[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 96 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4262-S4263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               The Budget

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to talk about the 
budget issues and the debt ceiling vote that is approaching. It is a 
serious issue that we need to deal with.
  First, I think it is important to know how we got here. I say that 
because we don't want to repeat the mistakes we made in the past. It 
was just 10 years ago when we had not only a balanced budget, we had a 
budget that looked like we were going to pay off all of our privately 
held debt. I was part of the Congress that moved us toward that 
balanced budget and surplus. It was the Democrats who were prepared to 
do what was necessary to balance the Federal budget in the 1990s, and 
we got there. We didn't have a single vote from Republicans, but we 
balanced the budget in the 1990s. It was the right thing to do for our 
economy. As a result, our economy picked up and did extremely well.
  We also know that the previous administration cut taxes twice, in 
2001 and 2003. We also went to war in Iraq--a war that was one of 
choice--and we went to war in Afghanistan, and we didn't pay for either 
one of those wars. It was these unpaid-for wars and tax policies that 
led us from a surplus to a deficit. Our economy then turned, and we now 
have these large deficits. I say that because we need to pay attention 
to how we got here to make sure we have a credible plan to get us out 
of this deficit.
  I think it is very important that this country move toward a 
manageable debt. It is very important for our economy, and for job 
growth, that we manage our deficit and bring it down.
  Let me give you what I think needs to be done in any plan that is 
presented to us for consideration. I hope we all agree that we need to 
raise the debt ceiling. That is after the fact. We have already spent 
the money. Now we have to pay the bill. We also would like to see a 
plan to bring our deficit under control. To do that, we have to have a 
credible plan, one that really does

[[Page S4263]]

bring us within the realm of a manageable deficit.
  Secondly, it has to be fair. I notice that my Republican friends ask 
our children to give up some of their help for a college education. 
They want to cut the Head Start Program, and they want seniors to pay 
more for health care. How about the well off? Should they not be part 
of the plan? I think we need to have a fair plan in order to accomplish 
our goal.
  Third, we need to allow our Nation to move forward with economic 
growth. Jobs are critically important to deal with the deficit. As we 
create more jobs, we help our economy grow, it brings our budget into 
balance.
  I am for a credible plan. To me, a credible plan needs to get the job 
done. Managing our deficit needs to be fair, including all elements of 
government spending, and it includes tax expenditures. It has to allow 
for economic growth. If we are going to get the job done, we have to 
bring down spending--we all acknowledge that--on the domestic side and 
the national security side. We can do better in bringing our troops 
home from Afghanistan and save military dollars.
  There are things we can do, and we need to do that. But we also have 
to deal with the revenue side. Quite frankly, we can't get the job done 
without dealing with the tax loopholes and shelters that we have in the 
Tax Code. I am concerned that the Republican leader said we could not 
consider any revenue. Well, I have heard from a lot of my Republican 
colleagues who disagree with that. We need to include revenues in a 
credible plan or it can't get done. We cannot manage the deficit 
without closing those loopholes and eliminating those shelters.
  Yesterday, I talked about one of those--the ethanol subsidy. We have 
nearly $3 billion that we can save there. The ethanol subsidies are not 
needed. The market is there. More damaging, it is hurting our economy. 
I have the honor of representing the people of Maryland and the 
Delmarva Peninsula. The poultry industry is suffering because of the 
ethanol subsidies. It is costing more to produce poultry, making the 
industry less competitive. We can save and create jobs by eliminating 
the ethanol subsidy, which will help us in balancing the budget.
  Today, I want to talk about another tax shelter and loophole that we 
can deal with, and that is the section 199 manufacturing tax break used 
by the oil and gas industry. It is very interesting. We have seen 
gasoline prices rise, and we have seen the negative impact of that on 
our economy. But guess who is benefitting from the increase in the 
gasoline prices? You are right; it is the oil and gas industry. Their 
profits are up, while our economy has been suffering.
  In the first 3 months of this year, the gas and oil industry, the 
five largest companies, had record profits of $35.8 billion. Big Oil 
benefits from a variety of subsidies, including section 199, that 
amount to some $4 billion annually. So we are subsidizing the Big Five, 
who are on course to make a projected $140 billion profit in 2011, with 
$4 billion in taxpayer contributions. It is not needed. These funds 
could be used to help reduce our deficit instead.
  The worst part is that section 199 came about as a result of our 
Foreign Sales Act. What was that about? We wanted to put American 
manufacturers and producers on a level playing field for international 
competition. We tried to do that with a direct subsidy to help 
exporters, but the World Trade Organization held that to be illegal. So 
then we came back with this general manufacturers' credit, section 199, 
to try to help our exporters.

  The gas and oil industry are not manufacturers exporting a product. 
They should never have qualified for this taxpayer-funded subsidy. I 
asked that question in the Senate Finance Committee when we had the Big 
Five oil companies' chief executive officers (CEOs) before us. Not one 
of the CEOs could justify the fairness of this subsidy going to the oil 
and gas industry. Their only answer was: Well, everyone else is getting 
it.
  We need to reduce unnecessary government spending, whether it is on 
the appropriations side or the tax expenditure side. With regard to the 
oil and gas industry, repealing section 199 and the rest of the $4 
billion or so in subsidies these companies receive each year could help 
us balance the budget.
  But the minority leader says we can't even consider that. He says we 
can't consider any of the revenues. To me, it is not a fair proposal, 
not a credible proposal, unless we tell the most wealthy and those 
companies that don't need the subsidies that they are going to be part 
of the plan to bring our budget into balance.
  There are many more provisions in the Tax Code we can look at where 
we can get the savings. I have just mentioned two. If we are going to 
have a credible plan that will allow for economic growth and allow us 
to create jobs--and the best way to deal with the deficit is to create 
more jobs--then we have to have a fair approach. So I urge my 
colleagues to get together on this.
  Look, I understand it is not going to be the budget the Democrats 
want, but I will tell you this: it will not be the budget the House 
Republicans want either. We have to work together, Democrats and 
Republicans. I think we can find common ground. Earlier this year, I 
think 62 Senators signed a letter saying, let's use the framework of 
the debt commission. So I think there was that willingness. Let's get 
back to that.
  Let's get the Democrats and Republicans working together in true 
compromise. We don't have to compromise our principles. We can get the 
job done, and that job means let's get our debt into a manageable 
state, let's do it in a way that is fair, so the well off also are part 
of a solution that includes revenues, and let's do it in a way that 
allows America to do what President Obama said we can do--out-educate, 
out-innovate, and out-build our competitors so we can create the jobs 
that won't just help us balance our budget but will keep America 
prosperous, too.
  That is our charge. That is what we need to do. Let's get on with the 
work.
  With that, I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, I would 
like to say that in about an hour we will start voting on the 
nomination of General Petraeus to lead the CIA, and I am going to 
enthusiastically support that nomination because I do think General 
Petraeus has shown the kind of military leadership that makes our 
country proud. He has come in at some of the hardest times in both Iraq 
and Afghanistan. I have met with him in Iraq to see exactly what he was 
doing, how he was implementing his counterinsurgency proposals, and I 
think he is a gifted leader.
  I also believe in this war we are in--the war against terrorists--the 
CIA and the military have such a necessary link, and in many ways they 
are codependent on the information and the capabilities that each 
uniquely has. So I think he will do the same great job he has done in 
public service in this kind of arena that has become much more closely 
linked to the military, for sure. So I will support his nomination.