[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 96 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4268-S4278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           BIG OIL SUBSIDIES

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

[[Page S4269]]

should be a limited use of force, the Congress, and particularly the 
Senate, should speak, and not being able to do that is pretty amazing 
to me. So I hear a lot about wanting to get the people's work done, but 
then I hear objections to trying to move to get it done. It is pretty 
outrageous.
  I came originally to the floor after this vote to thank President 
Obama for, yesterday, calling and echoing my call to end subsidies for 
Big Oil. It is a call that received a bipartisan vote in the Senate, a 
bipartisan majority vote in the Senate, but, of course, it did not pass 
because of our colleagues' insistence on a filibuster or a 
supermajority amount. But it is time that our friends on the other side 
of the aisle put the interests of taxpayers ahead of Big Oil and allow 
these wasteful subsidies to finally end.
  As the President said, we have strategies to reduce the deficit, such 
as my legislation to cut oil subsidies, that are already introduced and 
ready to go. All we have to do is pass it. A vote to allow that to 
happen is a simple choice for everyone in this Chamber: Are you on the 
side of working-class families and seniors or are you on the side of 
Big Oil?
  There are lots of ways to cut the deficit, but saving taxpayer 
subsidies for Big Oil while ending Medicare as we know it and cutting 
student loans is not, in my mind, a solution. It makes no sense to give 
a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the big five oil companies, which are 
earning $12 billion in profits a month--they are going to earn about 
$144 billion in profits this year alone--and say to families: Oh, no, 
you have to sacrifice even more.
  Those on the other side of the aisle would tell a middle-class 
student whose family earns a median family income of about a little 
over $50,000 that, no, you cannot go to college, you cannot get a Pell 
grant from the Federal Government, but ExxonMobil, a company that will 
earn $42.6 billion in profits this year, needs government assistance. 
And they will continue to come to the floor and look Americans in the 
eye and say that somehow is commonsense deficit reduction. There simply 
is no commonsense explanation for balancing the budget on the backs of 
working families and letting multibillion-dollar oil companies keep 
billions in taxpayer dollars.
  We have this debate about the deficit and how we deal with the debt 
ceiling, but we don't seem to want to have the shared sacrifice of 
having the special interests in this country, whether it is Big Oil or 
ethanol, which had a huge bipartisan vote here in the Senate--that they 
should not face any consequences but that, in fact, middle-class 
working families should.
  We all know oil companies are among the largest, most profitable 
companies in the world, but it is hard to understand the scale of their 
wealth. This chart shows it clearly. This is the median income for 
families in this country, and this is Big Oil's profit.
  Whose side are you on?
  This is about closing loopholes and, given the current budget 
climate, you would think we would all be for closing those loopholes.
  Let me give an example of what one of those loopholes is. Under the 
law as it exists today, we allow the big five oil companies to go to 
other countries in the world and say to them: You know, tax us in a way 
that we can ultimately reduce our obligations in the United States.
  U.S. taxpayers are taxed on their income worldwide but are entitled 
to a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any income they pay to a foreign 
government, which makes sense because we don't want to tax our 
companies twice. But U.S. oil and gas companies have very smart lawyers 
and accountants. They figured out that if they go to a foreign 
government, such as Indonesia, and say: Don't charge me a license fee 
or a royalty, which is what we do in the United States to permit these 
companies to explore on Federal lands and waters for oil and gas--no, 
they say to Indonesia and other countries: Charge me a tax. Why? 
Because then I can take all of that tax--which really is a license fee 
but is now paid as a tax--and I can deduct it back here in the United 
States. What does that mean? That means American taxpayers are 
subsidizing foreign oil production. That is not in the national 
interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of taxpayers 
in the United States, and it is not about shared sacrifice when we are 
talking about how to deal with the deficit and debt in this country. 
Just closing that loophole would mean $6.5 trillion to the Treasury 
that could be applied directly to deficit reduction.
  As a matter of fact, I am only talking about closing two loopholes 
for the big five oil companies, which are going to make $144 billion in 
profit. Just closing those two loopholes would save the U.S. taxpayer 
$21 billion over the next 10 years.
  Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, if 
you do that to those poor oil companies, they are just going to raise 
the price of gasoline. That is simply not true. First of all, we are 
talking about $21 billion over 10 years or roughly $2 billion a year. 
So those poor oil companies, if they would only make $142 billion in 
profits this year instead of $144 billion in profits this year, would 
not have to raise gas prices. They are making $142 billion a year, so 
they certainly don't need to raise gas prices. And we certainly don't 
need to incentivize their exploration because they are making record 
profits in this country and in the world. They don't need us to 
incentivize them when they are making $144 billion in profits. So let's 
save the taxpayers that $21 billion and put it directly to deficit 
reduction.
  Only in Washington would my Republican friends suggest that stopping 
those subsidies to Big Oil is somehow going to be a tax increase. Only 
in Washington could ending $21 billion in subsidies to the big five oil 
companies--we are not even talking about the independents--that are 
going to make $144 billion in profits this year--somehow be a tax 
increase. Yet we can take away Pell grants or cut seniors under 
Medicare or the poor under Medicaid, and that is OK. Well, something is 
wrong with that vision of America.
  To back up my point that the argument is simply fallacious, you need 
to look no further than the definitive report by the CRS that explains 
that my proposal to end oil subsidies will not lower the production of 
oil and will not raise gasoline prices.
  So, Mr. President, you drive up to the pump, you pay nearly $4 a 
gallon already, which has a real impact on your family and on your 
income, and it has a real impact on your choices and has a real impact 
on food prices and has a real impact in so many areas, and yet we are 
still supposed to give the oil companies another $21 billion in tax 
breaks from the American taxpayers.
  It is time to stand for the people's interests, not the special 
interests. It is time to end these tax breaks. It is time to put it as 
a revenue source into our challenges in terms of meeting our debt and 
dealing with our deficit, and our proposal would do exactly that.
  I don't know how you can look the American people in the eye and say: 
We are going to cut so many things that are going to affect your life, 
but on this issue we are going to keep Big Oil whole. We will not touch 
a penny from their pockets. That is fundamentally wrong, and the 
American people know it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. First of all, I am happy to hear that our 
Democratic colleagues agree to allow us to come back next week and not 
go on a recess. It is important that we start work on the single 
greatest issue, the single most important issue facing this Nation--our 
debt and deficit issue.
  A couple of minutes ago, I objected to what the leadership wanted to 
move to, which was an important debate on Libya, but it is not 
addressing what we need to address. The fact is that in the Senate this 
year--we have been here 6 months, and we have not passed a budget. As a 
matter of fact, we have not passed a budget in the Senate for over 2 
years. We have missed all of the budget deadlines. We should have 
passed a budget by April 15. Appropriations bills should have been 
completed by June 10. We are simply not addressing the single greatest 
issue facing this country--that we are bankrupting America. Only six 
bills have been

[[Page S4270]]

