John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is a dangerous time for our country. What amazes me, for the time I have been here and privileged to serve the citizens of Massachusetts for 27 years now, is that never have I seen a moment where the consequences of inaction can have as potentially damaging an effect on our country as the consequences may if we are downgraded in our debt--just downgraded, not even defaulting--yet some of our colleagues in the Congress, particularly on the other side of the aisle in the House, are, despite all the evidence, all of the judgments made by knowledgeable people--by economists, by business people, by outside observers, about the danger and inadequacy of what they are proposing--despite that, they are insisting, not as a matter of common sense or as a matter of logical economic policy but insisting as a matter of politics and ideology on holding the entire economy of our country hostage and be damned with the risks. Notwithstanding what that may mean--for 401(k)s, for families, what that may mean for investments that are on the brink because of the fragility of the economy, notwithstanding any of the advice of people who deal with money on a daily basis in terms of investments, these people, many of them who have never served in public life in their lives, never been part of a compromise but have come here with one ideological purpose--these people are putting the entire Nation at risk. There are a lot of people here, particularly here in the Senate on the other side of the aisle, who know this is dangerous and who know the risks we are taking and who know there are better alternatives. But because of the politics of the situation they are being locked in, not allowed to stand up and exercise--or at least unwilling at this point to stand up and exercise their judgment and, frankly, their responsibility as sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, to come here and do the business of our country. The deadline for default may be just a week away but no one should have any illusion that what is happening right now today is already hurting the economy of our country. It is already hurting our country. This is embarrassing for the Nation. It is embarrassing for the United States of America to be having such a dysfunctional display for everybody in the world to see that we who run around the world promoting democracy are unable to make our own democracy work right here at home. The fact is, all you have to do is read today's article in the Boston Globe with the headline ``Uncertainty Has Massachusetts Firms Wary Of Hiring.'' That is what is happening right now. This is already having a negative impact. Maybe that is what some of the people on the other side of the aisle in the House want. Maybe they want the economy to come down so they can win politically and point to the President and say: Oh, it is his fault we don't have the jobs, even though they are weakening the economy with their obstinacy and with their ideological rigidity. Today's article says: Still cautious from the last recession, many business owners worry that government leaders will be unable to reach an agreement, while others are concerned about exactly the opposite: that any agreement will invariably include spending cuts and weaken an already lackluster recovery. This is no way to provide economic stewardship. Most important, it is no way to run a government. There are countless institutions that rely on the United States, for us to go out and help other nations to be able to recover economically. I met yesterday with the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Greece. Greece is taking enormous steps right now to try to bring its debt down and all of the euro zone has joined in that effort, and Italy and Spain are likewise at risk in their economies. But the IMF is a critical component of that recovery and the United States is a critical component of the IMF efforts and we have a significant amount of our capital at risk in the IMF. What happens there is important to what happens here, but this place is not behaving as though there is that interconnectedness. Let me tell you what I hear from a lot of smart people--smarter than I am--about the economics. I can listen to them, and I can tell they are deadly serious when they say we are playing with fire with respect to the Greek recovery and with respect to Italy and Spain and the rest of Europe. If they start to go down, then we have a cascade, and it begins to have a greater impact on the United States of America. That is what is at risk in this dangerous game of political chicken that is being played by people of such ideological rigidity that they are unwilling to even compromise. I heard an interview yesterday with one Senator and a television commentator of one of the cable shows who asked him repeatedly: What are you willing to compromise on? In the end, it became clear he was not willing to compromise on the fundamental notions of how we arrive at an agreement. We need to reach out across the aisle--both of us, Democrat, Republican--and come together on a deal, on a solution to a critical problem that challenges all of us where there is a solution staring us in the face. We need to do that before, as a result of the inability of people to make that compromise, before those who take that position of ideological rigidity do greater harm to our economy and to our country's reputation. We need to put an end to the time clocks that are running out how long it is before a default which sends an enormous message of uncertainty and incompetence, of dysfunctional politics on a daily basis. Every tick of that clock drums into people the inadequacy of what is happening here right now. Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan, whom many of the people who are taking this position of complete obstinacy revere--they ought to listen to what he said because President Reagan wrote: The denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar on the exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. Now almost 30 years later some House Republicans have turned their back on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Instead, they continue to play this cynical game of chicken with the President, with the Congress, with the American people, with our economy, with our reputation, with our future, by refusing to negotiate a clearly achievable, clearly definable compromise agreement that would extend the debt limit, something that happened 17 times under Ronald Reagan. What is their negotiating strategy? Don't negotiate. Do what we say no matter what the danger or how ill thought-out the consequences may be. David Stockman, the former Office and Management Director under President Reagan, said the following about the House Republican budget: I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. It is a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes. In taking this extreme approach, the House Republicans have also made a dirty word out of a basic tenet of American democracy--compromise. Do they know nothing about history? Have they forgotten about the Missouri Compromise? Have they forgotten about countless great compromises that brought people together to pass some of the great efforts of our Nation with respect to the social structure of our country? The House Republican Party has taken this approach, even though they know and agree with what Ronald Reagan said 30 years ago, and they know it is true today. Experts are telling us that even a short-term crisis could lead to a permanent downgrading or stain, if you will, on the Treasurys of our country. It could prove particularly damaging to the willingness of foreign investors to buy Treasury. If foreign investors start to shy away from Treasurys, then they will become much less liquid. As Lou Crandall, who is the chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, said: You could never get that liquidity premium back if you create a precedent. That's the thing that would be irreparable. The end result of such a scenario: higher interest rates in the United States. I just met a few moments ago with a businessman who is engaged in major investments in this country and elsewhere, on an international basis, who reinforced to me the danger of what we are facing right now in just the downgrade. What he said to me is that nobody can tell us what the real impact of that downgrade is going to be. What happens to valuations all the way down the economic food chain? What happens to credit? What happens to the judgments about interest? What happens to the judgments about the auctions and the next market and so forth? Nobody knows. He can't tell me, and he does this for a living and has very successfully for a lifetime. That is what they are worried about. There is a moment--nobody knows when exactly it is--there is a moment when as we get close enough and the dysfunctionality becomes the overwhelming, dominating feature of this effort, where someone is going to cut and say: OK, time to downgrade. Then what happens? What kind of downward spiral flows out of that? I don't know, but I know we should not be pushing it to the limit and taking that risk. Why are people taking that risk? Why are people, despite all the commentary that says we ought to be reaching across the aisle, we ought to sit down the way we used to around here, why are they doing this? I will tell you why. They want only one way of approaching this solution--their way. They want to so dramatically cut Federal spending and cut entitlements without increasing revenues at all. No matter how successful people have been at the upper end of our economy, no matter how much money people have made, they say we can't even ask a billionaire for $100. We can't even ask a billionaire for $500. Nothing, nada, no. That is it. That is the reason they are willing to take the country to the brink. They know they do not have enough votes to even pass the budget they are screaming about still, but they are not running around trying to find the alternative. They are going to push it anyway, have a vote on it anyway, send a dramatic, stupid message of incompetence to the world and drag the United States of America down with it. It is stunning what a group of extremists can do who are trying to get their unrealistic and impossible budget passed, which even a lot of Republicans know they are not going to vote for. The Boehner plan would require Draconian entitlement policy changes. To meet the $1.8 trillion in cuts over the decade without any increase in revenues, policymakers would be forced to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that is not a scare tactic. That is an absolute reality of what would have to happen if we proceed to do those cuts the way they are structuring them, and we would eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, for parents, for senior citizens, and for people with disabilities. One of the worst and most disturbing components of this plan, the Boehner plan--it is incomprehensible to me--they want to do this whole thing all over again in 6 months. There is no economic reason we have to do it again in 6 months because they purposely left out the money that could come from reducing our engagement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is going to come. They purposely left that money out so it wouldn't show the amount of savings that could get us through next November. The reason they purposely left it out is so they can come back and do this same exercise again next February and make all the discussion in America about debt and deficit, when we are perfectly prepared to have a serious discussion not about raising the debt on it but about solving it, about doing it. We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our duty. We don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I know what I am talking about on that because I was here when we balanced the budget in the 1990s without a constitutional amendment. We balanced the budget five times since World War II, and we have done it each time without a constitutional amendment. Let's not have this phony structured setup that is pure politics. I am sure they are raising a lot of money from their base on it every single day, but that is not what this ought to be about. This ought to be about solving the economic problems of our