Republicans claim to share Democrats’ commitment to keeping taxes low for the middle class.

So it’s strange that they have repeatedly blocked votes on our proposal to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

Two week ago, Republicans seemed eager to have these votes.

They wanted to vote on our proposal to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year – or 98 percent of Americans.

And they wanted to vote on their competing proposal, which would actually raise taxes for 25 million families while handing out more tax breaks to millionaires.

Democrats have tried to give Republicans what they wanted.

We have offered to skip their usual procedural delays and hold up-or-down, majority votes on both proposals.

So far they have refused. But the offer stands.

I hope Senate Republicans don’t insist on doing this the hard way.

And why are Republicans delaying votes they asked for in the first place?

They know a majority of Senators – and a majority of Americans – supports our plan to help middle-class families.

Our plan gives 114 million taxpayers – 98 percent of American families – certainty their taxes won’t go up.

And it reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion by ending wasteful tax breaks for the rich.

Senate Republicans’ proposal takes a very different approach.

It extends tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans. But it fails to extend tax cuts that help middle-class families.

Their plan would hike taxes by another $1,000 for middle-class families while handing out an extra $160,000 tax break to every millionaire.

Democrats will simply never agree we should hand out more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans.

But that shouldn’t stop us from protecting the other 98 percent of Americans – and doing it today.

Cyber Security

Over the last few days, some of my Republican colleagues have suggested the Senate should delay action on what national security experts have called the most pressing threat facing our nation.

Instead of considering bipartisan cyber security legislation, they say we should first consider the annual Defense Authorization bill.

I argue we need to move rapidly to address the gaping hole in our defenses against cyber attack.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said that cyber threats will soon overtake terrorism as the most significant threat to our national security.

A bipartisan group of national security experts – led by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – said cyber threats represent “one of the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age.”

And the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, said:

“We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from a cyber attack.”

That was a year ago. The threat has only grown more urgent.

And failing to act on cyber security legislation not only puts our national security at risk, it recklessly endangers members of our Armed Forces and their missions around the world.

Service members themselves have been repeatedly targeted by cyber actors.

In one hack last year, more than 90,000 military email addresses and passwords were stolen, and in another hack of the TRICARE system 4.9 million medical records were stolen.

If we are serious about protecting our troops, we must protect them against cyber attacks.

But acting to secure our critical networks doesn’t mean we won’t also pass a defense bill.

I do, however, have some specific concerns about the Defense Authorization bill.

I will not allow the defense bill to become an end-run around the bipartisan Budget Control Act.

If we are to going to debate the Defense bill, House and Senate Republicans need to make it clear that they are willing to abide by the budget levels set by that law.

We must also ensure the defense bill is not used as a platform to advance irrelevant, partisan agendas.

Remembering Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut

Last week, this nation was reminded how fragile life is, and how quickly it can be taken away by a random, senseless act of violence.

Fourteen years ago, the Capitol community was similarly reminded that we must never take life for granted.

On this day in 1998, two dedicated U.S. Capitol Police officers – Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut – gave their lives while protecting this building and the people in it.

But their lives were not spent in vain. The tragedy of that day made the Capitol a safer place.

It led to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, which prevents a madman like the one who shot Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut from entering the Capitol.

And while nothing can erase the pain of losing a loved one, I hope their families take some measure of comfort in knowing Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut are not forgotten.

Even 14 years later, those of us who work in the Capitol continue to honor their service and their sacrifice.

And we are grateful to the brave men and women who safeguard ‘the People’s House’ today.

Every day, people from across this great nation and around the globe come here – to the U.S. Capitol Building – to see the seat of American democracy.

Every day, those of us who are fortunate to have been elected by our home states to serve in Congress also come here to represent this nation and the American people in that democracy.

And every day, a brave and dedicated group of men and women come here to serve on the Capitol Police force, to ensure that whether we’re here to work or to visit we are safe from harm.

In 1998, two of those dedicated police officers gave their lives while protecting the Capitol. They were Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut.

Thirteen years ago yesterday, a man entered the House side of the Capitol Building with a gun and shot Officer Chestnut at point blank range. Agent Gibson warned tourists and staff to take cover and then confronted the gunman. Although Agent Gibson was also shot, he prevented anyone else from being killed.

Both officers died that day. They served a combined 36 years on the force protecting their fellow men and women.

When I first came to Washington, D.C., I worked the night shift – the swing shift – as a Capitol Police officer. That’s why I feel a particular closeness to the Capitol Police.

I was never in danger. I was never called upon to put my life on the line. I only hope I would have shown the bravery that Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut displayed.
I was a member of the Senate when Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut gave their lives to save the lives of others.

I know nothing can make up for the loss of a cherished loved one, but I hope their families and friends take some comfort knowing that those of us who were here that day hold them in our memories and in our hearts.

And while I know it is little solace to their families, the tragedy of that day made the Capitol a safer place. It led to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, which prevents a madman like the one who shot Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut from entering the Capitol.

We are all grateful for their sacrifice. And we are grateful that every day devoted men and women like them guard these hallowed halls.

Some of those dedicated police officers stood guard Saturday and Sunday as we worked to reach an agreement to avert a default on the national debt. Leaders from both parties were here throughout the weekend.

Differences still separate our two sides, but work toward an agreement continues.

This afternoon I will bring to the floor a proposal I hope can break the impasse. This legislation would put to rest the specter of default. It would cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. It would not raise any new revenue or make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits. All the cuts included in this package have previously been supported by Republicans.

This proposal provides everything House Republicans have said they needed from an agreement to avert default and cut the deficit.

I hope my colleagues on the other side still know a good deal when they see it. I hope they remember how to say “yes.”

Tea Party-led House of Republicans held up a resolution to these negotiations for weeks because they didn’t want oil companies, corporations that ship jobs overseas or millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

If they now oppose an agreement that meets every one of their demands, it will be because they have put politics first and the good of this nation and its economy last.

I also hope they will not continue to insist on the kind of short-term fix they opposed a few short weeks ago – and that they know Democrats in the Senate will not pass and the President will not sign.

Economists have already said a short-term solution is no solution at all. It will not give the markets the certainty they need. And the credit rating agencies have said a short-term Band-Aid could have many of the same effects as default: a downgrade of U.S. debt, soaring interest rates and an effective tax increase on every American family and business.

The financial markets don’t trust the right wing, Tea Party-led House of Representatives not to hold this process hostage again in six months, or to make the right decision for our nation and the economy a second time.

This is what one market analyst said about a plan to avert default for only a few months:

“From the markets’ point of view, a two-stage plan is a non-starter because we now know it is amateur hour on Capitol Hill and we don’t want to be painted in this corner again.”

The markets need certainty. America needs certainty. The world needs certainty. And an agreement that provides that certainty is within our grasp.

Democrats have done more than meet Republicans in the middle – we’ve met them all the way. Now we’ll see whether Republicans are against any agreement at all, or whether they remember how to say “yes” when the compromise on the table gives them everything they’ve demanded.