[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 96 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4281-S4286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we must raise the debt ceiling, period. 
This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The consequences of failing to 
act are simply too catastrophic to consider any other course. 
Negotiations are underway now to seek an agreement to raise the debt 
ceiling as part of a larger agreement on deficit reduction. But there 
is a major obstacle to agreement: a refusal on the part of the 
Republican leadership to compromise, a refusal to understand that 
sacrifice must be shared.
  The sacrifice, they say, must come from middle America--those 
struggling to pay for a college education or for health care for their 
kids or for long-term care for their parents. The Republican leader 
demands that this sacrifice be made by the middle class in order to 
protect the Bush tax cuts and other tax breaks for the wealthiest among 
us--despite the huge and growing gap in the distribution of income in 
our country between the wealthy and the middle class.
  One example of the kind of tax breaks and tax loopholes that we 
Democrats seek to change is the unconscionable tax break given to hedge 
fund managers. Hedge fund managers generally make their money by 
charging their clients two fees. First, the manager receives a 
management fee, typically equal to 2 percent of the assets invested. 
Second, the manager typically receives 20 percent of the income from 
those investments above a certain level. This 20-percent share of the 
investment returns from hedge funds is known as ``carried interest.'' 
Under current law, most hedge fund managers claim that this carried 
interest qualifies as a long-term capital gain, currently subject to a 
maximum tax rate of 15 percent, rather than being taxed as ordinary 
income, currently subject to a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.

  But a moment's analysis shows that this money is ordinary income by 
any fair definition and should be treated that way. The 20-percent fee 
is not capital gains, because it applies not to capital that the hedge 
fund manager

[[Page S4282]]

has invested, but to the payment he receives for investing capital that 
other people provide. Pretending that the 20-percent fee is capital 
gains when, in fact, it is payment for a service is an ``Alice in 
Wonderland'' argument that elevates fiction over fact.
  We Democrats seek to end this fiction. We are ready to call carried 
interest what it is--ordinary taxable income. Recognizing carried 
interest for what it is would increase tax fairness for working 
Americans who pay their fair share of taxes. They have the right to 
expect that the wealthy do the same. It would reduce the deficit--if we 
did this--by an estimated $21 billion over the next 10 years.
  Republicans seek to protect this loophole. They say the income of 
investment managers is at risk from year to year and, therefore, 
deserving of a lower tax rate. Well, ask the factory worker, who just 
saw his or her job move overseas; ask the store clerk, who saw his 
employer close because of the damage from the financial crisis; ask the 
part-time worker, whose hours and earnings go up and down from week to 
week--ask all of them just how much risk working Americans face right 
now.
  Republicans say taxing this income as ordinary income would 
discourage investment in job creation, and that is absurd. The people 
who are actually risking their capital--investors in these funds--will 
continue to see their profits taxed at the lower capital gains rate. 
The issue in this case is income that these managers receive for 
serving their clients. If you are a hedge fund manager, your job is to 
manage a hedge fund. The income you receive for that job is no 
different than the income a waitress receives for waiting tables, or a 
janitor receives for scrubbing floors. The idea that the income of 
millionaire fund managers should be taxed at a lower rate than that of 
their staff or other workers is an absurdity.
  This nonsensical loophole is deeply unfair at a time when working 
families are struggling, while the wealthiest among us continue to 
prosper greatly. Recent decades have seen a massive and growing 
prosperity gap between ordinary Americans and the wealthy. How wide has 
that gap become? In 1980, the top 1 percent of American earners took 
home about 10 percent of our Nation's total income. A few decades 
later, that figure had increased to 24 percent of our Nation's total 
income. That is just the wealthiest 1 percent that now have over 20 
percent of our total income. It is hard to argue that properly taxing 
their income will impose great hardship on investment fund managers, 
who have done awfully well in recent years.
  How well have those investment fund managers done? According to a 
survey by a magazine covering the hedge fund industry, the top 25 hedge 
fund managers earned $22.7 billion last year. The two managers who 
topped the list earned $80 billion each--that is billion with a ``B.'' 
The typical American household earned perhaps $60,000 or $62,000 in 
2008. Those hedge fund managers earned in about 4 minutes what it took 
a typical working family a year to earn. Yet they paid drastically 
lower rates on those massive incomes than the low-wage worker who 
cleaned their office. The Republicans would protect these 
unconscionable tax breaks while, at the same time, wanting to cut 
programs that provide an education for our kids and provide health care 
for our seniors.