passed in the Senate that have actually become law. Three of those were 
cleaning up last year's business. They were continuing resolutions 
funding the government, when what should have happened a year ago is 
those bills should have already been passed. President Obama's budget 
that he sent over here in January was so unserious that actually it 
lost 0 to 97 in the Senate. Not a single Democratic Senator voted for 
that budget.
  We have an awful lot of work to do. Our budget deficit this year--the 
highest estimate I have heard is about $1.65 trillion. We have incurred 
over $4 trillion in just the last 3 years. If anybody in America wants 
to understand why our economy is in a coma, it is exactly that. People 
look to Washington and they see how reckless and out of control our 
spending is.
  As a former manufacturer, as somebody who made investments and 
created jobs, I realize that when the Federal Government is spending so 
much money that it doesn't have, eventually the Federal Government is 
going to take in the form of higher taxes, possibly in the form of 
higher inflation.
  The other thing that is overhanging the economy that is preventing 
job creation is overregulation. I cannot tell you how many Wisconsin 
businesspeople come into our office and talk about that regulation or 
this regulation that one of the agencies is trying to impose on them.
  One thing that is interesting about many of these regulations is they 
are not being implemented. Just like the health care law; over 3 
million waivers have been granted. Why is that? I believe it is because 
this administration actually understands that if they implement the 
health care law and these regulations--they understand exactly the 
harmful effect that will have on our economy and on job creation.
  The fact is, what this administration has done--they came into office 
with a tough situation, no doubt about it, but their actions--passing 
the health care law, the 1,600-page Dodd-Frank financial bill--have 
made job creation far harder. They have made the situation far worse.
  I think Senator Rand Paul has a few things to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Johnson. I come to the 
floor in support of this movement, which is that we should be talking 
about what America says we should be talking about--the debt.
  Yesterday, the President went on national television and chastised 
Congress. He said to Congress that Members of Congress need to cancel 
things. Do you know what. I agree. I am here today, though, Mr. 
President. Where are you?
  My understanding is that the President is campaigning and has a 
fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight. I don't believe he is here tackling 
the Nation's problems today. He could send us the Vice President, but I 
don't think he is here either. I think he is in Las Vegas campaigning 
tonight.
  This is a two-way street. If he is going to go on television and 
chastise us for not doing work--we are saying we want to be working on 
the Nation's problems; we are here saying the Nation's debt is a 
problem; his administration has said the No. 1 national security threat 
we face is the debt--where is the President? Campaigning.
  We are here, Mr. President. We will have an offer. We don't want to 
raise the debt ceiling. We don't want more debt. Do you know what. As 
Republicans, for the good of the country, we are willing to raise the 
debt but only--and I repeat ``only''--if we have significant budgetary 
reform.
  We have to balance the budget by law. Force Congress to do it by 
changing the Constitution. It is the only way it will ever change. 
There is a pathology here. The pathology is that we do not have a 
spine. We are spineless and cannot do what it takes to cut the 
spending, and we will only get there if we change the Constitution.
  So, Mr. President, we are here. We are here, and we welcome you to 
come back to town in between fundraisers and talk about how we would 
fix this. But we would fix this by saying: Yes, we will raise the debt 
ceiling, contingent upon a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. Seventy-five percent of the public is in favor of saying 
we have to balance our budget. Let's come back and discuss what the 
American people want.
  I commend Senator Johnson for leading this fight, and I think this is 
just the beginning. But I don't plan on saying we should go to any 
other subject until we have addressed the debt ceiling.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I totally agree with my colleague from 
Kentucky, and I believe Senator Rubio has a few words to add to that.
  Mr. RUBIO. I thank Senator Johnson, and I too yesterday watched the 
President's lecture on television. I watched it again this morning just 
to make sure I was well informed before I came here.
  My reaction is twofold. One, I am disappointed, and the other is I 
was alarmed. First, I am disappointed because America does not have a 
tradition of class warfare. It has never been a part of our Nation. In 
fact, one of the things that distinguishes us from the world is 
Americans have never believed that somehow we have to take money away 
from somebody else in order to be better off. On the contrary, we have 
always looked to advance the cause of everyone in the belief we can all 
be prosperous and in the hopes of growing our economy that way. That is 
the American tradition, and that has served our Nation well.
  Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that from the speech yesterday--the 
rhetoric that, quite frankly, was deeply disappointing. The idea that 
if we raise taxes, as the President said yesterday, on millionaires and 
billionaires, raise taxes on oil companies, raise taxes on owners of 
private jets, that will somehow make a difference in America's debt in 
terms of having a real impact, is not only misleading, it is, quite 
frankly, disappointing. It is class warfare and the kind of language 
you would expect from the leader of a Third World country, not the 
President of the United States.
  I am also alarmed and worried about the speech because I think from 
it you can take only two things. Either the President doesn't truly 
understand the nature of the problem we face or he has decided this is 
a political issue and not a policy one. I say perhaps he doesn't 
understand the nature of the case because, for example, he mentioned 
the corporate jet tax six different times. Yet the impact that would 
have is so insignificant, the White House, to this moment, cannot give 
an estimate of what that means in terms of a dollar figure. Going 
further, by the way, it is important to note that exact tax provision 
was part of the President's now infamous stimulus plan that passed in 
February of 2009.
  The bigger problem, though, is maybe the President fundamentally 
doesn't understand how jobs are created. Politicians don't create jobs. 
U.S. Senators don't create jobs. Senator Johnson pointed out that jobs 
are created by everyday people from all walks of life who start a 
business or expand an existing one. Our job in government is to make it 
easier for them to do that, not harder. Threatening to raise taxes, 
threatening to wage class warfare does not accomplish that purpose.
  Here is what I would suggest to the President. I would suggest we 
have done this before as a people in America--things such as a simpler 
Tax Code; people around here are in favor of tax reform; simpler tax 
reform; a manageable and sane regulatory environment and, of course, a 
government that doesn't spend money it doesn't have. These things have 
worked before and they will work again, and I urge the President to 
lead us in that direction.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank the Senator from Florida for those 
comments, and I want to pick up on one point the Senator just made 
about class warfare.
  Certainly, as a job creator myself of 31, 32 years, I know an awful 
lot about entrepreneurs, and I have to point out how incredibly 
dispiriting it is to have leaders in Washington attack you day in and 
day out, demonize you, when all you are trying to do is make a good 
life for yourself, your family, and provide solid employment for other 
good Americans.
  So, again, I need to point out class warfare does not work. It does 
nothing--it does nothing--to help improve our economy.
  Senator Lee.
  Mr. LEE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page S4271]]

  There is no issue that is more important or more pressing for the 
American people than this one right now, where we have reached a point 
where our debt-to-GDP ratio is about 95 percent. Our economy can't long 
endure that kind of borrowing. It has an effect that will result in an 
estimated loss of about 1 million jobs a year for each year we remain 
above the 90-percent, debt-to-GDP ratio. We simply can't endure that, 
and the American people can't endure that.
  We need to increase revenues. The only way to increase revenues is to 
allow the economy to recover. That won't happen as long as we keep 
borrowing more and more money while doing nothing to control the 
underlying problem--the systemic problem that requires a structural 
reform.
  The American people understandably, justifiably, and very correctly 
are demanding that before we raise the Nation's debt limit yet again, 
before we extend yet another credit card for the United States of 
America, we commit to some kinds of cuts. Future borrowing requires us 
to make future cuts. The problem with that is the moment that debt is 
actually used up, the moment it is incurred, the American people are 
under an obligation. But if we make a promise today that we are going 
to cut, let's say, $2 trillion or $3 trillion or $4 trillion over the 
next 10 or 12 or 14 or 15 years, that is a promise we can't make. That 
is a promise we can't really commit to because this Congress, the one 
that sits right now, will not be the same Congress that convenes in 
January of 2013 or January of 2015 or in future years.
  We have to make changes right now. The only way we can commit to 
future cuts, to future structural reforms--the only way we can bind 
future Congresses--is by amending the U.S. Constitution to change the 
way we spend money, to limit spending as a percentage of GDP, and to 
require a supermajority to spend more than we have or to raise taxes.
  That is what we are demanding. We are willing to work and to come to 
the table on the debt limit, but we demand some kind of solution that 
will put us on course toward sanity. That is why we are here.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank the Senator.
  Senator Ayotte.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleagues. I think those who are watching 
this will see we are new Senators back here in the back corner of the 
Senate. As a new Member of this Chamber, I am deeply disappointed by 
the lack of work that we have been doing in the Senate. The majority 
leader has put us in a position where we haven't been focusing on the 
fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation right now, when we look at the 
fact it has been 792 days since we have had a budget.
  I was so excited as a new member of the Budget Committee to roll up 
my sleeves and get together and put out a responsible blueprint for 
this country. Unfortunately, we were told by the majority leader that 
would be foolish--to put together a responsible blueprint for this 
country and to do the work of the Budget Committee.
  One of the reasons I came to the Senate is I am tired of business as 
usual. I know my freshman colleagues back here share that. I am the 
mother of two children--I know the President mentioned his children 
yesterday--but if we care about our children and the future of this 
country, we owe it to our children to not continue to kick the can down 
the road. We should be in the Senate today and next week talking about 
how we are going to put together a blueprint that makes sure that we do 
not continue to borrow from countries such as China; that we do not 
continue to enslave our children with the debt this country is 
accumulating.
  We know if we do not address this, the greatest country in the world 
will go bankrupt. I, for one, want to follow through on the American 
promise that we have always made to the next generation, which is that 
we will leave them with a better country. That is so threatened right 
now with what is happening in Washington.
  I share with my colleague, Senator Johnson, the belief we should be 
addressing nothing next week but spending and debt. We have the debt 
ceiling vote coming up, so why aren't we rolling up our sleeves right 
now, working on a solution with real spending reforms and putting those 
handcuffs on Congress that we know we need, such as a balanced budget 
amendment, spending caps, and a budget for our country that reduces 
spending so we don't have to have this continuing resolution situation.
  We do not have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending 
problem. We need to create a positive climate for our private sector 
and do the hard work in Washington--the same way our families do--and 
live within our means. So I think next week we should be doing the work 
that needs to be done.
  Mr. President, you called on us yesterday to work. We are here 
working. The only financial and fiscal blueprint that you have 
offered--your budget for 2012--did not even get one vote from a member 
of your party in this Chamber. This budget blueprint would have added 
another $14 trillion to our debt.
  So I say to our President: We are willing to roll up our sleeves and 
get to work with you to avert this looming fiscal crisis, but where is 
your plan that will reduce spending and get us on a responsible fiscal 
path to preserving the greatest country in the world?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank Senator Ayotte.
  Senator Vitter.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank Senator Johnson, and I am honored to join him and 
all our colleagues here to echo the same important message. Everyone 
knows--everyone paying attention across the country knows--our greatest 
challenge is out-of-control spending and debt. Everyone knows we face a 
mounting crisis and an important deadline in terms of the debt limit. 
So when are we going to face these crucial issues, the top challenges 
we face as a country? When are we going to face them squarely, 
directly, constructively on the floor of the Senate? It is just that 
simple. Let's get to the important matter at hand. Let's debate in a 
constructive way and let's vote on proposals to curb spending and debt.
  Yesterday, we stood together, under Senator Johnson's leadership, and 
said just that. We said we are going to block any effort to go into a 
recess or a pro forma session next week--the July 4 recess. We have 
done that. We have successfully blocked that recess, and we did that 
because we need to roll up our sleeves. We need to go to work, not go 
on vacation, and deal with this crucial challenge of spending and debt.
  Interestingly, President Obama, in many ways, said the same thing 
yesterday. He chastised Congress and said: You need to go to work, not 
go on vacation, and address this crucial issue. Well, great. We have 
succeeded in canceling that recess. That is a first important step. But 
why are we continuing to try to move to every other issue under the Sun 
except the biggest challenge our country faces? Why don't we face this 
issue, debate it in a constructive way?
  Senator Reid, why don't you put measures on the floor that directly 
address this issue?
  With that in mind, those of us who joined together yesterday to block 
our July 4 recess have written Senator Reid a letter today, and I think 
it summarizes our point and our position very clearly, so I will read 
it. It is not long.

