[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.
____________________