  It gets worse. Adding insult to injury, Republicans are protecting 
another tax loophole--one that many of these hedge fund managers, by 
the way, use to avoid taxes entirely. This loophole allows corporations 
and wealthy individuals to take income earned here in the United States 
and shift it to overseas tax havens, dodging U.S. taxes that they 
rightly owe.
  I have long sought to end this abuse, because these offshore tax 
havens increase the tax burden on those who pay the taxes they owe. In 
the last Congress, I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which 
would seek to recover tax revenue now lost to offshore tax dodging.
  Ending this loophole is significant if we seek to properly tax the 
income of hedge fund managers. At one hearing of the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, three well-known hedge 
funds that claim to be based in the Cayman Islands admitted under 
questioning that they did not have a single employee in the Cayman 
Islands. Closing the offshore loophole would make our effort to 
equitably tax carried interest all the more effective, by shutting off 
a major avenue that hedge funds and other investment funds use to dodge 
taxes.

  Democrats have rightly proposed addressing the carried interest 
loophole and offshore tax havens and other unfair tax loopholes as part 
of a balanced deficit reduction strategy. We believe it is grossly 
unfair to cut programs that help young Americans get a college 
education or help train working Americans for new jobs in order to 
protect tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  The Republican response? To walk out of negotiations and say they 
will not accept any deficit reduction package if it includes revenue 
measures.
  Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. If there is no other Senator waiting, I ask unanimous 
consent to be permitted to continue for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  What the Republicans have done is to walk out of negotiations and say 
they will not accept any deficit reduction package if it includes 
revenue measures. So let's call this what it is. If Republicans refuse 
to consider compromise solutions, they are threatening all of us, the 
whole country, with economic catastrophe in order to protect the sky-
high income of millionaire hedge fund managers and offshore tax 
avoiders. Those are two of the loopholes--two of many loopholes--we 
have identified that should be closed that Republicans refuse to 
consider closing. So what they are doing--and we should make no mistake 
about this--is holding the well-being of all Americans hostage to the 
tax breaks of a wealthy few.
  We all agree we must act to reduce the deficit. We have acknowledged, 
as Democrats, the need for spending cuts, even painful cuts to programs 
we support. That is why I am so troubled by the utter refusal of the 
Republicans to consider even modest compromises in the direction of new 
revenue.
  There is an overwhelming consensus among budget experts that we 
cannot achieve serious deficit reduction with spending cuts alone. 
There is an overwhelming consensus among economists that drastic cuts 
in Federal outlays will threaten our economic recovery--just as such 
cuts have throttled recovery in other nations. And despite the 
fantasies of some in Congress, it is abundantly clear a failure to 
raise the debt ceiling would do incalculable harm to the recovery and 
to our standing in the world. Drawing lines in the sand, as the 
Republicans have done, and refusing to compromise by walking out, has 
no place in the situation we face.
  I urge the Republican leadership to abandon their uncompromising 
positions, to embrace solutions to the deficit and recognize that we 
all must sacrifice to address the deficit problem. The well-being of 
all of us, of all Americans, should not be held captive in the service 
of the most fortunate few.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if people have been following the debate 
on the Senate floor this afternoon, they understand it is focused 
almost exclusively on the Federal budget deficit and what we are going 
to do about it. It is a legitimate and timely question, because we are 
now in negotiations at the highest levels--between the President and 
the leaders in the House and Senate--to try to find some way through 
our impasse.
  The challenge is to find a way to reduce America's deficit and, at 
the end of the day, to extend our debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has a 
deadline of August 2. We have never in our history

[[Page S4283]]

failed to extend our debt ceiling. To fail to do so would be the 
equivalent of defaulting on a mortgage payment. And, of course, we all 
know the consequences to any homeowner or family if that occurs. You 
understand your credit rating is not going to be the best after you 
have defaulted. The same thing would be true with America. You also may 
find the next time you need a mortgage that particular bank may not 
want to lend to you again. The same thing is true with America. It has 
a negative impact on your lifestyle. All of a sudden you are in a 
suspect class and it isn't as easy to borrow money to buy a car or to 
make some other purchase.