       Dear Leader Reid:
       Yesterday we came together to make it clear that we believe 
     the Senate should not go on vacation while our country goes 
     bankrupt. We vowed to block any recess or pro forma session 
     next week.
       We're glad you have accepted that reality. But let's not be 
     in session just to try to fool the American people into 
     thinking the Senate is working on the Nation's fiscal crisis. 
     Let's actually begin a constructive debate on the biggest 
     challenge our country faces--spending and debt.
       With that goal, we write to ask a few simple fundamental 
     questions: When will you put serious bills on the floor to 
     directly address spending and debt?
       The Budget Act of 1974 requires the Senate Budget Committee 
     to mark up a budget by April 15th, and tomorrow will mark the 
     793rd day since the Democratic-led Senate has passed a budget 
     and the 11th week since missing that deadline this year. When 
     will the Budget Committee meet to mark up a budget proposal, 
     and when will you put such a proposal on the floor?
       The American people want us to enact meaningful, effective 
     spending caps. When will you put a spending cap bill on the 
     floor?
       We clearly need the enforced discipline of a balanced 
     budget constitutional amendment. This measure failed by a 
     single vote last time it was debated on the floor of the 
     Senate. When will you put a balanced budget amendment on the 
     floor?
       We await your response and your leadership.


[[Page S4272]]


  So, again, Mr. President, to summarize, we banded together yesterday 
and said: As the country goes bankrupt, we shouldn't go on vacation. We 
are going to block any recess, any pro forma session next week. And we 
did. But we did it to turn to this challenge: to debate spending and 
debt in a constructive way, to have votes on that, not to continue to 
avoid the issue and turn to every other issue under the Sun.
  So through the Chair, I would again ask Senator Reid, why don't we 
turn to this most important challenge of our country. Please put 
serious bills on the Senate floor that directly address spending and 
debt. Let's get on with the people's work.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank Senator Vitter.
  Senator Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Johnson for his leadership on this 
issue.
  As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I share my 
colleagues' disappointment that we have not functioned. It is good to 
see Senator Ayotte and Senator Johnson, who are members of that 
committee. We worked hard to get prepared some weeks ago on the 
assumption that the Senate would meet its statutorily required duty; 
that is, to produce a budget.
  I am holding up title 2, section 632 of the United States Code, and 
it is the Budget Act. It requires that the Congress annually produce a 
budget. We have now gone 792 days without a budget.
  The first line of the act is: On or before April 15 of each year, 
Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget 
for the fiscal year beginning October 1 for the next fiscal year.
  We haven't done that. It also says we should meet by April 1.
  Senator Conrad, our Budget chairman, Democratic chairman and able, 
experienced chairman, was prepared to go forward. It is pretty clear to 
me that the majority leader decided we shouldn't have a budget process.
  Last year, the Budget Committee produced a budget out of committee, 
but the majority leader failed to bring it up for vote on the floor. As 
the leader, he has the power generally to control that fact and was 
able to do so. This year, he said it would be foolish to have a budget; 
and, basically, we would not even meet in committee to have a budget.
  So we are facing the most serious systemic debt crisis in our 
Nation's history. The numbers are so serious and our path is so 
unacceptable that it is clearly the No. 1 issue of our time.
  The Chairman of President Obama's debt commission gave a written 
statement to the Budget Committee that said this Nation has never faced 
a more predictable economic crisis. When asked, Erskine Bowles, 
President Clinton's Chief of Staff, said it could be 2 years, a little 
before, a little after.
  What I am saying is, these individuals, particularly the ones who 
just finished a campaign, traveled all over their State, talked to 
hundreds of thousands, millions of people in their State, got a feel 
for it. They are bringing new vitality and new insight into what is 
happening, and what is happening is nothing. Six months have gone by, 
and we have not had any hearings, we have not had any votes on the 
floor. We haven't seen any legislation. So I think this is an 
unacceptable method. I think it undermines the classic constitutional 
duty of Congress to appropriate money and deal with taxes.
  It is our responsibility. But have you observed mayors who say: I am 
not going to present a budget to city council. I am going to let them 
decide. Do you see Governors not presenting budgets to the State 
legislatures and then fight for what they believe in? Look what is 
happening with Governor Christie, Governor Cuomo in New York, Governor 
Brown in California, Governor Bentley in Alabama.
  It helps to have that one single person elected to represent 
everybody, to provide some impetus, and it is astounding to me that we 
haven't seen that from the majority leader in the Senate or from the 
President. He submitted a budget but then backed away from it and it 
was voted down 97 to 0 on the floor just a few weeks ago, but it was 
never seriously considered.
  So what are we looking to do? We are heading to a time where we may 
be asked in a few hours to vote on a monumental multitrillion-dollar 
deal to raise the debt limit of the United States. What will be in it? 
Will we be changing the trajectory of our Nation or will it be business 
as usual? We are not going to have time to review it. That should be on 
the floor now. People should be standing and casting votes right now. 
How much do you want to increase taxes? Do you? Which ones? How much do 
you want to cut? Where?
  Let's have the vote down here. That is what we should be doing. I 
think it will help the American people understand how serious our 
problem is, and what it will take to get out of it. It is much more 
serious and our problem is greater than most people realize.
  I thank my colleagues for their good comments and the enthusiasm they 
have brought and the passion they have brought to this critical issue.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank Senator Sessions. I will point out 
that business as usual here in Washington is bankrupting America.
  Senator Vitter.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank Senator Johnson.
  I am glad our Republican freshmen did not get the memo that they were 
supposed to be seen but not heard. It is exciting for this old dusty 
establishment when the people who just walked in the door are the ones 
who are leading it. So I thank all the freshmen who are sitting here.
  Washington is addicted to spending, and the ``addict in chief'' is 
President Obama. He has promised many times to quit, to quit spending, 
to live within our means, but he keeps falling off the wagon. Now, for 
the fourth time since he has been President, he is asking Congress to 
refill the bottle so he can keep spending and keep borrowing and keep 
increasing America's debt.
  Members of the Senate often brag about the fact that we have the 
power of the purse. Part of that power is to pass laws to limit how 
much the administration can borrow. It has been a tradition. But both 
parties over the years have consistently blown through that legal debt 
limit and increased it whenever we wanted another drink.
  The debt limit is supposed to be a stop sign, to stop the 
administration from spending more than we can afford as a nation. 
Instead, they have turned it into a green light, where we can just 
speed through and continue to pour more and more debt onto our 
children.
  But now we have gone from it being just a wink and a nod, where we 
brag about how much bacon we take home to we are at the point where we 
could seriously lose our Nation. I think Americans sense that 
everywhere.
  Congressmen and politicians constantly exaggerate and cry wolf, but I 
think there is a sense all across America that goes beyond partisanship 
to real worry. That is what I hear everywhere I go.
  People somehow intuitively know that if we have debt almost the size 
of our economy and projecting to even double that over the next 10 
years, what they see on TV in Greece and around the world of countries 
literally coming unglued could very well happen much quicker than we 
think in the United States.
  We have over $14 trillion in debt. We know the President is not 
serious about quitting this spending binge because the budget he sent 
us practically doubles that. As we have gone through these last few 
months of talking about raising the debt limit once again, we have not 
gotten one proposal from the President to deal with this issue. He has 
played dozens of rounds of golf and had many fundraisers around the 
country, but he has been AWOL on this issue.
  So not only has he added over $3 trillion of debt since he became 
President, he has been missing in action when it comes to actually 
dealing with it. His condescending speech yesterday that told Congress 
to solve the problem ignored the fact that he was elected as President 
to lead. Yet he is not even following when it comes to this issue.
  We do have a spending addiction, and the only way we are going to 
stop it and keep our country from going over the cliff is if we have a 
constitutional requirement that we have to stop spending more than we 
are borrowing.
  Outside Washington that doesn't sound as if it is an extraordinary 
thing to say. But here last week, one of the

