to create jobs. On the question of whether there

should be a limited use of force, the Congress, and particularly the Senate, should speak, and not being able to do that is pretty amazing to me. So I hear a lot about wanting to get the people's work done, but then I hear objections to trying to move to get it done. It is pretty outrageous.

I came originally to the floor after this vote to thank President Obama for, yesterday, calling and echoing my call to end subsidies for Big Oil. It is a call that received a bipartisan vote in the Senate, a bipartisan majority vote in the Senate, but, of course, it did not pass because of our colleagues' insistence on a filibuster or a supermajority amount. But it is time that our friends on the other side of the aisle put the interests of taxpayers ahead of Big Oil and allow these wasteful subsidies to finally end.

As the President said, we have strategies to reduce the deficit, such as my legislation to cut oil subsidies, that are already introduced and ready to go. All we have to do is pass it. A vote to allow that to happen is a simple choice for everyone in this Chamber: Are you on the side of working-class families and seniors or are you on the side of Big Oil?

There are lots of ways to cut the deficit, but saving taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil while ending Medicare as we know it and cutting student loans is not, in my mind, a solution. It makes no sense to give a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the big five oil companies, which are earning $12 billion in profits a month--they are going to earn about $144 billion in profits this year alone--and say to families: Oh, no, you have to sacrifice even more.

Those on the other side of the aisle would tell a middle-class student whose family earns a median family income of about a little over $50,000 that, no, you cannot go to college, you cannot get a Pell grant from the Federal Government, but ExxonMobil, a company that will earn $42.6 billion in profits this year, needs government assistance. And they will continue to come to the floor and look Americans in the eye and say that somehow is commonsense deficit reduction. There simply is no commonsense explanation for balancing the budget on the backs of working families and letting multibillion-dollar oil companies keep billions in taxpayer dollars.

We have this debate about the deficit and how we deal with the debt ceiling, but we don't seem to want to have the shared sacrifice of having the special interests in this country, whether it is Big Oil or ethanol, which had a huge bipartisan vote here in the Senate--that they should not face any consequences but that, in fact, middle-class working families should.

We all know oil companies are among the largest, most profitable companies in the world, but it is hard to understand the scale of their wealth. This chart shows it clearly. This is the median income for families in this country, and this is Big Oil's profit.

Whose side are you on?

This is about closing loopholes and, given the current budget climate, you would think we would all be for closing those loopholes.

Let me give an example of what one of those loopholes is. Under the law as it exists today, we allow the big five oil companies to go to other countries in the world and say to them: You know, tax us in a way that we can ultimately reduce our obligations in the United States.

U.S. taxpayers are taxed on their income worldwide but are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any income they pay to a foreign government, which makes sense because we don't want to tax our companies twice. But U.S. oil and gas companies have very smart lawyers and accountants. They figured out that if they go to a foreign government, such as Indonesia, and say: Don't charge me a license fee or a royalty, which is what we do in the United States to permit these companies to explore on Federal lands and waters for oil and gas--no, they say to Indonesia and other countries: Charge me a tax. Why? Because then I can take all of that tax--which really is a license fee but is now paid as a tax--and I can deduct it back here in the United States. What does that mean? That means American taxpayers are subsidizing foreign oil production. That is not in the national interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of taxpayers in the United States, and it is not about shared sacrifice when we are talking about how to deal with the deficit and debt in this country. Just closing that loophole would mean $6.5 trillion to the Treasury that could be applied directly to deficit reduction.

As a matter of fact, I am only talking about closing two loopholes for the big five oil companies, which are going to make $144 billion in profit. Just closing those two loopholes would save the U.S. taxpayer $21 billion over the next 10 years.

Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, if you do that to those poor oil companies, they are just going to raise the price of gasoline. That is simply not true. First of all, we are talking about $21 billion over 10 years or roughly $2 billion a year. So those poor oil companies, if they would only make $142 billion in profits this year instead of $144 billion in profits this year, would not have to raise gas prices. They are making $142 billion a year, so they certainly don't need to raise gas prices. And we certainly don't need to incentivize their exploration because they are making record profits in this country and in the world. They don't need us to incentivize them when they are making $144 billion in profits. So let's save the taxpayers that $21 billion and put it directly to deficit reduction.