country. A short-term plan is not necessary and it is, most importantly, not wise. If we go through this exercise again in 6 months in the same way we have gone through it in the last few months, we are going to drive this economy right down and down. Maybe that is what they want so they can then blame President Obama and turn around and blame the Democrats who are responsible in the Senate. There is no other rationale for wanting to come back and do this in 6 months, when we could do this with the joint committees that are in both the Boehner plan and in Senator Reid's plan. We have the ability to set up a structure, similar to the BRAC closing commissions, where we have to vote, where we are forced to do this on an accelerated basis, where we tie ourselves into a process that requires the Senate to do its duty and the Congress to do its duty. We can lock that in right now. We are not kicking anything down the road if we do that and require us not to have a balanced budget amendment that goes out all across the country for States to have to ratify but, rather, do the job we were sent to do and do it in the next few months. That is what we could be doing. If we don't do that, then the downgrade that may take place somewhere in the next days could drive up interest rates, and that will have a negative drag on the economy to boot. A student with a student loan will feel that impact. Somebody with a car loan is going to feel that impact. Anybody with a credit card is going to feel that impact. People with mortgages will feel that impact. That will mean more money out of pocket to make up for the dereliction of duty of the Congress. These are completely dangerous and uncharted waters we are sailing into. I think at a time when the global economy is facing enormous problems, any downgrade of our Nation's credit rating could have disastrous effects for our financial system in terms of those other countries which I have talked about, and I think it is an unacceptable risk. It should require us to find the compromise and find it now. I might add that the Boehner plan is not even supported on Wall Street. Let me quote Christian Cooper, who is the head of the U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Company. He said: From the markets' point of view, a two-stage plan is a nonstarter because we know it is amateur hour on Capitol Hill and we don't want to be painted into this corner again. He went on to say: There is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few months down the road given the significant resistance to do the right thing now. Frankly, I think that is logical. Every American can understand that. If a person has some money to invest and they are sitting there watching what is happening right now, and then they learn our way of dealing with it is going to be to have another vote in 6 months for the same reason--to lift the debt ceiling--when everybody knows we don't have to do that, would that person say, oh, that is a really good, clear climate for investment; let's go put our money into whatever it is out there because we know Congress is going to do the right thing? No. No way, I say to my colleagues. Everybody knows that. The fact is, the President has said he is going to veto the Speaker's plan. Senators know he is going to veto it. We know it is a bad plan. We ought to stop discussing proposals that are going to go nowhere and get the job done on something that can bring everybody together. In an effort to forge a bipartisan compromise, Senator Reid has reached way beyond what many Members of our caucus really wanted to do or think is the appropriate balance. But we are acting responsibly in order to try to get the job done. So we are willing to extend the debt ceiling through 2012 without revenues at this time, with the understanding that we will have the ability to come back to the floor with the process of a joint committee providing it is tied to a very clear schedule, with very clear requirements about no filibusters, with very clear requirements about amendments and voting. Madam President, the spending cuts in Senator Reid's proposal are only those to which Republicans have previously agreed. So no revenues, cuts of $2-some trillion, we go through the year to give certainty to the marketplace, and we have cuts in there that the Republicans have already agreed to, and, again, a fixed period of time. I think that proposal gives our economy the certainty it needs in order to create jobs now, not 6 months from now and not maybe sometime next year. Everybody understands how anemic America's job creation is now. The last the job market needs is this kind of brinkmanship, gamesmanship, and cynical effort to hold the entire economy of our country hostage when better proposals are actually on the table and in front of us which everybody can understand. The majority leader's proposal includes the capacity for that joint committee to include recommendations and legislative language on tax reform. We all know we need tax reform. I believe the Senate and the House ought to do their jobs, both of us. Senator Reid's plan actually calls on the Senate to live up to its ultimate responsibility. The Speaker's plan has no such language--nothing that requires that kind of participation. The deficit commission was chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. All of that work is being ignored right now. The so-called Gang of 6 did an outstanding job, in my judgment, of helping to put together a bipartisan plan which actually included revenue and I think 20-some Republican Senators were prepared to support a thoughtful, balanced plan that had both revenues as well as cuts. So we can find common ground. We need to find that common ground. Over the last year, we have seen a number of bipartisan plans put forward on the debt limit. I think the effort of the Gang of 6 exemplified the best tradition of the Senate, where a group of Members reached across the aisle and worked with each other to tackle the tough issues. That is how we got a budget deal in 1990. That is how we got a budget deal in 1997. We have done this before, and we did it growing our economy--creating 23 million new jobs and creating a surplus of $5.6 trillion. Had we stayed on that course, we would next year be paying down the debt of our Nation completely for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President of the United States. Everybody here knows why we went off track. I don't mean to go through that again now, but I think we will not be able to resolve this current impasse until colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and especially in the House where there seems to be the greatest ideological resistance to common sense right now--decide to put aside their ideology and decide what is best for the United States of America. We can't be responsible if we don't get serious first. Far too much is at stake for the Senate to do anything less than the Senate was intended to do at moments such as this. We are called the world's greatest deliberative body. There aren't many Americans who would look at us right now and give us that appropriate moniker. We have to earn it. I think in the next hours we can do that. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act helped to ensure that insurance companies spend a substantial portion of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs and profits. However, due to remaining discrepancies not all Medicare beneficiaries are afforded the same protection under the law. Medical loss ratios make the insurance marketplace more transparent and make it easier for consumers to purchase plans that provide better value for their money. Beginning this year, the medical loss ratio provision in the Affordable Care Act requires insurance policies sold in the individual and small group markets to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical care. Policies sold in the large group market are required to spend 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care. Insurance companies that fail to meet this standard are required to provide a rebate to their customers beginning in 2012. The Affordable Care Act also required Medicare Advantage plans to spend 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care starting in 2014 or they would be required to refund the difference to the Federal Government. Compared to most other insurance products, Medigap policies now have lower statutory minimums for the percentage of premium dollars that must be spent on medical care. Under current law, Medigap policies must meet a minimum medical loss ratio of 65 percent in the individual market and 75 percent in the group market. In 1990, Congress first passed legislation standardizing Medigap policies and instituting minimum MLR standards in reaction to evidence of widespread sale of duplicative policies with high overhead. Today, more than 9 million Medicare beneficiaries purchase private supplemental Medigap policies to help cover cost sharing and deductibles in traditional Medicare. The Medigap Medical Loss Ratio Improvement Act updates the MLR standards for Medigap insurers, increasing the percentages to levels put forth in health reform for other products. Specifically, it will raise the MLR from 65 percent to 80 percent in the individual market and from 75 percent to 85 percent in the group marketplace. To give insurers time to prepare for this change, it would not become effective until 2014. This legislation is endorsed by organizations representing millions of senior citizens and consumers of all ages, including: AARP, AFSCME, Alliance of Retired Americans, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Community Catalyst, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, Medicare Rights Center, National Council on Aging, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center. In endorsing the bill, AARP highlights that, ``AARP supports this change because it will provide greater transparency and accountability for expenditures made by health insurance issuers, and encourage them to become more efficient in their operations to help ensure that consumers receive fair value for their premium dollars.'' The reforms in this bill would ensure that Medigap enrollees receive the same value for their premium dollars that is afforded to every other American family. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act helped to ensure that insurance companies spend a substantial portion of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs and profits. However, due to remaining discrepancies not all Medicare beneficiaries are afforded the same protection under the law. Medical loss ratios make the insurance marketplace more transparent and make it easier for consumers to purchase plans that provide better value for their money. Beginning this year, the medical loss ratio provision in the Affordable Care Act requires insurance policies sold in the individual and small group markets to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical care. Policies sold in the large group market are required to spend 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care. Insurance companies that fail to meet this standard are required to provide a rebate to their customers beginning in 2012. The Affordable Care Act also required Medicare Advantage plans to spend 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care starting in 2014 or they would be required to refund the difference to the Federal Government. Compared to most other insurance products, Medigap policies now have lower statutory minimums for the percentage of premium dollars that must be spent on medical care. Under current law, Medigap policies must meet a minimum medical loss ratio of 65 percent in the individual market and 75 percent in the group market. In 1990, Congress first passed legislation standardizing Medigap policies and instituting minimum MLR standards in reaction to evidence of widespread sale of duplicative policies with high overhead. Today, more than 9 million Medicare beneficiaries purchase private supplemental Medigap policies to help cover cost sharing and deductibles in traditional Medicare. The Medigap Medical Loss Ratio Improvement Act updates the MLR standards for Medigap insurers, increasing the percentages to levels put forth in health reform for other products. Specifically, it will raise the MLR from 65 percent to 80 percent in the individual market and from 75 percent to 85 percent in the group marketplace. To give insurers time to prepare for this change, it would not become effective until 2014. This legislation is endorsed by organizations representing millions of senior citizens and consumers of all ages, including: AARP, AFSCME, Alliance of Retired Americans, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Community Catalyst, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, Medicare Rights Center, National Council on Aging, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center. In endorsing the bill, AARP highlights that, ``AARP supports this change because it will provide greater transparency and accountability for expenditures made by health insurance issuers, and encourage them to become more efficient in their operations to help ensure that consumers receive fair value for their premium dollars.'' The reforms in this bill would ensure that Medigap enrollees receive the same value for their premium dollars that is afforded to every other American family. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last December, in the middle of a New England blizzard, armed robbers descended on the Kohl's department store in Woburn, MA. They threatened the employees of the store and fled with money and jewelry. Officer John ``Jack'' Maguire, on duty that night, rushed to the scene in his cruiser. Responding to his fellow officer's call for assistance in a foot chase, Officer Maguire blocked the gunman's path with his cruiser and got out of his vehicle to confront the gunman. The two exchanged gunfire, which killed the gunman and left Officer Maguire mortally wounded. Officer Maguire's death marks the first officer killed in the line of duty in Woburn, MA, since the department was established back in 1847. On behalf of the Maguire family, Woburn Mayor Scott Galvin, Woburn Chief of Police Richard Kelley, and the residents of Woburn, I am introducing legislation to rename the U.S. Post Office on Washington Street in Woburn the Officer John Maguire Post Office. This post office is only a few hundred yards from the spot where Officer Maguire was killed. I believe it is a fitting honor to a public servant who gave his life protecting the city of Woburn. It is my hope that when people pass by the Post Office on Washington Street, they will be reminded of the sacrifices made by both Officer John ``Jack'' Maguire and his family.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last December, in the middle of a New England blizzard, armed robbers descended on the Kohl's department store in Woburn, MA. They threatened the employees of the store and fled with money and jewelry. Officer John ``Jack'' Maguire, on duty that night, rushed to the scene in his cruiser. Responding to his fellow officer's call for assistance in a foot chase, Officer Maguire blocked the gunman's path with his cruiser and got out of his vehicle to confront the gunman. The two exchanged gunfire, which killed the gunman and left Officer Maguire mortally wounded. Officer Maguire's death marks the first officer killed in the line of duty in Woburn, MA, since the department was established back in 1847. On behalf of the Maguire family, Woburn Mayor Scott Galvin, Woburn Chief of Police Richard Kelley, and the residents of Woburn, I am introducing legislation to rename the U.S. Post Office on Washington Street in Woburn the Officer John Maguire Post Office. This post office is only a few hundred yards from the spot where Officer Maguire was killed. I believe it is a fitting honor to a public servant who gave his life protecting the city of Woburn. It is my hope that when people pass by the Post Office on Washington Street, they will be reminded of the sacrifices made by both Officer John ``Jack'' Maguire and his family.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on the motion to table the motion to proceed to the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, H.R. 2560. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported the motion to table the motion to proceed to the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, H.R. 2560.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Florida. I am delighted to accommodate him and join with all Floridians in a good celebration of a great part of our history. Madam President, obviously everybody in America is well aware that the date of August 2 is fast coming at us. They are also, unfortunately, well aware that the Senate and the Congress appear to be stuck yet again at this moment--in fact, here in the Senate we are debating a constitutional amendment to balance the budget instead of balancing the budget. I have heard a lot of sidesteps around here, but this is what they call a message amendment. It is sending a pretty mixed message to America. What we, in effect, ought to be doing is not trying to pass a piece of paper that tells us to do what we know we ought to do, we ought to be doing it. What we ought to be doing is stopping our country from defaulting on debt that has already been obligated. What people are refusing to do in the House on the other side of the aisle is to live up to our obligations. This is not suggesting that we are giving permission to borrow more money to spend money on something responsible in the future; this is paying the debts of our country-- money already spent, already obligated. Here we have the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance Act that passed the House of Representatives. Everybody understands it is nothing more than an ideological message exercise. Everybody knows it is not going to pass the Senate. We know even more that if it does pass, it is not going to be signed by the President of the United States. What it is doing is taking up time that we ought to be spending with a real solution on the floor of the Senate that addresses the needs and concerns of the American people. We ought to be reaching that compromise. What this does, unfortunately, in terms of message is it sends a message to the American people that this place may not quite get it still and that a lot of folks here are more prepared to play politics than to really engage in the real business of our Nation. If you look at the specifics of this legislation, which is not going to pass, it is divided into three parts. Each one of them is equally problematic. The cut part of the bill would require immediate cuts that would cut almost 1 percent of our GDP, which economists tell us would result in the immediate loss of 700,000 jobs. So they are coming to the floor with a program to actually cut 700,000 jobs at a time when most Americans believe job creation is the single most important thing we can do in the country, as well as avoid defaulting on our debt. The cap part locks into place the unrealistic spending levels the House passed in their budget, while at the same time preserving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax loopholes for the biggest corporations. I think every American scratches their head and says: What? They are going to put in these unrealistic caps that would strip away research and development, education funding, the ability of kids to go to college--all of the things on which we build the future job base of our country. They are going to strip that away, but preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, who, incidentally, may be investing the benefits of those tax cuts in China or in India or job creation in many places other than here. The balance part of this amendment requires the passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority to raise any new revenue or close any wasteful tax loopholes. In other words, you don't have to have a supermajority to decide where and what you are going to wind up spending, but you have to have a supermajority in order to raise any revenue or close an egregious tax loophole--one that may have no economic purpose, may be completely outdated, or may be a sweetheart deal that got into the Tax Code over the course of the years, but you still have to get a supermajority to get rid of that. Everybody here knows how hard it is to get 60 votes. A lot of the business in the Senate has been caught up by the eternal filibuster. Every single nomination, every single small piece of legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate--everything requires a motion to proceed, which requires 60 votes, which is effectively a filibuster each time. We have had a record number of filibusters in the Senate over the last three years compared to any other time in the entire history of the United States of America, so requiring that two-thirds supermajority would lock in gridlock, it would lock in bad policies for the future. The constitutional amendment that is proposed would make all revenue- raising measures unconstitutional unless they secured a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate. Again, I repeat, we do not need a piece of paper, a new one--we do not need an amendment to the Constitution, a group of words--to tell us to do our duty. Every single Member of the Senate raised their right hand and took an oath of office over there beside the Presiding Officer and said they promised to uphold the Constitution of the United States. All we need is the courage and the conviction to make compromises and do the business of the Senate. It is not going to get any easier just because you pass some words that tell you to do it. We did this in the 1990s. What I am talking about is not pie-in-the- sky, it is not some theory; we balanced the budget in the 1990s. We did it without a constitutional amendment. We had people of good common sense who came together and voted on compromises, and we not only balanced the budget, we created a $5.6 trillion surplus for America, and at the same time we created 23 million new jobs for Americans. Guess what. While we balanced the budget in a sensible way, without artificial caps and artificial, Draconian instructions but with common sense, while we did that, every single quintile of American income earners rose in their income. Every single American quintile saw their incomes go up. America got richer than at any time in America's history even as we balanced the budget without a balanced budget amendment. So I will tell you, if we go down the road our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing, we will see major reductions in Medicare, and much worse than what the Ryan budget proposed, and Social Security beneficiaries would receive a $3,000 reduction in average recipient benefits within 10 years and be forced to see deeper cuts down the road. I think it is safe to say, without exaggeration, that it would put an end to Social Security and Medicare as we know them today. This week, Eric Maskin, Robert Solow, and Alan Blinder--each a Nobel laureate in economics--and other renowned economists sent an open letter to President Obama and Congress in strong opposition to a constitutional balanced budget amendment. These economists stated that a balanced budget requirement to the Constitution would be a ``very unsound policy'' that would adversely affect the economy. They believe that adding arbitrary caps on Federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic. A balanced budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions. By requiring large budget cuts when the economy is weakest, the amendment would actually aggravate recessions. Madam President, in the 27 years I have been privileged to serve here, we have already debated this several times. We have voted on it. As I have said in the past, the most compelling argument against this amendment doesn't come from me or from anybody on the floor; it actually comes from the real experts, the people who framed the Constitution of the United States. If they were here on the floor of the Senate today, they would vote against this amendment because it violates the Constitution's most basic tenet majority rule. The notion that the most fundamental document of law can be set aside for a time is ludicrous and anathema to the very reasons for having a governing document at all. Worst of all, this bill from the House Republicans, holds hostage the increase in the debt limit needed by August 2 and it holds it hostage until a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is