[[Page S4273]]

Democratic Senators called me extreme for suggesting we needed to 
balance our budget. American families have to do it, businesses have to 
do it, 49 States have to do it, and sometimes it is painful. But we 
don't have to do it here. The reason we have an unlimited government is 
that we have unlimited spending in Congress.
  We are at a point where we have to make a decision. We have obligated 
ourselves to borrow more money. We don't have a good choice at this 
point. But if we are going to give the President more money to spend to 
meet obligations he has already made, we have to make sure this is the 
end of this spending addiction. The only way for that to happen is if 
we in Congress give the people of the United States, and the 50 States, 
the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want their Federal 
Government to have a balanced budget.
  That is what our condition is. We will help the President deal with 
this debt ceiling, but he is going to have to agree with us, and so 
will the Democratic Party, that we are going to send to the States a 
balanced budget amendment that the States can ratify. Five years after 
they ratify it, this Federal Government must be in balance.
  If we can't do that, if we can't make that commitment to the American 
people that we are going to stop this addiction, stop bankrupting our 
country, then we are going to have to go through the pain we have 
caused ourselves, along with this President, when we don't raise that 
debt limit.
  We need the help of Americans today because the people in Congress do 
not have the willpower to do what I just said. We need millions of 
Americans to call us and e-mail us and tell the President and tell 
Members of Congress that this debt limit should not be raised again, 
ever, unless we permanently solve this problem for the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator has used the 30 
minutes of the colloquy.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, 2 minutes is granted.
  Mr. VITTER. This is very little to ask this Congress to do--to agree, 
within 6 or 8 years, to do the hard work to balance our budget in 
return for giving the President more authority to borrow more money.
  We owe it to the American people to let them decide for themselves 
and let the States ratify it. This is a huge decision. All we are 
asking our Democratic colleagues to do is to let America decide if we 
should have a balanced budget. Let America decide if it is a radical, 
extreme idea that we live within our means and stop spending more than 
we are bringing in. I know how America is going to answer that 
question, and that is why I want to give them the chance to answer it.
  Mr. President, you have the money you need to meet our obligations, 
but once and for all we need to mean what we say and stop spending this 
country into bankruptcy.
  I thank the Chair. I yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank Senator Vitter for his leadership 
on this issue. It is the most important issue facing this Nation.
  I wish to thank my colleagues for joining me and for the leadership 
they have shown as well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with the 
senior Senator from Colorado to talk about these important issues. The 
first thing I want to talk about is the debt ceiling itself. People at 
home are asking me constantly: Michael, what in the world is going on 
back there? We are dealing with our budget at the local level, we are 
dealing with our budget at the State level, we are making choices that 
are not popular and are not easy to make but we are moving ahead and 
making decisions in our businesses and making decisions at home. We are 
moving ahead. What is wrong with Washington, DC?
  Part of the problem in this place is that people are not just 
entitled, it seems, to their own opinions, they are also entitled to 
their own set of facts. I think when you are getting paid by the 
taxpayer you have an obligation to actually not play with your own set 
of facts but to come out here and say what the facts are.
  What the facts are on the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling and the 
vote, is that this is not a case of deciding as you are sitting at the 
kitchen table and you are spending too much and so you are going to cut 
up your credit card. I would be for that. That is not what we are 
talking about here. This is about bills that have already been incurred 
by the United States. These are debts already owed by the United 
States. What this is about is not cutting up your credit card, it is 
about sitting at home and saying: You know what, I didn't budget very 
well last month, I didn't budget very well last year, so even though I 
watched cable happily all year long, I am not going to pay my cable 
bill this month. I am not going to do it. Even though I lived in this 
house all year, I am not going to make my mortgage payment this month. 
I am not going to do it.
  That is not fiscally responsible for a family to do and it is not 
fiscally responsible for the Federal Government to do.
  At home, if you do that what you discover is that your mortgage rate 
goes through the roof because the bank says to you: Michael Bennet, you 
did not pay your mortgage last month and I am not going to lend you 
money on the same terms that I lent you money before because you are a 
lousy risk. That is exactly what this is about. It is not about new 
money. It is important for everybody to understand that because if we 
do not raise the debt limit and we say to the creditors of the United 
States you are not getting paid--not to mention our veterans and our 
seniors and the men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan--but to 
our bondholders, you are not going to get paid, they are going to raise 
our interest rates, and every percentage point increase in our interest 
rate is going to drive us 1.3 trillion more dollars into debt. There 
are people coming out here saying it is the fiscally responsible thing 
to do, not to raise the debt ceiling when, if we do not, we are going 
to have $1.3 trillion more of debt to pay and the interest on that debt 
and nothing to show for it.
  It is not surprising to me that, Washington being Washington, there 
are people who see this as an opportunity to create leverage over 
things, to have a negotiation about the direction of this country. I 
understand that. I believed for a very long time that we have to get 
hold of our deficit and our debt. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit. We 
have almost $15 trillion of debt on our balance sheet. I think we have 
a moral obligation not to constrain the choices of our kids and 
grandchildren.
  I have 3 kids of my own who are 11, 10 and 6. One of them heard me 
say that during a townhall meeting and she followed me out to the 
sidewalk and she said: Daddy?
  This is Caroline, the oldest, and I said: What?
  She said: Just to be clear--
  She was making fun of me because I use that expression sometimes.
  She said: Just to be clear, I am not paying that back.
  That is the right attitude for her to have. We need to be advocates 
for Caroline Bennet and all the kids living across this country, not 
just to be fiscally responsible, which we need to be, not just asking 
what we are going to cut, which we need to do, but also prioritizing 
what we are spending to make sure we are maintaining the American 
dream, to make sure we are honoring the legacy of our parents and 
grandparents and their parents and grandparents and honoring our 
national creed.
  It is our job, not as Senators but as Americans, to provide more 
opportunity, not less, to the people who are coming after us, and the 
debt and deficit is a huge piece of that. But, you know what, it is not 
the only thing. I lie awake at night worrying about the fact that if 
you are poor in this country it is hard for you to get a decent 
education. If you are born into a ZIP Code that is defined by poverty 
in the United States, your chances of graduating with a college degree 
in the 21st century in the greatest country in the world are 9 in 100. 
That means 91 of you are consigned to a future where you cannot 
participate meaningfully in the democracy, you can't participate 
meaningfully in this economy. We need to deal with that.
  The fact is we have an economy that is not generating jobs, where 
median