  That is the risk we are running at the highest possible level when it 
comes to this debt ceiling vote on August 2. We have never--underline 
the word never--defaulted on a debt ceiling extension in the history of 
the United States of America. That is the reason why the securities and 
bonds and stocks that are sold in this country enjoy a financial 
reputation better than most of the world. The United States is 
powerful, big, and trustworthy. We are going to lose that last word--
trustworthy--if we default on the debt ceiling. That is what we face on 
August 2.
  There is a group in town here called the Bipartisan Policy Center, 
and they have kind of spelled out in specific terms what it would mean 
if we end up in default, and it is pretty grim. I have some charts here 
that talk about what we would face if we defaulted on the debt ceiling 
extension on August 2.
  The revenues for the month of August if we default will be $12 
billion in the United States, and the bills due on August 3 will be $32 
billion. The first day we will be $20 billion in the red, which means 
choices will have to be made if we fail to extend the debt ceiling. And 
they are hard choices. Let's take a look at some of those choices we 
would have to face if we didn't have enough money to pay our bills.
  Which of these don't get paid if Congress doesn't raise the debt 
ceiling? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Veterans' benefits? Those 
firms that are supporting our war in Iraq and Afghanistan? IRS refunds 
to individuals and businesses? All of these would have to be brought 
into question, because we cannot pay them all if we fail to extend the 
debt ceiling.
  This bipartisan policy center said, Let's consider one of the 
options. Let's protect the biggest programs. Let's pay interest on 
America's debt so we don't have any further default. Let's of course 
pay Social Security; elderly folks, many of them, have no other source 
of income. We had better pay Medicare and Medicaid, because hospitals 
and doctors across America are taking care of sick people who are 
elderly and poor. We had better pay those defense firms, because if 
they withdraw their services it can endanger our troops. And we had 
better pay unemployment compensation, because for these families there 
is no other source of income. So if we pay those, the ones I just 
listed, we would be unable to pay the salaries of those in active 
military service. We would be unable to pay veterans' benefits. We 
would be unable to keep the courts open or pay the FBI. We couldn't 
provide the money for education--that would be Pell grants, college 
student loans--and virtually everything else in government. What would 
everything else include? Air traffic controllers, the guards at Federal 
prisons.
  If you think what I am describing here is just a scare tactic, it is 
not. It is the reality of what happens when you default, and it is a 
reality that is being ignored by many on the other side of the aisle.
  In fact, a fringe publication called the Washington Examiner, which 
is a very conservative Republican publication, today said: Don't worry 
about it. Default on the debt ceiling. We can figure out a way through 
this.
  Well, I am sorry, but the reality of the choices facing us is that if 
we choose not to extend the debt ceiling, then we are going to have 
nothing but terrible choices.
  Here is another scenario, if you thought the first one was stark. 
Let's assume that we want to protect the most vulnerable in America 
where, in the month of August, we have $170 billion in income and $300 
billion in bills. So we pay interest on the debt, Social Security, 
Medicare/Medicaid, veterans, food stamps, housing for people who are 
poor, unemployment benefits, and education for the kids. Unpaid would 
be the defense firms again, those men and women serving in our 
military, even those in combat, the FBI, the courts, and everything 
else in government. The options are grim and real.
  I have heard my colleagues on the Republican side come to the floor 
today, and they are upset. They are upset at a speech given by the 
President yesterday. Well, the President understands the gravity of the 
decision that is before us. The President has urged Members of Congress 
to get busy and help to solve the problem. I think he has a right to be 
upset, to some extent, and impatient.
  It was 2 weeks ago that we had a negotiation underway with Vice 
President Biden, a bipartisan negotiation, Democrats and Republicans 
from the House and Senate. It fell apart when Congressman Cantor, Eric 
Cantor, the House Republican leader, walked out and announced publicly, 
I am no longer part of this conversation. I think we have to stop this 
negotiation, this bipartisan negotiation. I am handing it over to the 
Speaker of the House John Boehner. He can talk to the President.
  That, to me, was the height of irresponsibility. If you are given a 
responsibility to sit in those sessions to try to spare the United 
States from this terrible outcome, picking up your marbles and going 
home is not a good option, even if you hand it over to your boss, the 
Speaker of the House. What it did was to break down those bipartisan 
negotiations. What we thought might lead to a solution has fallen apart 
when the House Republican leader walked out. Now the President is 
trying to pick up the pieces and put it back together and move us 
toward a solution, and if he was impatient about it yesterday, he has a 
right to be.