sent to the states. We all know that is not going to happen. August 2 is looming. We have to put aside this type of partisanship. We need to sit together and develop a bipartisan plan that works for America with no preconditions and not hide behind a constitutional amendment that makes choices for us. We can no longer afford to delay. We are facing a default that would jeopardize Social Security payments, Medicare benefits, and troops' pay, as well as send interest rates soaring in a way that would force Americans to pay more for their mortgages, student loans, and small business loans. And the whole world is watching to see if we make the right choices because the consequences would be cataclysmic. Madam President, let's get real. President Obama offered to cut the debt by $4 trillion--exactly what we know we need in savings and nearly twice as much as the Republicans had proposed--and Republicans turned it down. President Obama has gone the extra mile. He has put everything on the table, even things Democrats strongly oppose. But the House Republicans simply will not budge because for them, this isn't about the deficit; it is about ideology, an extreme ideology. But it needs to be about priorities. And leadership. President Kennedy said ``sometimes party asks too much.'' Well, if the cost of ideology is economic ruin, the House Republicans really are asking too much--much too much. Americans deserve better. They need the Senate not to be a slightly slower version of the House; no, they need the Senate to be the deliberative body of serious people the Framers expected us to be. Madam President, I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I hope we will move quickly to the real business, which is avoiding default. Let me say, I think there is one effort we ought to be engaged in, and that is the serious effort of passing the McConnell-Reid, Reid-McConnell initiative, or whatever you want to call it. Their initiative is not kicking anything down the road. Their initiative requires, just like the base closing commission, for the Senate to deal with the big deal in a very short period of time. If colleagues want to speed that period of time up, I wouldn't object. I think that would make sense. What we need to do is to recognize that in the next few days we do not have the time to put the kind of common sense to the task that will allow us to get the budget figures from the CBO, that will allow us to know with certainty what we are doing with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or all of these other important initiatives are being done in the most deliberative and thoughtful way possible. That is what this institution is supposed to be about. That is what makes the Senate the world's most deliberative body, but it hasn't been particularly deliberative on this subject in the past months. We have the opportunity, with the Reid-McConnell initiative to be able to put in place a process that will guarantee we have up-or-down votes on these critical issues after all the relevant committees have had the opportunity to weigh in, using perhaps the budget commission's report, together with what the so-called Gang of 6--which I don't think is a particularly appropriate name--has proposed, which I think is a very constructive and important contribution to the debate. It helps us have a starting point for this discussion, as Congress, in the next short period of time, actually fashions the kind of budget decision that benefits America and does credit to this institution as a truly deliberative body. That is what I hope we do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in an effort to make that happen. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair so that colleagues might welcome the Prime Minister to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues. I know this has been previously scheduled, and I know the importance of what the Senator from New York is talking about, and the majority leader, and I completely agree with their comments and would like to share some thoughts on that at another moment. But at this particular moment, we are privileged to welcome here a great friend of the United States, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key. New Zealand is a country that is in enormous partnership with us at this time, assisting in Afghanistan, engaged in transpacific trade deliberations with us, and in many other ways contributing to one of the strongest and best global partnerships we have

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Endocrine- Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act to create a research program through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to further endocrine related research. There are approximately 80,000 known chemicals in our environment that are potentially harmful. Many of those chemicals have never been tested to determine if they are damaging to human health. Products that American families use every day such as household cleaners, cosmetics, and personal care products could actually be causing them harm. This legislation establishes the Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel to study and evaluate up to 10 chemicals per year that are potentially endocrine-disrupting to determine whether they have a high, substantial, minimal, or no level of concern. Any chemical that is deemed a high level of concern could be banned from use within 2 years. This commonsense approach provides vital protections against harmful chemicals while giving industry an opportunity to either find a way to eliminate human exposure to the toxin or eliminate it from use. The increased rate of disorders affecting the human endocrine system is alarming. Children developing in the womb are particularly vulnerable. Many scientists believe there are connections between effects on the endocrine system and the chemicals around us, and it is time to do more about it. This bill promotes action based on hard, scientific evidence. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Endocrine- Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act to create a research program through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to further endocrine related research. There are approximately 80,000 known chemicals in our environment that are potentially harmful. Many of those chemicals have never been tested to determine if they are damaging to human health. Products that American families use every day such as household cleaners, cosmetics, and personal care products could actually be causing them harm. This legislation establishes the Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel to study and evaluate up to 10 chemicals per year that are potentially endocrine-disrupting to determine whether they have a high, substantial, minimal, or no level of concern. Any chemical that is deemed a high level of concern could be banned from use within 2 years. This commonsense approach provides vital protections against harmful chemicals while giving industry an opportunity to either find a way to eliminate human exposure to the toxin or eliminate it from use. The increased rate of disorders affecting the human endocrine system is alarming. Children developing in the womb are particularly vulnerable. Many scientists believe there are connections between effects on the endocrine system and the chemicals around us, and it is time to do more about it. This bill promotes action based on hard, scientific evidence. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, what is the order at this point?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 30 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I listened to my colleague just now and I have listened to colleagues over the last weeks and there are a lot of crocodile tears being shed on the floor of the Senate about why we are not doing something, all of which completely ignores the fact that everything we try to do, the folks on that side of the aisle make us take longer and longer and longer than we have ever taken before because they push every single procedural objection possible. Even the most routine thing we try to do on the floor of the Senate requires 60 votes or requires a motion to proceed. The most perfunctory, simple thing requires us to go through every procedural hoop and parliamentary process because they have persistently pursued a strategy aimed at gridlock. The idea is to make Americans see the dysfunction and then blame it on the party in power and run against them. It is the most cynical, craven, and dangerous policy I have ever seen in the 27 years I have been in the Senate, and I regret it for our country. There is a reason Democrats are standing, as a matter of principle, against the Ryan budget and against the proposals our Republican friends keep proposing. That is because they are the only party who have consistently stood and said: We are not going to consider everything. We are just going to give you a tiny, little menu, and you have to balance the budget out of spending cuts only. That is all that is in their budget. The only thing in their budget is spending cuts. Twelve percent of the entire budget is all they have put on the table in order to try to do something responsible about the deficit of our country. We, on the other hand, have consistently said: We will put everything on the table--everything--Medicare, Medicaid, reforms--not benefits. We are not going to cut the benefits on people because we don't have to in order to deal with this problem, but we can reform them. We can certainly be more effective and efficient, and we are prepared to do that. There are a lot of other things we are prepared to do--defense spending, wars, and a whole series of things. Last week, one of our newest colleagues made a very interesting and I thought revealing observation. The Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons, who balanced budgets in county government, who took cases all the way to the Supreme Court, who has seen decisions made in the business world as well as in the nonprofit world and who is an enormously capable person but new to the Senate, made the observation that some people are actually looking into the language of the 14th amendment and the debt limit in order to learn whether ``there might be some way to save us from ourselves.'' That observation brought home to me how absurd this place must look right now, not just to a new Senator who came here with hopes of getting the business of our Nation done but to the average American, to people who invest in the extraordinary mythology that surrounds this great institution we are all a part of--the greatest deliberative body in the world. We can laugh at that one today. There is an absence of deliberation--a great absence of deliberation--and I think a lot of people are alarmed by the dysfunction they see with respect to this great institution. It is extraordinary when we have to look at the language of the Constitution to find possible ways to do what Congress and the Senate are supposed to do on their own--take tough votes, look at the tough issues, make tough decisions but, most importantly, do it in the interest of the United States, not in the interest of either party or of some ideology. Here we are, less than 5 weeks from August 2, the day the U.S. Government will default on its obligations for the first time in its history, and Washington is still playing the same old political game--a dangerous game of chicken--with enormous consequences for our economy and our future in every respect--economic, social, and national security. I hear this in my travels. Senator McCain and I were in Egypt recently, and we had people turning to us and saying: Hey, how about you guys? Can you get your act together before you are telling everybody else what they ought to be doing with respect to their future? You are promoting democracy. How is your democracy doing back there in the United States? Working out all right, right now? Washington is stuck, and it is stuck because we have a few ideologues and some people outside of the U.S. Senate who cower our fellow colleagues with threats of primaries. People are going to run against them if they move off of the orthodoxy of extremism. The result is that nothing is happening. Fear has gripped the Senators who raised their right hand and said: I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Well, everyone here I think acknowledges that defaulting on our obligations would be disastrous for our country. Everyone here simultaneously says they don't want the default to happen. But here we are with a small minority holding the debt limit hostage to an ideological agenda, saying they will not consider an approach that most observers consider indispensable and reasonable in reaching an equitable solution to our crisis. Frankly, the consequences of not doing something are not far off in the future. Every day that we are here not getting this decision made, we are weakening our economy and we are making our government and, through it, our country look helpless and adrift. The fact is that it is already having consequences with respect to business decisions. Capital is holding back. Businesspeople are reluctant to invest, uncertain of what the budget of the United States is going to look like, uncertain of what kinds of signals we are going to send to the marketplace. Certainty. I keep hearing colleagues say we have to send certainty. But when they look at this chaotic debate, what kind of certainty could any businessperson possibly take from what is not happening in Washington today? Our friends on the other side of the aisle say they want to create jobs, but Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, has said that hiring is only going to resume if we can get our act together and settle this debate, and the sooner, the better. At the beginning of the month, Moody's announced that it might downgrade our country's credit rating if Congress isn't able to come to an agreement by the middle of July. That is a week away. If that happens, I promise you our economic recovery is going to halt in its tracks. Maybe some people want that. I hope not. But today investors are looking at the scene here in Congress, and they are wondering if we are ever going to get it together. And the longer we wait to get serious, the higher the interest rates are going to move. That hurts everyone in America. Everyone who owns a home or runs a small business is going to be squeezed while Congress is in this ideological standoff. I read David Brooks' column this morning in the New York Times, a brilliant column talking about the unreasonableness of taking things off the table in this discussion. Recently, 235 economists, including 6 Nobel Prize winners, sent a letter to congressional leadership urging them to raise the debt limit immediately. Not doing so, they said, could have a substantial, negative impact on economic growth at a time when the economy looks a bit shaky, and, at worst case, it could push the United States back into recession. So are we going to listen to 235 economists, including 6 Nobel Prize winners, or are we going to be driven by this extremist position that does not allow for reasonable discussion about what ought to be on the table? I think this is a dangerous and irresponsible moment in our country. Not raising the debt limit would result in a crisis potentially far more severe than the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. The consequences would include any number of things, from increases in State and local government borrowing costs, increases in corporate borrowing costs, including mortgage interest, declines in equity prices and home values, declines in 401(k)s and other retirement savings, reductions in the willingness of investors here and around the world to invest in the United States, and job losses on a significant scale. Now, as I have said, I don't believe that is going to happen. But the question is, Are we going to get a deal that hurts America or helps America? If we eat America's seed corn in this deal--by that, I mean don't invest in America's infrastructure, don't invest in education, don't invest in the research and development that is so critical to the creation of new jobs--if all we do is what the other folks in the House said we ought to do by just looking at 12 percent of the budget and cutting spending, if that is all we do, we will eat America's seed corn, and the next generation will pay the price. Without investing in our future, we could face an economic downslide unlike anything we have seen in recent memory. In 1983, President Reagan wrote: Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford such a result. Nearly 30 years later, we are facing that kind of incalculable damage. The fact is, Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Geithner have already used extraordinary measures to try to keep the Nation from default and keep the economy moving. Already, Treasury Secretary Geithner has used extraordinary measures to keep our Nation from default. And, these measures have bought us some time to deal with congressional negotiations, but it happens that some Republicans have proven themselves willing to sacrifice our Nation's economy in a misguided attempt to score political points. I know they will protest and say ``we're just trying to solve our debt crisis,'' but the truth is there is more than one way to do that not just their way and particularly not when that way can have disastrous consequences on the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says failing to raise the debt ceiling on time could cause ``severe disruptions'' in the markets. He said: We should avoid unnecessary actions or threats that risk shaking the confidence of investors in the ability and willingness of the U.S. government to pay its bills. As of this moment, no one knows for sure how much time our financial markets will give Congress to come up with a solution before severe disruptions could occur. According to a J.P. Morgan analysis, the delay in raising the debt ceiling is likely to negatively impact markets, as investors undertake risk management actions in preparation for a potential Treasury default. These effects could include immediate liquidity shortages as borrowers attempt to raise additional cash and increase the tenor of their borrowings, large auction concessions especially if Treasury were to postpone an auction, increases in open volatility that cover the June/July period, and general weaker demand for Treasury securities. As time goes on, failure to raise the debt ceiling could touch off a mini- financial panic, perhaps throwing the fragile economy back into recession. If you don't believe me about moments like this, just look at our history and you don't have to look far. Just look back 3 years to September 2008, when Congress initially voted down Treasury Secretary Paulson's $700 billion plan to provide assistance to financial institutions. Investor confidence was brutally shaken and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index plunged 8.8 percent that day. If we do not act and act very soon indeed those who lend us resources will eventually demand higher interest rates. Government borrowing will crowd out private investment. A larger share of our Federal budget will be devoted to interest payments instead of productive investments like education, national security, and programs for our elderly and most vulnerable. Higher borrowing costs for American households and businesses will discourage future private investment, lowering our capital stock, reducing our economic growth and depressing our standard of living. Mr. President, this isn't half as complicated as some have chosen to make it. We are not as far apart as this debate would imply. We can all agree that deficits are too high. We can all agree that we shouldn't be borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that we spend. We even agree that we need $4 trillion in deficit reduction to put us on a sustainable path. But in the end, this budget debate can't just be about just cutting spending which is all the Republicans have offered. Our future is at stake--literally. Everyone says that job creation and investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and medical research are essential. We need to give the economy the tools to recover. As Ben Bernanke affirmed just the other day, we can't just cut our way to jobs and recovery. The Americans who sent us here understand that and want investment in our future. I believe there are better choices that we face. This is not half as complicated as some have chosen to make it. In fact, I don't think we are as far apart in this debate, when you talk to a lot of our reasonable colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as some want to imply. Everybody can agree deficits are too high. We can all agree we shouldn't be borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We can all agree we need about $4 trillion in deficit reduction to put us on a sustainable path. But in the end, this budget debate cannot be just about cutting spending, even though it must include cutting spending. Everyone has said that job creation and investments in clean energy, infrastructure, and medical research are essential, and I think we need to do the things that would make our economy move. Let me give an example of this. In America today, we are living off of the investments our parents and our grandparents made. The Interstate Highway System didn't just sprout up one day; it was a government program investing taxpayer dollars in building a nationwide road system that helped America to grow and be unparalleled in its strength compared to any other nation in the world. That was a President Eisenhower program. The truth is that today we are falling further and further behind other nations in terms of our investment in the infrastructure of the future. The United States is spending less than 2 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. Compare that. China is spending 9 percent of GDP on infrastructure. Europe is spending 5 percent of GDP on infrastructure. They have trains and airports and other things that work and get people where they want to go faster than our trains. We are looking at a country now that has about a $2.2 trillion deficit in the infrastructure of our Nation. We have 69,000-plus bridges that are structurally deficient. We need to invest in them so they don't fall down like the bridge in Minnesota. We need to invest in our airport structures so we don't have airport delays or potential of collisions in our aircraft. According to one study, $1 billion in investment in infrastructure results in 18,000 jobs. So at a time when America is begging for more jobs, why would we not be investing in infrastructure in this country? You go to Germany or Brazil, and they are investing huge amounts in their future, and right now both countries are threatening to leave the United States behind with respect to alternative and clean energy investments of the future. Millions of Americans know we can do a lot better. Frankly, in the 1980s you couldn't find three more ideologically different people than Tip O'Neill, Bob Dole, and Ronald Reagan, but they put politics aside and they saved Social Security. And they didn't capitulate. They compromised. They found common ground. They did it because they knew America's future was more important than either party. I often hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle only talking about the spending problems of the country. Madam President, may I ask how much time I have used?