[[Page S4274]]

family income for the first time in our history is falling, not rising. 
People are coming to my townhall meetings and saying: I have done 
everything I can do over the last decade, but I am earning less at the 
end than I was at the beginning. They are saying to me: Michael, we 
sent our first kid to the fancy school, but we are not going to be able 
to send our second kid there, or we cannot send our kid to the best 
college they got into.
  We need to be working on that.
  We have an energy policy in this country right now--maybe it is 
better to say a lack of an energy policy in this country right now--
that forces us to ship billions of dollars a week of our treasury to 
the Persian Gulf to buy oil. That doesn't make any sense.
  I was on a call last week with farmers from my State, saying to me 
they are being driven out of business by the broken immigration policy 
we have.
  I think the people at home are sick and tired of the screaming match. 
I think people at home are sick and tired of the partisanship. I 
believe that people do not think it is going to address these issues 
and I think they look at this deficit and debt situation and they say 
to themselves: This is such a reflection of incompetence that we are 
fearful to have a conversation about all the other things we have to do 
for our kids and for our grandkids. Their standard of what they want us 
to do is extremely clear to me.
  The senior Senator and I are from the most beautiful State in this 
country, but we are also proud of the fact that it is a third 
Democratic, a third Republican, and a third Independent. What I have 
taken out of the townhall meetings I have had is this: They want us to 
materially address this problem. They do not believe we are going to 
fix it all at once--unfortunately, they are right about that--but they 
want us to materially address it. They want to know we are all in it 
together, that everybody has some role to play in helping preserve 
choice and options for the next generation of Americans and to make 
sure business understands that we are going to make good on the 
accounts we have.
  That is not Washington speak, though; that is Colorado speak. It is 
tougher around here. And they want it to be bipartisan because they do 
not believe in either party's go-it-alone approach on this question.
  I would add a corollary to all of that, which is that the capital 
markets need to be assured that their paper is going to be worth what 
they paid for it.
  We need a comprehensive approach. It is an approach that is going to 
require us to cut discretionary spending. It is an approach that is 
going to require us to reform our entitlement system. It is an approach 
that is going to require us to do real tax reform in this place. We are 
not great here at walking and chewing gum at the same time but that is 
what we need to start doing. These are comprehensive and complicated 
questions.
  No one would rather vote on something than I would that did not raise 
any taxes, but the math doesn't work. It is clear at the end of the day 
for us to move ahead we are going to have to have an agreement that has 
all of those aspects in it: discretionary spending cuts, entitlement 
reform, tax reform.
  That is why Senator Johanns and I, a Republican here, circulated a 
letter to the President that had those three elements in it. Thirty-two 
Democrats and thirty-two Republicans signed the letter--the Presiding 
Officer of the Senate signed the letter--agreeing that all these 
elements were going to be part of a final product here.
  What I want to do this afternoon is simply implore all of us to do 
our jobs, to get this behind us, to begin the building of America again 
in the 21st century, to make sure we are not the first generation of 
Americans to leave less opportunity to our kids and our grandkids. 
There is a lot more agreement behind closed doors in this place than 
there is out on the floor. We need to bring some of that agreement out 
here, because if we fail to reach some conclusion before this debt 
limit vote and we unintentionally or intentionally end up in a place 
where we have turned our back on the debts we owe, we are not going to 
be able to solve this problem. The choices are going to make these look 
like easy choices.
  We are going home for a few days this weekend, the senior Senator and 
I, to celebrate the Fourth of July, Independence Day, to spend some 
time with our families and friends and our neighbors. Then we are 
coming back next week. My hope is that everybody comes back--everybody, 
on both sides--with more of a seriousness of purpose than we have had, 
with an ability to see not just political benefit but the benefit to 
the country of coming to agreement.
  If I can go home and say to people that we have reached a deal that 
meets the terms I mentioned earlier, my view is that will be perfectly 
fine in Democratic parts of the State and in Republican parts of the 
State. That is what we should strive to do.
  I hope the American people will hold the people in this Chamber 
accountable in the way they hold people at the local level and the 
State level accountable. No mayor would ever say I am going to 
willingly or wantonly jeopardize the credit rating of my city--the 
Presiding Officer was a mayor--and live to fight another day, and we 
should not do that either.
  I hope we move past the rhetoric of this debt ceiling discussion and 
actually get into a conversation that will solve the fundamental 
problems and challenges that are facing our country, because if we do 
not do that, we are not going to do the even more important work than 
that, which is to support the aspirations all of us have for this 
country and for our children in a world that is becoming more complex 
and uncertain every single day.
  I thank the senior Senator from Colorado for his incredible 
leadership on these issues. I believe if we continue to try to reach 
out and continue to try to work together, ultimately we are going to 
find a path.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the 
leadership of my colleague from Colorado, particularly underlining the 
salient points he made during his remarks. I think most important to 
note about Colorado is it is a third Republican, a third Democratic, 
and a third Independent in our political and electoral makeup. I think 
it drives us to find bipartisan solutions and bipartisan ground. That 
is why we came to the floor this afternoon. It was in the hope that our 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle would join us in the discussion 
about how we move forward, not just on lifting the debt ceiling, for 
the reasons Senator Bennet outlined, but for the reasons that we think 
are as follows:
  We will lay a new foundation for our 21st century economy, we will 
send a message to the markets and the business community that we are 
serious about dealing with our annual deficits and our long-term debt. 
In effect, in doing such we will inject a healthy dose of confidence 
into our country, into our markets, and into our business community. 
Taking those steps will be a way of moving forward, as the Senator 
said.
  I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague 
Senator Bennet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. One of the things Senator Udall said reminded me of a 
conversation I had a number of months ago with somebody who is in the 
capital markets and who watches everything going on down here pretty 
closely, but quizzically. He cannot figure out what in the world we are 
doing. I saw him, I think maybe it was in February, sometime in that 
timeframe. I asked him, as I always do: What are you doing? He is one 
of the smartest investors I know.
  He said: I am buying gold.
  I said: Why are you buying gold?
  He said: I don't have any confidence that you guys are going to be 
able to work this out and get our deficit and debt under control.
  First, think how unproductive that is. I am not telling anybody to 
buy or sell gold, but it doesn't create jobs in this economy. We want 
people investing in companies so they can grow and hire people and 
create jobs.
  Anyway, I saw him again about 6 weeks ago. We started talking about 
the debt ceiling conversation.
  He said: It is beyond the realm of my comprehension that you guys 
would fail to lift the debt ceiling.
  Here is a guy cynical enough about the way this place works who is 
saying

[[Page S4275]]

he is buying gold, but it is even beyond his comprehensive that we 
could fail to lift the debt ceiling. The reason is, he actually 
understands what the facts are around this.
  I think we will lift the debt ceiling. I certainly hope we will. But 
the more important point is what the Senator has been working on for 
all these many months, which is coming to a comprehensive plan that 
actually addresses the underlying problem of our debt and deficit.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. My colleague and I hosted the Colorado Capital 
Conference a few weeks ago. We had Coloradans from all sections of the 
State, all walks of life. We had the three main political points of 
view represented: Democrats, Independents, Republicans. They remarked 
to Senator Bennet and to me, as well as hearing from a broad range of 
our colleagues who were gracious enough to take time to speak to our 
constituents and answer questions, that we all had identified the 
problem and we all had identified the solution, which was a 
comprehensive plan that we implemented together. We are here again on 
the floor this afternoon to call on all of our colleagues to join us in 
working together, finding that common ground, because there is a lot at 
stake but there is enormous opportunity. My colleague was a successful 
businessman in one of his previous lives, but he may want to comment on 
the capital conference as well.