Only in Washington would my Republican friends suggest that stopping those subsidies to Big Oil is somehow going to be a tax increase. Only in Washington could ending $21 billion in subsidies to the big five oil companies--we are not even talking about the independents--that are going to make $144 billion in profits this year--somehow be a tax increase. Yet we can take away Pell grants or cut seniors under Medicare or the poor under Medicaid, and that is OK. Well, something is wrong with that vision of America.

To back up my point that the argument is simply fallacious, you need to look no further than the definitive report by the CRS that explains that my proposal to end oil subsidies will not lower the production of oil and will not raise gasoline prices.

So, Mr. President, you drive up to the pump, you pay nearly $4 a gallon already, which has a real impact on your family and on your income, and it has a real impact on your choices and has a real impact on food prices and has a real impact in so many areas, and yet we are still supposed to give the oil companies another $21 billion in tax breaks from the American taxpayers.

It is time to stand for the people's interests, not the special interests. It is time to end these tax breaks. It is time to put it as a revenue source into our challenges in terms of meeting our debt and dealing with our deficit, and our proposal would do exactly that.

I don't know how you can look the American people in the eye and say: We are going to cut so many things that are going to affect your life, but on this issue we are going to keep Big Oil whole. We will not touch a penny from their pockets. That is fundamentally wrong, and the American people know it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I didn't come to the floor for this purpose, but I would be remiss if I didn't thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, for his incredible commitment and passion to this issue. I have seen him just about every session take time out of every day to both dramatize and put a human face on this opportunity to turn some of America's greatest prospects into opportunity and prosperity for this entire country. I am thrilled he has adopted various of my lines, and I am honored by it.

It is true; these young people came to this country through no choice of their own. The only country they have ever known is the United States of America. They put their hands on their hearts and pledge allegiance to the United States, and the only National Anthem they have ever learned to sing or believe in is ``The Star-Spangled Banner.''

We have a tremendous opportunity. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator for his incredible commitment to this issue. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about something that I very passionately believe in, and that is my view in support of a significant and sustained reduction of American combat forces in Afghanistan beginning this July.

In short, I believe the time has come to move from a strategy of counterinsurgency to one of counterterrorism--a strategy that would rely on our specialized military forces to continue to engage those who present a real and continued threat to the national security of the United States and one that would allow us to bring home a majority of troops serving in Afghanistan.

After September 11, almost a decade ago, we were clearly justified in intervening in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and bring bin Laden to justice for the atrocities they committed against Americans on our own soil. I supported President Bush at that time in that effort. I have a standard that if I am willing to send my son and daughter to fight for America on behalf of the Nation's national security interests, I will vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters. Not so in Iraq where I did not believe it was in the national security interests of the United States; and if I won't send my son and daughter, I won't vote to send anyone else's sons or daughters. But in Afghanistan nearly a decade ago, that is where the perpetrators of September 11 were, and it was the right engagement. Our original goals have largely been met in that respect.

Today, even according to the Director of the CIA, fewer than 100 members of al-Qaida remain in Afghanistan. Since September 11, we are painfully aware that the world is a different place, and we will always have to be vigilant. But the current threat simply does not justify the presence of 100,000 American troops on the ground. Bin Laden is dead, having hidden for years in Pakistan in plain view of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence force, and the Pakistani military.

Clearly, the issue at hand is about terrorism not insurgency. Terrorism is a borderless issue represented by the

unimpeded movement of the Taliban into Pakistan and a safe haven in Abbottabad for al-Qaida's leader. In finding bin Laden and bringing him to justice, we have struck a serious blow to al-Qaida's network that permits us to now reconsider our mission and the wisdom of pursuing a broad and open-ended strategy of nation building in Afghanistan because, make no mistake about it, what we are doing in Afghanistan is nation building.

This is interesting. I have heard speeches on the Senate floor and in my previous service in the House by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we should not be nation building, as though that is not a vital national interest. Well, that is exactly what we are doing. The costs of our current strategy are too high in lives lost, in futures unraveled by injury, and in taxpayer dollars spent.