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I often hear my colleagues talking about the spending problem. What they forget about is we had a surplus we created in the 1990s by making the tough decisions. We invested in the future of our country, and we created 23 million new jobs. And in the 1990s, when we balanced the budget--let's not forget that. Some of us were here and made those tough votes, and we balanced the budget, and we created 23 million jobs. Every income level in America went up--every single income level--and we did it at a time when the total relationship of spending- to-GDP was exactly where many of us believe we ought to take it today, somewhere around 21 or 22 percent. The fact is that it was President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that we couldn't afford and a war that he refused to pay for in Afghanistan and then Iraq--both wars totaling approximately $2 trillion. The tax cuts and the wars account for approximately $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 and going forward. The facts are clear. The tax cuts President Bush put in place contributed to the deficit, and the revenues have to be addressed if we are going to go forward and deal with this. Federal revenues today--the money the government takes in--is at its lowest level since 1950. We have had a 60-percent reduction in revenue and a 60-percent increase in expenditures, and right now we are at the lowest level of revenue taken in that we have been at since the 1950s, and they are only about 14 percent of the total GDP. The fact is that the last five times we balanced the budget, those revenues were about 19 or 20 percent of GDP. So here we are at 14 percent, we have balanced the budget five times previously, and the revenues were at about 19.5 to 20 percent of GDP. Doesn't that tell us something? There is another problem we have. It is right here on my desk. We have a Tax Code. The Tax Code has 8 volumes, over 72,500 pages. This is the Internal Revenue Code, 4,052 pages. I would ask any American, do you have your own page in this Tax Code? How many Americans have their own page in this Tax Code? Well, I have got news for you: 72,500 entities--a lot of businesses--have found a way to get their little break in the Tax Code. Last month, the Senate, by a vote of 73 to 27, sent a clear signal that we ought to start looking at some of these subsidies. This entire Tax Code is riddled with special deals which lobbyists have worked against the interests of average Americans in most cases. Let me give you a couple of examples. Section 168 in this Code has a special rule for racehorse depreciation. How many folks in America are worried about their racehorse today and the depreciation on it? But they have a provision in here that allows the depreciation of racehorses to go from 7 years to 3 years, and the difference of 7 years to 3 years costs the average American money. The average American is supporting that because it is a foregone revenue. We are giving away the revenue, and we are giving it back to somebody who doesn't fundamentally need it. The Tax Code includes a definition of 3-year property. Get this: any horse other than a racehorse which is more than 12 years old at the time it is placed in service. I mean, who writes this stuff? Where does this come from? Not only is that a waste of taxpayer money, it makes the Tax Code more complex, and it requires more regulations and more confusion. A lot of tax lawyers love these eight volumes, but the average American ought to be furious at these volumes because these volumes are stealing America's opportunities in a host of other choices we could be making, such as education, investment in energy, energy independence, taking care of our veterans--doing a whole bunch of things that are substitutes for some of the choices that are made. Let me give a couple of other examples. Here is a provision. It is included in one of the regulations. On April 2000, E acquires a horse to be used in E thoroughbred racing. On October 1, 2003, F buys the horse from E and will use the horse in F's horse breeding business. The use of the horse by E in its racing business prevents the original use of the horse from commencing with F. Thus F's purchase price of the horse does not qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction. How ridiculous can it get that we are getting into specific cases like that which run contrary to the common sense of average Americans? One has to be able to afford a lobbyist to be on one of these pages. Last year, more than $3.5 billion was spent on lobbying in Washington, DC. There are more than 13,000 lobbyists trying to influence the legislation in Washington. Believe me, it works. Look at the last 50 years. Back in 2004 we passed a bill which the New York Times described as including ``goodies for almost every kind of corporation'' and that ``perhaps the most amazing provision might be called the foreign gambler relief act.'' Under prior law, if a person is lucky and they win big at the horse or dog track, their winnings are subject to a withholding tax. It is kind of logical. But now foreigners do not have to pay tax on their winnings. They found a lobbyist and they got it in the Tax Code and we passed it somehow. Section 872 of the Tax Code excludes from gross income, ``income derived from wagering transactions in certain parimutuel pools.'' It specifically says, ``gross income derived by a nonresident alien individual from a legal wagering transaction initiated outside the United States in a parimutuel pool with respect to a live horse race or dog race in the United States.'' Until I read this I was not absolutely certain what a parimutuel pool was, but I do know a provision like that does not get in here without lobbying. It comes at the expense of a lot of other choices because the problem is all these breaks--whether it is subsidies for oil or subsidies for gas exploration--which made sense 60 and 70 years ago, but here we are with record profits coming into these companies, $35 billion of profit just for the last quarter, 3 months. Yet they get a break. That break comes at the expense of average folks having the school they deserve, having the road they want to ride on properly, and having decent public transportation. Those are the choices and those are some of the things for which we are fighting. Not only are lobbyists arguing for tax breaks, highly skilled tax lawyers have a history of finding looping holes for corporations to exploit. We use to have a provision in the Tax Code which was finally eliminated that provided a tax credit for synthetic fuels for coal. I found this process questionable and one company admitted it was profitable just because of this tax credit. Some firms getting this credit were simply spraying newly mined coal with diesel fuel or some other substance. We need to work together to find these type of provisions and remove them. If there is a loophole, someone will find a way through it. I think we all remember how one oil company was getting a tax credit for co- processing animal fat with biodiesel from biomass. We shut that one down but other loopholes have opened. Last year, we thought that we had seen the end of the ``black liquor boondoggle.'' Paper mills were using a mixture of diesel fuel and a byproduct of the pulping process as an energy source for the mill. The intended purpose of this credit is to produce motor fuels from biomass. These companies were getting a windfall that was never intended. I am now hearing that some companies are still finding a way to benefit from black liquor. I have also heard that some are trying to benefit from this same credit for alternative fuels by adding cow waste and other waste to diesel fuel. This was not the intended purpose of this provision. In past Congresses, I have introduced line-item veto legislation which included tax benefits. These are abuses that we can all agree to end. For years, we have been trying to repeal subsidies for major oil companies. Just last month, we failed to eliminate $2 billion a year in tax incentives for oil companies. These incentives are no longer needed. We needed to jointly review the Tax Code and remove the deadwood. Some subsidies are no longer needed. And some are completely necessary. The Tax Code has become riddled with special interests. Over the past 25 years, Congress has introduced billions of dollars of worth of special tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies into the Tax Code-- making total tax expenditures now exceed $1 trillion. With the future of our country at stake we have to decide if we want to care for our elderly and educate our children or provide tax breaks for those who do not need them. Would we rather invest infrastructure or allow race horse owners a shorter period to depreciate their horse? As we consider legislation to increase our debt limit, our colleagues in the minority refuse to even discuss eliminating any of the tax expenditures that these lobbyists have helped enact into law. Not one permanent tax expenditures. I guess they prefer to increase the spending cuts that hurt low and moderate-income families. I think we need to review the $1 trillion in expenditures and decide what is really needed instead of slashing programs which will weaken our economy. It is time for us in Congress to stop falling prey to corporate lobbyists and stand up for our future. To reduce the deficit we need to make hard choices and we should not be afraid of saying ``no.'' If we do not start eliminating tax expenditures, we will not be able to reduce the deficit without gutting Medicare or Medicaid. We hear a lot about the Ryan budget, but make no mistake: the House passed budget does not eliminate the deficit. It just makes a series of spending cuts to provide tax cuts to those at the very top even greater than the existing 2001/2003 tax cuts. And Chairman Ryan may call his budget the ``Path to Prosperity,'' but that is not where its path would take our seniors. At least two-thirds of the over $4 trillion in budget cuts come from programs serving those of modest means. To be clear, the House budget is not about reducing the debt. It is about putting in place Republican priorities-- increasing tax cuts for the wealthy and slashing social programs that people depend on. We should examine all spending and not leave defense spending off the table. For example, we should be cutting programs like the Medium Extended Air Defense System, MEADS, which had a budget request of $406 million for fiscal year 2012 but the Pentagon said was running over schedule and running over cost. Or the F-22 raptor fighter jet, which in 2009 we were able to cut $1,750,000,000 in procurement funds of a plane that was costing too much money and wasn't appropriate for the 21st century wars we are engaged in. We should aggressively go after fraud and abuse, eliminate erroneous payments to health providers, and better coordinate health care for people who receive both Medicare and Medicaid. These dual eligible beneficiaries account for only 15 percent of Medicaid enrollment but constitute nearly 40 percent of Medicaid spending. Instead of digging more ideological trenches, we should look at the last time we actually achieved a path to fiscal stability. The bipartisan 1990 budget agreement included discretionary caps and revenue increases. It was a real compromise that looked at both sides of our budget equation. And in January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the debt would be erased by 2006 and that by 2011, there would be a $2.3 trillion surplus. Yet somehow, in the years since this real bipartisan success, too many people in this building seem to have forgotten that there are two sides of the budget ledger. Just look at the balanced budget amendment House and Senate Republican leaders proposed. It caps Federal spending in any fiscal year at a completely unrealistic 18 percent of GDP. It wouldn't just result in unthinkable cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it would also impose arbitrary limits on the Federal Government's ability to respond to the recession. So the recession could be deepened by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy. And yet this same proposal would require a two-thirds vote to increase revenues, making it nearly impossible to eliminate wasteful tax loopholes or unnecessary tax giveaways. So let's be realistic. We need to set ourselves on a course to rein in deficits and debt. No one disputes it. To do this, the budget negotiations should include a budget enforcement mechanism--and it can't result in a sequestration of spending only; if a budget enforcement mechanism only focuses on spending cuts, we are only addressing part of the problem. It would slash essential programs while ignoring revenues. That is simply not a responsible long-term budget solution, and it would never get bipartisan support. For an enforcement mechanism to work, both sides should not want the trigger to occur. We shouldn't be hoping for automatic spending tax cuts or increased revenues. A tough budget enforcement mechanism will force us to make difficult choices, both substantively and politically. It is time to end the polarization over how to resolve our budget crisis. We can't hide behind global spending caps, unrealistic constitutional amendments, or pledges vowing opposition to tax increases. The cuts that would be required to meet the spending targets of a cap