  Mr. BENNET. It is clear to me, if this decision were left up to 100 
Coloradans, we would scratch our head and we would probably argue out 
some things. But I think it would probably take about a day for us to 
come to a set of solutions that would solve the problem or at least 
move us down the road, and we would feel pretty patriotic about what we 
had done; that we had done something useful for our kids at the end of 
this process, if we are able to deliver something like that. I think 
that is how we ought to feel. There are too many days around this place 
where I feel like we have lost sight of all that. In that conversation 
the Senator talked about--Al Simpson was such a big part of, Gary Hart 
was there, Alice Rivlin, and a number of people--it was abundantly 
clear, blindingly obvious to the people in that room that we couldn't 
approach this problem by drawing bright lines and saying: No, we cannot 
touch this or, no, we cannot touch that.
  They knew everybody was going to have to give a little bit in order 
to make this work. Unfortunately, some of that line drawing is what we 
are seeing around here that we have to find a way to get past.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the Senator would yield, I would comment on 
two elements my colleague just alluded to. Let's talk about Social 
Security. There are those in our party who have said keep your hands 
off Social Security. I know what a strong and important program Social 
Security has been. It has allowed me and my wife to raise our children. 
My parents were treated with dignity in their latter years. They also 
had the assurances of Medicare. If we think because Social Security on 
paper is solvent, we ought to think again because there is $3 trillion 
owed to the Social Security trust fund by the Federal Government, and, 
yes, Social Security isn't responsible for that shortfall because we 
have taken those dollars and put them in the general fund, but that $3 
trillion is going to have to come from somewhere. There are some 
commonsense fixes we can put in place that will protect and serve and 
strengthen Social Security.
  On the other hand, we hear in the Chamber tax revenues, I should say 
more appropriately, are off the table. Every economist and every 
observer points out we cannot get there from here, there being a 
balanced Federal budget, without additional revenues. Why can't we 
start, as the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed, eliminating many of 
the subsidies and loopholes and special deals in our Tax Code that 
total something over $1 trillion. That is a great place to start. If we 
follow that with tax reforms, lowering rates for corporations and 
businesses, that is an even bigger step we can take. There is a broad 
agreement in the Chamber--certainly in our conversations with people 
across the country who represent their States here--those are 
commonsense steps forward.
  Mr. BENNET. I completely agree, and why wouldn't we want to look at 
our Tax Code and our regulatory code. I hear about that from the other 
side, and I share their view. I have been in government. Listen, I was 
a school superintendent for almost 4 years. If one thinks I don't 
understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of well-
intentioned legislation from Washington, DC, that by the time it gets 
to a school or classroom, makes no sense at all, believe me, I lived it 
every single day. So why wouldn't we look at our Tax Code and our 
regulatory code and ask ourselves: Are these things more or less likely 
to drive innovation in the United States? Are these aspects more or 
less likely to grow our economy and to create jobs? It is clear we have 
the highest corporate tax rate in the world now. It used to be second, 
but Japan either changed theirs or is about to change theirs. That is 
sending a very uncompetitive message to the world.
  On the other hand, we have so many loopholes, so many special 
interest loopholes that underlie the Tax Code, we are not actually 
getting the revenue we would be suggesting as high rates. So in a way, 
this isn't a partisan issue, but it is the worst of all possible worlds 
because we are sending out an anticompetitive message to the world that 
says we are closed for business, and we have a whole bunch of loopholes 
that may or may not--and I suspect in many cases do not--drive 
innovation in this country.
  In fact, most of them are looking backward into the 20th century. 
They may have made sense in the middle of the 20th century, but they 
don't necessarily make sense to build new industries here, to develop 
things such as a new energy economy that is so important to our State 
which, by the way, would help lead us toward energy independence from 
the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to think all these things that 
have been written down are written in stone, and, frankly, our job is 
to make sure it is working better for people. So I think the debt and 
deficit commission made some excellent recommendations on that side.
  The other side is on personal income tax. What they said there was, 
we can actually lower rates and raise more revenue. Why? Because there 
are so many deductions that are part of the code, and only 30 percent 
of the people in this country itemize, get the benefit of those 
deductions. We can imagine a world where everybody gets the benefit of 
a lower rate but we are able to have revenue to drive us forward. We 
can get there. The thing on the debt and deficit commission is, Tom 
Coburn, who is one of the most conservative Members of this body--I 
don't think he would mind my saying that--and Dick Durbin, one of the 
most liberal Members of this body, both voted for that deficit and debt 
commission report. That is almost good enough for me.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I was proud of the Senate when five of the six 
Senators on the Commission voted for the Bowles-Simpson 
recommendations, not without some concerns, not without an interest in 
working to fill in and flesh out the plan, but five of the six Senators 
from across the political spectrum said this is a very good starting 
point.
  Mr. BENNET. I see we are joined by Senator Coons from Delaware, and I 
am going to stop, but along that line, just to give people who are here 
in the Chamber or might be watching some optimism, just 2 weeks ago we 
took a vote on one subsidy, an ethanol subsidy, and I think it was 
Senator Coburn and Senator Feinstein who put it on the floor, a 
Democrat and Republican, and it had like 73 votes. I get in trouble 
with my kids. It wasn't ``like'' 73 votes, it was 73 votes to end that 
subsidy.
  By the way, there were around 40 Democrats and 30-some Republicans 
who supported that. We need more of that around here. I think it 
would--if we keep working at it and keep chipping away at it, in the 
end, we will be able to see common sense will prevail over politics.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, Senator Coons would like to 
share his thoughts.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, the two Senators from Colorado have 
inspired me to come to the floor and join them in a colloquy about the 
challenges facing our country. I say to the Senators

[[Page S4276]]

from Colorado, I am pleased and impressed with their leadership and 
have greatly enjoyed serving with them to date.
  I agree that the vote on one of our tax expenditures on the ethanol 
subsidy was an encouraging and inspiring moment because we saw both 
Democrats and Republicans from all over the country casting a vote to 
end a tax expenditure or subsidy that, many would argue, has outlived 
its usefulness in the current marketplace.
  In my home State, we recently saw the bankruptcy of our second 
largest poultry company, and they have communicated to me their grave 
concern about the ethanol subsidy. There are lots of folks on both 
sides of that particular debate. I think the larger point that is 
important for us to get to is certainty in the markets. I spent a 
number of years in the private sector in business before running for 
and being elected to office, and I know the mantra Senator Bennet is 
well familiar with, Senator Udall is well familiar with, both parties 
are well familiar with, is certainty is what the markets look for. 
Certainty is also what our people look for. We have alarmed them, 
concerned them by not being able to reach a broad, bipartisan, 
responsible plan that lays out a framework for how it is we are going 
to address both the Nation's record deficits and record debt. Our debt 
today, as we know, is roughly $14 trillion. Our deficit has hit an 
alltime record, and we are working on borrowed time. I have heard some 
suggest we need to better understand the situation we are in. The 
situation we are in, I believe, is that we are about to risk defaulting 
on America's mortgage. We have made commitments as a nation. We have 
expended ourselves at home and abroad in a lot of different ways, and I 
am worried we are on the verge of failing to meet our commitments. Just 
as America's households hesitate before ever defaulting on their 
mortgage, I think we, as a nation, as a people, have to hesitate, have 
to think deeply about the consequences of it.
  I asked the folks who work with me on economic policy to quantify it. 
They looked at a number of different studies around the country and 
gave me chilling numbers. Should we fail to meet the August 2 deadline 
that Secretary Geithner has repeatedly, since January, in writing and 
testimony, suggested to us is the absolute last date by which we can 
reach a bipartisan compromise and a path forward, we will lose hundreds 
of thousands of jobs. One study said 640,000 jobs. The markets may lose 
as much as 10 percent of their value, which would mean a loss of almost 
$1 trillion of market equity value. That means pension funds, personal 
savings, 401(k)s would take an enormous hit. The average homeowner 
would see an increase in costs, whether it is their credit cards or 
mortgages or car loans. It is easy to think this is an abstract 
argument. But in reality, I think the problem we are causing, the lack 
of confidence in the markets, could have a sudden, sharp, grinding 
effect on our economic world, and that is because investors act more 
like animals than they do like machines. When spooked, they act the way 
herds do and they run off in a certain direction. My concern is, as a 
country, we are so used to having a AAA bond rating, to being the 
world's reserve currency, to being the gold standard in security. I am 
gravely concerned that intransigence, an unwillingness to come to a 
reasonable compromise is putting us at real risk of spooking the 
markets, of harming the average American homeowner, and putting our 
rating at risk as a country.