Mr. President, 1,500 brave men and women have lost their lives in Afghanistan. Almost 12,000 have been wounded in action, at a cost--a continuing cost--of $10 billion a month--a month. Nonmilitary contributions to Afghan reconstruction and development from 2002 to 2010 have reached $19 billion--a number which is expected to surge as we transition to a civilian mission. But at the same time, reports from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I sit, and from the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan place our billions of dollars in investment at risk of falling into disrepair because of inadequate planning to pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance; not to mention that from my own perspective, $19 billion later, I don't know what we have achieved in Afghanistan.

In my mind not only are the costs and lives and treasure far too high, but there is a growing consensus that absent a very long and sustained commitment involving many troops on the ground, we can't win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people or, for that matter, even President Karzai who, in my view, has not proven to be a good partner. Karzai most recently suggested that the U.S. and NATO forces risk becoming an occupying force that would be, in his words, ousted from the country--all of these lives later of American troops lost. To do what? To have a counterinsurgency effort. Which is what? Fighting insurgents to give the Afghan Government the opportunity to sustain itself, to defend itself, to govern itself, and we are an occupying force? We are an occupying force?

We have to ask, even if we are willing to make the enormous economic commitment required to build a democracy and to fund the necessary security elements at the cost of tens of billions of dollars per year, what is the likelihood of our success?

The Afghan Government is corrupt. Our working relationship with President Karzai continues to be challenged. Today I believe he made some other comments--either today or yesterday--again, that malign the very Nation that is there defending them with the sons and daughters of America, with the National Treasury of America--in a country that, by the way, has $1 trillion of precious deposits of various minerals that, if properly pursued, would be able to fund the Afghan Nation for years to come.

When they gave out their first contract, who did they give it to? Not the Nation that has defended them but the Chinese who have done nothing to stand up for the Afghan people.

So I look at a government that is corrupt, our working relationship with Karzai crumbling, our focus on building security forces challenged because its membership largely excludes Pashtuns in the south, which is the base for the Taliban. I am not certain there is any amount of money or a plan that can work under those circumstances. It seems to me for every Taliban fighter we kill, buy off, or convert another one will take his place, and more and more will stand up to fight an enemy that is perceived as infidels. I am not certain a counterinsurgency strategy is anything but counterproductive.

It is clear to me the present course is unsustainable, creates dependency, breeds corruption, and ignores the fact that at some point Afghanistan will have to stand on its own--on its trillions of dollars in mineral deposits--and build its own future. We are spending $10 billion a month on a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan that does not have a clear path to a definable victory. I am not certain a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan does anything but feed and grow the insurgency.

In short, I am not certain a counterinsurgency strategy is a winnable strategy. Therefore, it is my belief we need a tailored counterterrorism strategy to achieve and protect our national security interests and meet our broader fiduciary responsibilities. Since 2001 we have invested over $50 billion to help stand up a central government in Kabul and fund reconstruction projects across Afghanistan. So $26 billion has gone to standing up the Afghan security forces, including an additional $11 billion this year. To date, the Afghan National Army now stands at 164,000 men, and the Afghan National Police Force at 126,000. So combined, the Afghan National Security Forces now stand at 290,000 men strong.

We can't forever be the overprotective parent. The time has come to allow Afghans to secure their own future, to draw on the 290,000 men who have committed to securing their country's future, and to allow them the opportunity to defend their Nation and their people.

The fact is, Afghanistan is a rugged, multifaceted country with a long history of complex tribal relationships. It faces almost unprecedented challenges in building a vibrant, independent, and, hopefully, democratic nation from the rubble of more than a quarter century of war. We can guide a process to provide necessary, achievable, and sustainable assistance to bolster their efforts--and we should--but it is up to the Afghan people to stand up a government and a security force and to develop their own counterinsurgency effort.

Our primary goal--the goal that was crystal clear on September 12, 2001--was to address the imminent terrorist threat to America and America's interests. The phrase was ``to drain the swamp and address the new threats we face.''

The Taliban is a threat, but they are not the threat we rallied to address. Any counterterrorism strategy we employ now can necessarily deal with any Taliban issues that would be a threat to American security. But the primary threat to America and to American interests is posed by al-Qaida. It is a threat that is stateless, borderless. The notion that if we deploy enough forces in Afghanistan we will somehow lessen that threat, in my view, is farcical and falls on the conventional Washington wisdom that more is better.