would have to be as drastic as or even worse than proposals included in the House-passed budget resolution. Spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are driven by factors beyond the programs' control. Under spending caps, their percentage cuts would be bigger than the percentage cut in discretionary programs and they would be subject to automatic large cuts. We need to think hard about what is fair in America. The only tax President Obama or we Democrats have talked about is on the wealthiest people. Millionaires. People who earn more than $1 million a year. That is about 7,000-plus lucky families and individuals in the United States. All we are doing is talking about asking those who benefit enormously from the strength of our economy and the strength of our military and all the things we need to do--we are just asking them is it too much to go from 36.9 percent up to 39.6 percent, which is where they were in the year 2000, before President Bush gave them a tax cut we could not pay for. It is not as if they have done badly these last 10 years. The fact is, more wealth has been accumulated in the hands of the smallest part of America, the top 1 percent, than at any time in America's history. The wealthy are far wealthier than when we had no income tax and when we had the great names of the 1920s and 1930s and the industrial revolution: Pierponts, Morgans, Carnegies, Mellons, Rockefellers, and so forth. They are much wealthier today. Yet they are paying far less of their share than at any time in modern history. Here we are with a deficit problem. They are talking about cutting Medicaid. They are talking about cutting Medicare. They are talking about cutting education loans, making it more expensive for kids to go to college--the one thing we desperately need in order to compete with the rest of the world, people who have a college education. I do not hear anybody in America saying make it harder for my kid to go to college, but that is what they are doing in their budget. That is exactly what they are doing. But they stand up adamantly and say: No way will we allow people earning more than $1 million a year to pay anything additional into the system. It is just wrong. It is morally wrong. It is repugnant in this country we are condoning the institutionalization of a larger and larger gap between the haves and the have-nots, between the people who have already gotten their brass rings and the people who are trying to reach it. That is not the American story. I believe we need to fight to have a balanced approach. President Obama and the Democratic proposals I have seen and we have talked about--and I hope people will hear more about in the next days-- give a tax cut to about 98 percent of America. The only people we are talking about asking to kick in and give us some more revenue are people earning the most. If a person is earning $500,000 a year, they would not pay any additional tax on their first $250,000. On the next $250,000 all they would pay is $12,000 of additional tax. Let me ask--no, I will say I know this. There is not one business person, there is not one millionaire for whom $12,000 will change one consumer purchase, one decision of investment--not one. All this talk about how it will slow down the economy or hurt America is just bunk. It is not true. We need to have a real discussion. We need to have a real effort that I think matches the greatness of this institution with this moment. This can be the world's greatest deliberative body, but we need to put all of these issues on the table. We need to debate them openly. We need to have the courage of our convictions and vote up or down and do what is needed to put our country on track because right now we are losing countless investment opportunities, countless job opportunities. If we do not make the right choices we are going to have a very difficult time living up to the promise all of us hope to live up to in our time in this office.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on June 7, 2011, Groton, the State of Massachusetts, and our country lost a brave young man who gave his life defending the Nation he loved. Sergeant William ``Billy'' Woitowicz died serving with the U.S. Marine Corps in Afghanistan, fighting as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom. In the difficult days that followed this awful news, the entire Groton community came together to show their support for his family and to remember Billy's dedication and selflessness. Joe Moore, a family friend, described Bill movingly in a tribute that was itself an act of great devotion. I ask that it be printed in the Record so that all of us can reflect on the sacrifice of a courageous marine tragically lost much too soon in service to a grateful nation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I want to take a few minutes to offer special congratulations to Joseph ``Joe'' Bykowski, an extraordinary young man who has served Massachusetts and the United States in remarkable ways. After returning home from service in the Iraq war, Joe wanted to give something back to his fellow veterans. So since 2007 he has interned in my Boston office for 4 days a week, working with my senior staff on behalf of active servicemembers, veterans and their families. He is also an active member of the American Legion and the Catholic War Veterans Organization, where he volunteers in assisting wounded veterans and their families. And as if that is not enough, all the while he has also been working toward an undergraduate degree at UMass Boston. This spring, Joe completed his degree's requirements. During the university's commencement ceremony, UMass Boston Chancellor J. Keith Motley cited Joe as an inspiration to all his classmates. ``Joseph Bykowski served our country for eight years, from Ground Zero, to Iraq, before he joined us to major in history and political science,'' Chancellor Motley said. ``He is a leader in veterans' affairs on campus and at the State House, where he's testified before the legislature, interned for Senator John Kerry, and helped found the nation's first program dedicated to our veterans' mental health. Joe has overcome tremendous personal obstacles to get where he is, and he lifts others up with him.'' I couldn't agree more. I have known Joe for 5 years, and I have been impressed all along by his dedication to public service and his devotion to his fellow veterans. It was Joe's idea to organize a ``Welcome Home Cruise'' to honor wounded Massachusetts vets who had just returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Joe worked with my office and leveraged his ties to Massachusetts Vets organizations, working together to invite hundreds of vets and their families to join us for an evening on the water in Boston. I was honored to have the chance to present several of our wounded heroes with Purple Hearts on that boat-- a memory I treasure, and one I don't think would have been possible without Joe's creativity and initiative. Joe is still reaching out to veterans. Just this month, Joe helped us arrange an honorary GED for Vietnam veteran Ron Estrella, a longtime patient at the Brockton VA spinal care unit who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. To earn the GED, Ron worked with UMass-Boston's Upward Bound, a program that helps students finish high school--no surprise, it is just one more program where Joe himself is an active leader and member. President Kennedy once said that ``the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' He would have recognized that quality in Joe Bykowski. Joe has lived--and continues to live--a life devoted to service to country, in many forms. Whether he's serving on the other side of the world on the frontlines in Iraq, or down the street at the New England Center for Homeless Veterans serving a spaghetti dinner, there's one constant: Joe lives for service. I have no doubt that he will put his UMass-Boston degree to the same great use. I congratulate Joe Bykowski on his graduation, thank him for his service these last years in my office, and salute all that he's accomplished. We can't wait to see what he does next.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, most New Yorkers knew Charlotte Bloomberg as Mayor Michael Bloomberg's spirited, independent mother whose example shined through in her son. But for us in Massachusetts, Mrs. Bloomberg was a presence and a fixture in a city where neighborhood ties run deep--Medford. There she was known and loved as a schoolteacher, a community icon, and a beloved and caring friend. Mrs. Bloomberg passed away at her home in Medford, in the same house that she turned into a home with her husband and children. In his farewell, Mayor Bloomberg remembered his mother for her ``constant love.'' In Medford, Mrs. Bloomberg's generosity in sharing caring and compassion was well known. Charlotte Bloomberg showered attention on her neighbors and friends, and her modesty, her grace, and unflagging energy was infectious. She was a fixture at the Temple Shalom, which the Bloombergs founded and where she served as copresident well into her eighties. Neighbors remember that they could always count on Mrs. Bloomberg to be one of the first people to arrive for Friday services because she wanted the chance to say hello to everyone, especially the children. She was an energetic campaign volunteer--even in her midnineties, she was frequently out on the campaign trail, telling anyone who would listen why her son was the best choice for mayor. And when she couldn't be there physically, she was still present because she was tightly weaved into her son's life and as a result his political speeches. Her values were instilled in her children--hard work, intellectual curiosity, and ambition. These were values Charlotte Bloomberg lived day-in and day-out. She graduated high school at 16 and went to New York University. She raised two great children--Michael and Marjorie Tiven. And when her husband died while Michael was in college, Charlotte forged forward and became the family breadwinner. Mayor Bloomberg later wrote, above all his mother was a woman who lived according to the belief that ``we've got to take care of each other.'' That is a lesson we should all hold close. Mr. President, if there is an example we can all learn from the life of Charlotte Bloomberg, it is that we can always do more for our community, our State, and our country. So today we join the Bloomberg family in mourning the passing of Charlotte Bloomberg, but we also join to rejoice in the blessings she shared with everyone who knew her and the indomitable spirit her friends won't ever forget--a spirit that is the very best of Medford, MA.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are lucky in Massachusetts to have men and women who--at the community level--give of themselves to make lasting contributions to our quality of life, our neighborhoods, and our economic footing. I have always thought it was no coincidence that when DeTocqueville came to America to study the country's ``character,'' he spent much of his time in Massachusetts and reflected there that ``America is great because Americans are good.'' DeTocqueville would find much of that character still abides in Alan Macdonald, executive director of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, whose life has been defined by good old fashioned civic leadership--for 23 years a driving force making Massachusetts a better place to live, to work and to raise a family. Today, as Alan prepares for a much-deserved retirement, I thank him for everything he has done for our State. Throughout 23 years at the helm of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, Alan brought together the policymakers, industries and educators who make Massachusetts the center of economic growth, educational excellence and health care innovation it is today. The Massachusetts Business Roundtable set a laser focus on strengthening our State's long-term economic health. Alan himself oversaw the creation of task forces on health care, on education and workforce development, on transportation and infrastructure and corporate social responsibility. The results are clear for all to see. Massachusetts is creating jobs faster than almost every other State, our economy is expanding at twice the national growth rate, and our students are outperforming their peers around the country. Now, there are a lot of people to thank for that, and many who have played a part in the success of our State--but one of them is very definitely Alan Macdonald. Thanks in part to the strategic thinking under Alan's leadership, Massachusetts became the model for health care reforms that expand coverage and lower costs. It is one of the reasons that a well-educated work force is our State's calling card in the global economy. And it is one of the reasons our State has a competitive edge in building a 21st century infrastructure and developing clean energy. Thank you, Alan. Alan's retirement gives him more time to spend with his wife Jane, more time with his two sons, Alan and Daniel and their families, and more time with his four grandchildren. And I think we can all agree that he has earned the extra time for his other great passions-- baseball and golf. But fortunately, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable has made Alan its president emeritus. So as the roundtable navigates the coming challenges, it is comforting to know that Alan Macdonald won't be far away.