  At the end of the day, so far in my short 6 months here, I have 
observed some things about how Washington works that worry me. If I 
could offer a metaphor, it seems to me there are a lot of sacred cows 
here. It seems to me the trillions of dollars we spend in our Tax Code 
through tax loopholes and special tax provisions and the trillions we 
spend through direct spending are broken up into these sacred cows, and 
I feel as if I have gone into dairy. I feel as if I am surrounded by a 
whole herd of sacred cows, and what we need is a deliberate and clear 
bipartisan effort to thin the herd, to make some tough choices.
  As I know Senator Bennet said previously, I wish to commend the hard 
work of the Gang of 6, the so-called Gang of 6, the bipartisan group 
who came up with processes and a path forward. The Bowles-Simpson 
commission presented to those of us on the Budget Committee, presented 
to this body in writing, a proposal. There are paths forward. There are 
ways to make these tough choices. I hope before the time runs out, this 
body will embrace these proposals, make the tough choices and the 
sacrifices we need to come to the center and lay out a path. I, 
frankly, don't think we have until August 2. If we are going to put at 
risk the markets by injecting uncertainty, frankly, the timeline may be 
more like the middle of July. It is my hope the Senators from Colorado 
will be joined by Senators from both sides of this body and both sides 
of this Capitol in crafting a responsible bipartisan solution.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the Senator, in effect, is 
saying that rather than this being a problem, although it is, this is 
an enormous opportunity for the country to chart a new course. If we 
agree to do it first and foremost as Americans----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators have spoken collectively for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. We thank the Chair for that notification. We 
look forward to next week continuing this conversation.
  I wish to thank my colleague for joining me and Senator Bennet in 
this discussion this afternoon.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to the 
Senators from Colorado to allow me to join them and look forward to 
continuing this conversation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to listen to my 
colleagues from across the aisle and while my purpose is to address 
another subject, I do want to respond to what we have just heard from 
three Democratic Senators and a number of Republicans regarding the 
need to address the serious issue of debt and deficit and how we are 
going to proceed before we run into a situation of national default 
with consequences we cannot begin to imagine, I think it is appropriate 
to say there is bipartisan support for serious debate and discussion. I 
was disappointed, obviously--in fact, I was more than disappointed. I 
was very frustrated yesterday with the President's press conference, 
the President essentially said the Congress is not doing its job and 
compared what was being done here to undisciplined children, who 
couldn't do their homework. He was targeting the opposition, which 
sounded like a lot of campaign rhetoric. This is very disappointing. At 
a time when we face a serious fiscal crisis, he shouldn't even be 
thinking about the election of 2012 and focusing on any campaign 
rhetoric--we ought to be thinking about and working to address the 
crisis before us that is going to have implications for every American 
now. If we don't come to an agreement on how to proceed before August 
2, we are going to see how the financial markets react to what we have 
not been able to do. But to suggest we haven't been doing anything and 
that the Congress needs to take the lead, I think, goes even against 
the President's own thoughts when he was a Member of this body.

  I wish to quote from a statement he made when President Obama was 
Senator Obama. That quote is as follows:

       The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's 
     debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . Increasing 
     America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. 
     Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, 
     Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto 
     the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a 
     debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve 
     better.

  Yes, Americans do deserve better. But, obviously, that famous sign 
that used to be on the desk of Harry Truman when he was President, 
``The Buck Stops Here,'' has been taken off that Presidential desk and 
shifted over to the responsibility of the Congress. We do have a 
responsibility, but it is fair to say and accurate to say that without 
Presidential leadership, no matter what we do here will not become law. 
The President needs to be engaged in supporting what we do. Otherwise, 
it will not become law.
  I think most of the American public thinks, based on the inferences 
made yesterday by the President in his press conference, Republicans 
are on one

[[Page S4277]]

side, the Democrats are on the other side, and they don't see the 
problem the same way. I think what we just heard--eloquent speeches and 
important speeches from both Republicans and just now Democrats--
indicates there are adults here, not just children. We have been 
working hard ever since day one of this session to try to address the 
train wreck we see coming. First, it was estimated to come on May 16, 
and now August 2. We bought a little bit of time, I guess. But the 
clock is ticking and we see a train wreck coming and we are trying to 
do something about it.
  There are serious people making serious efforts to have serious 
dialogue and debate as to how we best go forward in the interests of 
our country and not in the interests of the 2012 election; in the 
interests of our grandchildren and children, not in the interests of 
our political careers.
  I came back to the Senate for one reason and one reason only, and 
that is that I was not going to stand idly by and watch our country 
sink deeper into debt. I was not going to watch my generation be the 
first generation to hand our children a country in worse shape than the 
one we inherited and a hole they could never dig out of. They will not 
be able to enjoy all the benefits my generation has had of peace and 
prosperity.
  It is clear--and I am not here to go through all the statistics. I 
have made several speeches on this topic and we hear this on the floor 
every day. There are so many facts in support of the need to take 
serious action to address this serious problem. There is so much 
handwriting on the wall, and the wall is about to collapse. Economists 
from the conservative side to the liberal side and everybody in 
between--analysts, financial markets, and so forth--are taking action 
and saying we need to take action here. We see Democratic and 
Republican Governors across this country in various States taking 
action.
  I am proud of what we have done in the State of Indiana in the last 6 
years under the leadership of Governor Daniels. We have balanced our 
budget. We have dug out of a deep deficit left by his predecessor. We 
have a AAA credit rating. We have made some tough choices. We have had 
to cut and slash government jobs. There was a lot of bloat and a lot of 
excess there. We made tough choices, and we paid a financial price for 
it, but we are in better shape today than we have been in a long time 
as a result of taking these actions.
  We see countries around the world having to belly up to the reality 
of the facts. They have overspent and have promised more than they can 
deliver. Yet the United States of America should be the leader of this 
effort in terms of getting its economy in shape. It is a place where 
the dollar was sound. It is the place to invest your money and know it 
was the safest place. All of that now has come into question.
  I have been a part of these talks across the aisle. The two Senators 
from Colorado who just spoke, the Senator from Delaware who just spoke, 
and others, are taking this seriously. They are not putting their 
political fortunes ahead of the necessity to deal with these issues. 
They are saying that what transcends politicians, what transcends 
reelection is the fact that we have a serious crisis that has to be 
dealt with now and tough choices have to be made. We are talking in 
earnest behind closed doors, working in open sessions and closed 
sessions, trying to fashion an appropriate response. But without the 
President's leadership, no matter what we do, no matter what package we 
put together, we cannot succeed.
  So it appears the President has decided to engage in the politics of 
the 2012 elections, and it is very disappointing. I hope that is not 
the case. I hope this shift we have seen from needing to get involved 
to ``what is wrong with you men and women?'' is just a temporary lapse. 
When we get frustrated, it is easy to say childish things, and that is 
why I waited overnight so I wouldn't come down here to be characterized 
as someone who says childish things. The problems we face are too 
serious for us not to take seriously.
  I too believe we can fashion a plan that is in the best interests of 
the American people and the future of America, but we can't do it by 
pointing fingers at each other. We can't do it without Presidential 
leadership. Right now, the one missing element is Presidential 
leadership. As has been said before, the President was invited to come 
and meet with us today and to talk to us about the seriousness of this 
issue. We are willing to demonstrate to him that our doors are open and 
we are willing to go there, but it takes a commitment on both sides in 
order to accomplish that. Instead, I guess a couple of fundraisers were 
scheduled--one in Philadelphia, one in Las Vegas--and, apparently, that 
takes precedence. So I think the President's words are pretty hollow.