  One of the very serious problems we face is if we want to deal with 
this deficit in real terms, make a real impact on it, we have got to 
have more bipartisan cooperation. That is a cliche around here, but it 
is a fact.
  I was on the President's Deficit Commission, the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission. I sat there for almost 10 months, and I listened to 
everything. I tried to learn as best I could what we were facing, and 
at the end of the day I voted for the Commission report. Eleven out of 
18 of us did, a bipartisan report. It was tough and it wasn't easy, and 
there were parts of it that I hated as a Democrat. Yet I knew that if 
we were going to solve this problem, there was no other way to do it. 
We had to say to those on the Republican side of the aisle, you have to 
step up with us and find ways to bring revenue to our government.
  Today we are bringing in 14 percent of our gross domestic product in 
Federal revenue, Federal tax receipts. Gross domestic product is the 
sum total of our economy, all the production of goods and services; 14 
percent of it comes in in Federal revenue, 24 percent goes out in 
Federal payments, spending. That 10-percent difference equals the 
annual deficit.
  Ten years ago, we were in balance. When President William Jefferson 
Clinton left office, the Federal budget was balanced, 10 years ago. At 
that moment in time, the net national debt of the United States of 
America, from George Washington through William Jefferson Clinton's 8 
years, was $5 trillion.
  Eight years later, when President George W. Bush left office, the 
national debt had grown from $5 trillion to $11 trillion, more than 
doubled in an 8-year period of time. You ask yourself, how could that 
happen in 8 years that we would fall so deeply into debt? There are 
three basic reasons it happened:
  We fought two wars and we didn't pay for them. So the expense of 
those wars was added directly to our national debt. The President's 
economic theory was: The best way to move the economy was for us to 
give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America, and he did it in 
the midst of a war, something no President had ever done, which 
directly added to the debt, and he signed into law programs that 
weren't paid for, expensive programs. So we ended up with an $11 
trillion debt facing the new President, then President Obama, being 
sworn in and a failed economic policy with hundreds of thousands of 
Americans out of work

[[Page S4284]]

and losing jobs by the day. That is what the President inherited.
  He has tried to right the ship and move us forward, and it has been 
hard and it has been slow and it has been frustrating. I think he has 
done his best, and I think he has done a good job at it.
  First, he put in a stimulus package of about $800 billion. As the 
Presiding Officer here knows, 40 percent of that was tax cuts, tax cuts 
to the families across America to help them out of the recession. 
Another 25 percent of it went to building roads and bridges and 
highways and high-speed rail, infrastructure that will serve America 
for generations. The remainder of that went into helping State and 
local governments get through difficult times. We sent extra money to 
States because we knew a lot of people were out of work. They would 
need unemployment checks, they would need help to pay their hospital 
bills. We put that money into a stimulus package to stop what was a 
hemorrhaging in this economy, and I think it worked to slow down the 
decline. It did not turn it around as quickly as we liked.
  Then last December the President said, on a bipartisan basis I will 
agree with the Republicans to extend all tax cuts for everybody, 
highest income to lowest income, and extend unemployment benefit 
payments. We passed that as well.
  The President has tried, and we are coming forward out of the 
recession ever so slowly. Now we run the very risk of not extending the 
debt ceiling and plunging ourselves back into a recession even worse 
than where we started. So is the President impatient? You bet he is. 
Impatient to the point where he invited Congress to maybe come to work 
next week.
  Many of us had felt we could spend a few days back home. I was going 
to spend the time after the 4th of July traveling around my State. It 
is a big State; but I guess it is clear now that my job is to be here, 
and I will be, along with other Members.
  The House will be in session. We are in a strange period of time here 
where the House of Representatives comes and goes even when the Senate 
is in session, so we kind of see each other in passing. Well, we will 
both be together next week, and I hope we will stay here and get this 
job done. The House is scheduled to go into another recess July 17 to 
23, and I certainly hope they don't do that. They had better stay in 
town. Let's get this done before August 2.
  We have a serious problem facing us with job creation in this 
country. There is no question about it. I think we can move forward as 
long as we understand some basics.
  The key to creating jobs in America is an expanding positive economy. 
It is a feeling by people in this country and around the world that we 
are moving forward. And, sadly, people are not going to get that 
feeling unless we get our act together in Washington. It means 
Democrats and Republicans working together.