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, student activism has always been at the forefront of every step forward we have taken as a country and as a society. It was true for my generation in the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the effort to end the Vietnam war. In recent years it was students--young people--who put issues like AIDS in Africa and global poverty front and center on the Nation's agenda when few others showed much interest in the fight. Today I would like to recognize the special efforts of a student activist in my State--Jaclyn Licht, a young woman carving out time from her studies to raise awareness about the brutal tactics of the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, in east and central Africa. Right now Jaclyn is lobbying to maintain the integrity and funding for the landmark LRA disarmament bill that passed in the 111th Congress. And she recently penned an insightful article about the important role that all citizens play in promoting democracy and peace throughout the world. Jaclyn's article appeared in ``The Vanguard,'' the student newspaper of Buckingham Browne & Nichols Upper School in Cambridge, MA. She writes convincingly about the right of Americans to petition their government and urges her fellow Americans not to waste that right, especially given the uncertain fate of the LRA disarmament bill. Jaclyn reminds us that ``students . . . have the greatest ability to take advantage of this right'' and urges activism on the part of her classmates. Along with representatives from the group Resolve, Jaclyn recently met with staff in my Boston office to discuss how important this legislation is for the people of east and central Africa. She also shared her views about America's role in protecting the people most vulnerable to the brutalities of the LRA. For Jaclyn, of course, activism is in her DNA--an inheritance from two parents who have always made the cause of justice their concern. But Jaclyn is already writing her own chapter in that family history of urging change. Mr. President, I am submitting the text of Jaclyn's article to the Record as an example to all of us. The information follows. [From The Vanguard, June 9, 2011] Student Activists Lobby To Protect LRA Disarmament Bill (By Jaclyn Licht) In the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech, including the right to ``petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' Though many students may easily overlook the meaning of these words, it is students, in fact, who have the greatest ability to take advantage of this right. In early April, I received an email from Resolve, an organization dedicated to raising awareness about the terror of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Central and East Africa. The email outlined a nationwide lobbying campaign taking place throughout the month and offered an opportunity for Massachusetts residents to attend a meeting with a staff member at the office of Senator John Kerry. Last year, President Obama signed into law the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, a bill unanimously passed by Congress that ensures the United States will aid in dismantling the rebel group and protect affected civilians. Though this bill only requires less than .002 percent of our national budget, economic challenges have brought about risks of foreign aid budget cuts and the possibility of losing the bill's budget completely. Therefore, Americans throughout the country attended lobby meetings with their local government representatives in order to guarantee that the LRA Disarmament Act budget will remain intact. The meeting was led by a student from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and the group of ten comprised Resolve supporters who were mainly high school or college students. We were greeted warmly by Senator Kerry's representative at his Boston office. After taking our seats around a large table in a spacious conference room, we commenced our discussion. The discussion lasted for almost 30 minutes, longer than we had anticipated. Each of the group members outlined the current issues posed by the LRA and proceeded to explain the need for our government representatives to support these efforts as well. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry could hold much influence in this area of concern. The staff member nodded his head vigorously throughout our discussion, frequently asking questions about the situation in central Africa and about Resolve. He explained that Senator Kerry and his staff were already familiar with the deadly situation in countries such as Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan. He assured us that the Senator was very concerned about the situation in the region, as well, and even outlined useful tips to help us carry out additional meetings with other government officials. After outlining the key information we hoped would be passed on to Senator Kerry, we prepared to depart and began to thank him for his time. However, the senator's representative interrupted us and asked us each how we became involved in Resolve's efforts. Our reasons for becoming involved varied, but each one shared a similar message: that we could not allow such violence by this African rebel group go unnoticed. The dedicated interest of the government officials in our concern for this issue reflects not only the overwhelming number of opportunities available in this democratic country, but also the true power of student activism in particular. Throughout this country, students frequently raise awareness for issues of local or global concern often only in their own communities. While it is absolutely crucial to rally whole communities around the cause, the opportunity to lobby government officials or their staff directly is widely overlooked. While citizens of several countries around the world are prohibited from such petitioning, this country and its officials welcome the opinions of those they are representing. Moreover, American students must not hesitate to contact their government leaders to express concern for any issue. Throughout the United States' history, young adults have instilled many lasting changes in the country through many modes of activism. Therefore, government officials take much interest in meeting with student lobbyists, for it grants them the ability to learn and hear firsthand from an influential segment of the population. Moreover, students have the ability to take action immediately through direct contact with government officials to advocate for changes that will shape the history of our country and our world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to reduce the amount of duplication and overlap in federal agencies and I am prepared to vote to eliminate duplicative programs. That is my responsibility as a Senator. However, I believe this must be done in a responsible manner and not passed off to a third party. I opposed the Coburn amendment because it would cause needless delay to the consideration of important legislation by the Senate. It would give additional power to the staff of the Congressional Research Service. It would increase Congressional spending when we are working to reduce our Federal budget deficit and our Federal debt. The amendment would change the Standing Rules of the Senate to require the Congressional Research Service--CRS--to complete a study to examine the potential for duplicative programs for every bill that is passed out of committee before it is in order to be considered by the full Senate. This amendment will not end duplication of government programs. But it will make it more difficult for the Senate to do the Nation's business. The Coburn amendment will allow any Senator to block floor consideration of a bill if the CRS assessment has not been completed. The amendment does not place any time limits on the CRS to make the assessment of whether the programs included in legislation are duplicative. The amendment does not define key terms such as ``program'' or ``initiative'' that are crucial to performing the assessment. The amendment states that every bill that comes to the floor must contain a full evaluation and report by CRS. The CRS report must examine every potential Federal program that might overlap with the one proposed. How long would CRS have to do such a report? I don't know because the amendment does not include time limits for the CRS to provide these reports. Therefore, CRS could block consideration of important legislation by simply not meeting its responsibilities. We have always been very careful in making changes to the Standing Rules of the Senate. This proposal has not come before the Rules Committee in any way and thus has not been considered or vetted by the committee of jurisdiction. If we are serious about such a change, it should receive the appropriate review before being adopted.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, Federal regulations developed to limit fishing have forced some fishermen out of business and pushed many more to the brink. Too many Massachusetts fishermen are doing all they can every day to keep a roof over their head and to feed their families. They are extremely frustrated that the Department of Commerce has made a series of decisions that seem to make it more difficult for them to take care of their families. In May 2009, I sent a letter to Administrator Lubchenco requesting that NOAA investigate allegations of excessive penalties and retaliatory actions. These charges have been confirmed both by the Inspector General and by Special Master Swartwood appointed by Secretary Locke. This has led to NOAA personnel being reassigned and some fines being rescinded by Secretary Locke. There continues to be a justified distrust of the Federal Government by the fishermen, this relationship must be repaired and trust must be restored. I have been working in the Senate to make sure that our fishermen will be treated fairly by federal regulators. That is why today I am introducing the Fisheries Fee Fairness Act of 2011. This legislation will give the Secretary of Commerce the option to take funds from the Asset Forfeiture Fund, AFF, and use them to reimburse the legal fees and costs incurred by fishermen and businesses whose fines were remitted by the Secretary of Commerce at the recommendation of Special Master Swartwood. Under my legislation, the Secretary of Commerce would have 90 days to determine whether to provide a reimbursement and the amount of the reimbursement and reimbursements would be capped at $200,000 per person or business. The Special Master is currently reviewing a second round of cases brought forth by fishermen who believed they were inappropriately penalized by NOAA enforcement agents. Under my legislation, the fishermen in this group will also qualify to have their legal fees and costs reimbursed if the Secretary of Commerce remits their fines. We have made progress in rebuilding the relationship between our fishermen and the Federal Government, but we still have a distance to travel. This legislation ensures our fishermen are made whole and can keep what they have earned, and those are principles I intend to keep fighting for. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.