                                  Iran

  I came here to talk about another issue, and I wish to do that now. 
Our necessary focus on the economic situation and what we need to do 
and the impending debt crisis we are facing should take precedence, but 
we can't overlook the fact we have serious issues on an international 
level that will have an impact on our country in the future. Those of 
us here have a responsibility to deal with not only domestic issues but 
with international security and foreign policy issues. Tomorrow is the 
first anniversary of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability 
and Divestment Act that was passed by an overwhelming majority--
bipartisan majority--in the last Congress. In fact, the vote in the 
Senate was 99 to 0.
  This act expanded sanctions on the Iranian regime as it continues its 
quest for nuclear weapons capability. Clearly, more needs to be done. I 
am here to talk about it and the implications, but I needed to say 
something about what has happened in the previous 24 hours that has 
been so disconcerting to not only me but to the American people and 
both Republicans and Democrats who are trying to make a serious effort 
at solving the problems we face.
  Put on the back burner because of all these discussions is this 
question about Iran and where it is going and what the consequences of 
the future with a nuclear-armed Iran would be. This month my colleagues 
and I, because we believe these sanctions have not yet accomplished the 
goal we have intended and that we need even tougher sanctions against 
Iran, have introduced a bill entitled ``The Iran, North Korea, and 
Syria Sanctions Consolidations Act of 2011'' that further tightens the 
noose on the Iranian regime. We need strong support from this body and 
collective efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran.
  I will take a few minutes now to explain why I believe this work is 
of such dramatic and growing importance to our Nation.

  The enormous changes being wrought by the Arab spring and the 
potential consequences--both positive and negative--of that movement 
have captured our attention. Those of us who care passionately about 
the future of the Middle East and understand the consequences to our 
national security as a consequence of that, whether it is economic 
security because of energy resources we get from the Middle East or 
whether it is diplomatic security or just national security in terms of 
conflict that potentially draws us into that effort, all of this is at 
stake. We are hoping, of course, that the democratic instincts of the 
Arab spring will develop, but we look at this with a mixture of both 
hope and concern.
  The democratic impulse in the region has not yet brought meaningful 
change to the Iranian people who continue to suffer under an 
autocratic, savage, and ruthless regime. As that regime continues to 
crush every plea for greater democratic liberties, it also pursues its 
vision of nuclear weapons capability. Welcome signs of democratic 
progress elsewhere in the region must not deflect our attention from 
the growing danger in Iran.
  Three American Presidents, including this current President, have 
declared that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable. To give 
meaning to that repeated commitment to do whatever is necessary to 
prevent Iran from gaining that dangerous capability remains an urgent 
and highly significant matter facing the United States and 
international security. The consequences of a nuclear weapons-capable 
Iran are not tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most 
powerful and effective efforts possible to prevent that from happening.

[[Page S4278]]

  A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the entire region and its 
enormous energy resources. It would motivate broad nuclear 
proliferation throughout the Middle East. It would further destabilize 
the region already in turmoil. It would encourage radicalism and 
terrorism, and it would threaten the destruction of the State of 
Israel.
  This last danger alone--the potential destruction, the declared 
destruction of the nation of Israel--that alone potentially raises the 
danger to which Israel is the last resort, but almost certainly we have 
to respond to it to ensure its survival. That alone compels us to be 
clear-eyed and determined to find a solution before we have to face 
that potential decision.
  I have been working in recent years with the Bipartisan Policy Center 
to press for a robust, comprehensive three-track effort to raise the 
stakes on the Iranian regime and to compel it to live up to its 
commitments and halt its weapons program. The first track we proposed 
was enhanced diplomatic efforts. People say, Why diplomatic efforts? 
That is just going nowhere.
  We felt we needed to enhance those efforts to at least give that a 
chance, so that those who would say sanctions should not be imposed 
until we have tried diplomatic efforts--we said: OK, let's continue to 
give that a shot, but let's do that in parallel with some of these 
other approaches.
  But this enhanced diplomatic effort, where we create and invigorate 
and motivate an international coalition devoted to the same objective 
to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, has been tried, and it 
has not succeeded.
  Now, this effort does not mean simply repeated outreaches to the 
Iranian regime to engage them in dialog. The Obama administration came 
into office promising such discussions, but this has gone nowhere. 
International talks in Geneva last year accomplished nothing. Talks in 
Turkey earlier this year broke down in the afternoon of the very first 
day. Clearly, lack of any flexibility and goodwill on behalf of the 
Iranian regime has dissuaded any further attempt to renew dialog 
efforts. Dialog with the Iranians is in a deep freeze.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator has used his 10 
minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was not aware I had asked for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. That is news to me.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will just try to see how I can wrap this 
up.
  I might ask, Mr. President, is there an order in place that I am not 
aware of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is that the Senate is in morning 
business with 10 minutes to be consumed by each Senator.
  Mr. COATS. All right. I apologize. I did not know that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Although consent has been given for larger 
blocks of time, and the Senator has just been given consent.
  Mr. COATS. All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The second track for solutions are sanctions. We currently have the 
Sanctions Act in place. We want to impose an additional sanctions 
track. That is why I have sponsored and cosponsored this new act. The 
impact of this, I think, could potentially be significant. But, so far, 
we have not seen success as a result of sanctions.
  Since the international community first began to face this 
challenge--in the form of IAEA inspections and reports, various U.N. 
Security Council sanctions resolutions, and protracted negotiations to 
construct an effective coalition strong enough to have meaning--none of 
these actions have seriously thwarted the Iranian regime's nuclear 
ambitions.
  That takes us to the third track of a comprehensive approach. Those 
of us in the Bipartisan Policy Center, working with experts on all 
sides of this issue, came to the conclusion that certain military 
options can be put in place that deserve serious and open discussion. 
Since diplomacy and sanctions have proven to be too weak, we need an 
extra kick to this process in order to achieve the desired result.
  I am suggesting discussion and debate and dialogue. No one should 
suppose that including a military option in this package means anything 
other than preparing the ground for the logical, necessary access to 
measures of last resort, should they be needed.
  Through the Bipartisan Policy Center, we participated in an 
exhaustive analysis of all the means and consequences of potential 
military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program. There were no 
war advocates in that room--none of us. Nevertheless, if it is true 
that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is ``unacceptable,'' then our 
Nation and the international community as a whole must see with vivid 
clarity what measures remain, should the first two tracks fail.
  The Iranian regime must be especially clear-eyed and nondelusional 
about those potential consequences should it not change its behavior. 
Indeed, to give the diplomatic and sanctions tracks the essential 
credibility they require, the military option must be entirely 
believable.
  Military options themselves include a multipronged, comprehensive 
strategy, not all of which are ``kinetic'' or mean an actual attack 
with our Armed Forces. Such a strategy would include constructing the 
alliances needed to station U.S. forces in position to confront Iran 
and then a series of steps designed to demonstrate to Iran that the 
United States and its coalition partners are capable of decisive 
military action, if necessary, to stop its nuclear program.
  At the end of the day, we have to decide whether we will tolerate an 
Iran with nuclear weapons. If other States, including, importantly, 
China and Russia, become convinced of this core reality, they will make 
different calculations about their own self-interests in this matter. 
If they come to believe that we so desperately need them to accept 
modest sanctions on Iran, then they can compel us to take off the table 
the sanctions proposals with real teeth. We have become hostage to 
their views on this vital issue and also to their related economic 
interests.
  So if these and other States come to realize that when we say 
``unacceptable,'' we mean it, they will come to different conclusions 
about how their own interests can be best served.
  In conclusion, a nuclear weapons-capable Iran that we believe can be 
contained is not one that we are therefore prepared to tolerate. If we 
think we can solve this problem through diplomatic efforts and 
sanctions, we have not been able to do so, and the likelihood of doing 
so diminishes as every day goes by. The nuclear clock keeps ticking in 
Iran. This is an illusion and one that makes our task much harder. If 
others, however--especially Iran, but also including our allies and 
other coalition partners--come to believe that we would consider 
tolerating a nuclear Iran because it can somehow be contained, then 
none of this will work. The result then will not be a contained and 
tolerated nuclear Iran; it will be the military action we all hope to 
avoid, whether it is ours or another's.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________