In my view, better is better--a mission better focused on the threats, with specialized troops better trained to better locate and better destroy terrorist hideouts; a mission with resources better spent on projects that are necessary, achievable, and sustainable. In short, we need a better, not a bigger, mission.

In my view, we must accelerate the transfer of nation building and nation protecting to the Afghan people and their government. We must remain ever vigilant and ever prepared to protect our national security interests and eliminate any new terrorist threats that emerge. We should continue to identify areas where our advice and assistance can strengthen the Afghan Government and the institutions of democracy. But our mission should be one of counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency.

We need to concentrate our resources on the real threats in the region--threats to U.S. citizens and U.S. interests and threats that could destabilize Pakistan and place nuclear materials at risk, which would be a very real and present threat to national security and the security of the region--a threat we cannot abide.

We entered Afghanistan to address a threat vital to the national security of our country. By reforming our mission, targeting our unique military resources, and refining our assistance mission to focus on sustainable and achievable outcomes, we can achieve that goal with fewer troops and less money.

For those reasons, last week I joined with my distinguished colleague Senator Merkley of Oregon and many other Members in urging the President to begin a sizable and sustained reduction in U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan this summer. It is time to

bring our men and women home. It is my belief this is the best and most responsible policy for America--a policy that seeks to protect our national security while meeting our fiduciary responsibilities, and serving the interests of the service men and women and their families who have sacrificed so much on behalf of a grateful Nation. It is time. It is time.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 21, when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act, there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 782.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 141 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be considered, the Conrad amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the resolution be considered, the Conrad amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 211 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act, be 11 a.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. President, the first rollcall vote of the week will begin at approximately noon tomorrow on confirmation of the Simon nomination. Senators should expect up to three additional rollcall votes at 4:15 p.m. on confirmation of the Panetta nomination, cloture on the Economic Development Revitalization Act, and cloture on the motion to proceed to the

Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Feinstein amendment. I am a proud cosponsor of this proposal because it will save us money, reduce food prices and do so in a responsible manner.

Ethanol enjoys truly unprecedented support from the Federal Government. First there is the renewable fuels mandate that requires ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

Second, there is a 45-cent-per-gallon subsidy to blend ethanol into gasoline that is costing the Treasury nearly $6 billion per year.

Third, there is a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol protecting the domestic industry from any serious competition.

And to top it all off the Federal Government spends billions every year to subsidize the growth of corn for ethanol.

In a time of fiscal constraint we simply cannot afford to prop up an industry with such enormous supports.

And these supports are not just costing taxpayers money, but they are also causing food prices to rise and harming our environment.

The USDA estimates that 40 percent of this year's corn crop will be used for ethanol. This is raising grain prices worldwide, especially hurting the needy.

For these reasons, the Feinstein amendment has the support of taxpayer rights groups, religious groups looking out for the needy, budget hawks concerned about our deficit, livestock growers who use grain as feed, the grocers and restaurants who are seeing food prices increase, and the environmental community who understand that corn ethanol requires enormous amounts of fossil fuels to be produced.

My support for the Feinstein amendment is not just because it is the right thing to do for our country and our Federal budget, but because it is the right thing to do for my home State. New Jersey has over 120,000 flex fuel vehicles, but does not have a single E85 ethanol pump in the entire State. 120,000 cars that are built to allow automakers to game fuel economy standards but may never see a drop of E85 fuel.

I know that this issue is important to our friends in the Midwest, but ethanol producers already have a guaranteed market for their product as a result of the Federal mandate. Now we have an opportunity to help families across the country by ending this failed ethanol policy and providing relief both in terms of their taxes and their food prices.

For these reasons, I will be voting in favor of the Feinstein Amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I also think this vote is important for the larger debate over the deficit.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have said revenues cannot be a part of the strategy to reduce the deficit. I think this vote and the one earlier this week in which 34 Republicans voted to end these wasteful ethanol tax breaks show there is bipartisan support for cutting wasteful tax subsidies and loopholes and that these revenue expenditures must be part of any solution on the deficit.

As I speak about that, let me end on another item I think should be on the table, one I have been promoting. The first place to start in terms of tax expenditures is oil subsidies.

A bipartisan majority of 52 Senators voted recently to end these tax breaks. If these 34 Republicans come into the fold, we could work together to make some real progress. Oil companies do not need these subsidies--I am talking about the big five--with oil trading at nearly $100 per barrel. They have all the incentive they need in the marketplace. But cutting these subsidies, we can cut the deficit by $21 billion. This year alone these companies are projected to earn up to $144 billion in profits--not proceeds but profits. If they can simply live with a mere $142 billion in profits, then they can do their share to reduce the deficit without raising gas prices.

It is time to come together across party lines and to end wasteful tax subsidies and lower the deficit. This vote is an important first step, and I think by doing so we will--notwithstanding the issues about blue slips and constitutional impediments--send a clear sense of the Senate that will move us in a direction that will end the ultimate subsidies and help us reduce the deficit. I think ending oil subsidies will get us on a path to a bipartisan solution that is critical for the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of two of New Jersey's most outstanding judicial professionals to fill two vacancies for United States District Court judges for the District of New Jersey. I understand that vote will be taking place around noon. Both of these very qualified women are now U.S. magistrate judges.

Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Esther Salas are among the most respected leaders in New Jersey's judicial community. Both have demonstrated skill and professionalism on the bench and an impressive ability to manage the heavy and complex dockets before them.

Judge Cecchi has a broad range of litigation experience, having worked in the private sector for over 14 years. After serving in the Office of Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, she practiced with Robinson, St. John & Wayne, and later with Robinson, Lapidus, and Livelli, both large and well-respected New Jersey firms.

She has been no stranger to complex litigation for both defendants and plaintiffs. In the course of her distinguished career, she has focused on a range of challenging issues--from security litigation and complex tort matters to employment law, criminal cases, construction cases, and contracts. In handling a case involving a suit by the Securities and Exchange Commission--a prominent case against two companies in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York--Judge Cecchi demonstrated outstanding legal skills. She was singled out by many in the legal profession in New Jersey for her depth and range of knowledge on the subject and for her conduct of the case.

Judge Cecchi later went to the firm of Carpenter, Bennet & Morrisey, the second oldest law firm in New Jersey, where she worked for almost a decade developing a range of experience in environmental and toxic tort cases, class actions, patent cases, and employment law.

She is a graduate of Fordham University and Barnard College at Columbia University, and began her career clerking for the Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy of the Southern District of New York.

As a U.S. magistrate judge, she has shown a unique set of judicial skills that makes her an exceptional choice for the position of United States District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm her nomination.

Magistrate Judge Esther Salas has been an exceptional public servant. In 2006, she became the first Hispanic to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey. In her handling of a docket of well over 400 cases, she has earned the respect of many in the legal community who have said she is the finest judge they have worked with in many years of practice.

In a 10-year environmental dispute involving 350 attorneys, she managed the resulting avalanche of motions and countermotions involving Federal and State claims for more than $300 million in cleanup costs and damages. Her handling of the case prompted several lawyers not only to credit her with being the principal moving force in bringing the parties to agreement but recommending her to the Judiciary Committee with their unqualified support.

Prior to serving as a U.S. magistrate judge, Judge Salas worked for almost 10 years in the Federal Public Defenders Office, where she zealously provided her clients with her best legal advice and a skilled defense in what were often difficult and complex cases.

Judge Salas clerked with distinction for Superior Court Judge Eugene Codey, and--a proud New Jerseyan--she earned her degrees from Rutgers University and Rutgers University Law School.

She is a respected member of the New Jersey State Bar, a past president of the Hispanic bar of New Jersey, and an extraordinary jurist.

These two extraordinary nominees--two of New Jersey's most respected legal professionals--both deserve confirmation by the full Senate as U.S. District Court Judges for the District of New Jersey. I urge my colleagues to confirm their nominations and give New Jersey two respected and distinguished District Court judges who have earned the confidence of the legal community in my State, the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee and, in my view, deserve a unanimous vote in the full Senate.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.