  I have tried for about 5 or 6 months now with a bipartisan group of 
Senators to come up with a way to do this; and, unfortunately, one of 
the Republican Senators from Oklahoma walked away from that 
conversation as well. But we still have a job ahead of us, and it is 
one that we ought to face.
  I sincerely believe that the Bowles-Simpson Commission is the right 
paradigm, the right direction for us in terms of where our Nation and 
our budget should go. It calls for some changes many Democrats will 
find painful and changes Republicans will have to struggle to accept as 
well, but those are the changes that will be needed.
  If we fail to include revenue in this discussion about reducing the 
debt, if it is just spending cuts, it can only go so far. If we include 
revenue, we can talk about a much bigger package of deficit reduction, 
much more credible, with a more positive impact.
  During the course of the last 2 days, we have tried to identify on 
the floor some parts of the Tax Code that can be changed to save money 
for our economy. Each year, our Tax Code, that body of laws relating to 
taxes in America, provides deductions and credits and exclusions and 
special treatment that spares individuals and companies from paying 
$1.1 trillion in taxes each year. It includes such things as the 
employers exclusion of health insurance premiums, mortgage interest 
deductions, charitable deductions, State and local tax payments. All of 
these things and many others are included in that Tax Code. It is rare 
that we open that Tax Code and ask the question, Is this needed?
  In the last few days we have come to the floor and talked to the tax 
subsidies and tax breaks that aren't needed that, frankly, have to be 
sacrificed in order to get this economy back on its feet. We talked 
about one that is incredible. In the first quarter of this year, 
ExxonMobil declared profits of $10 billion, one of the most profitable 
quarters in the history of American business, and we as taxpayers 
continue to subsidize ExxonMobil. Why? They are doing quite well. And 
remember the last time you filled your tank with gas? It doesn't look 
as though they are sparing us when it comes to raising the price of a 
gallon of gas. So I think that subsidy should go. Subsidies to the oil 
and gas companies at this moment in history are unacceptable. We have a 
thriving profitable industry that does not need a Federal tax crutch.
  Take a look at some of the others we have talked about as well. Do 
you know we provide tax subsidies for American businesses that want to 
ship their jobs overseas? We call it deferral of income. It is one of 
the most expensive parts of the Tax Code. It says if you want to move 
your business overseas and produce overseas and generate a profit, you 
can hang on to that money. You don't have to pay taxes on it. We defer 
the payment of taxes. There is a tax break for a company that has 
decided to pick up and leave America and go someplace else. Why? Why 
would we create a tax incentive to do that? If a company decides that 
is the way to make a profit, so be it. I am sorry they would be leaving 
America, but for goodness sake, they shouldn't expect us and we 
shouldn't volunteer to subsidize that decision that costs good-paying 
jobs in our country.
  There are a variety of other smaller tax subsidies, those we have to 
raise questions about. That is for sure. Tax subsidies for people who 
are lucky enough to own a yacht? We want to give them a tax subsidy? Or 
people who are lucky enough to own a jet plane? People who are lucky 
enough to have thoroughbred horses? Most of the winners who stand at 
the winner's circle of these race don't look like regular working 
stiffs. They look like folks who are doing pretty well in life. Why is 
the Tax Code subsidizing that particular industry? I think it is a 
valuable and important question.
  Why don't we put these things on the table? Why don't we ask 
ourselves whether, at a time of deficit, when we need to not only 
reduce spending but come up with revenue, that there are some things we 
can no longer afford under our Tax Code?
  Bowles-Simpson went a step further and said, If you start making 
substantial changes and reducing the tax expenditures, deductions, and 
credits, you can actually reduce marginal income tax rates for 
individuals and businesses. I think that is a valuable thing to look 
at. We don't have to eliminate everything in the Tax Code, but making 
substantial changes could result in a fairer, more comprehensive tax 
system.
  Let me say one other thing that I think is guiding me in this debate 
and I think you as well. I think about an America, a nation of values 
that has always said we have got to care for the most vulnerable people 
in our country. Some of these people, through no fault of their own, 
were born with physical and mental shortcomings and limitations. Some 
of them are dealing with illnesses that we wouldn't wish on anyone. 
Many come from an impoverished background and are struggling to make do 
with the basics in life. I feel, at the end of the day, we can make 
this economy move forward, and we can do it in a sensible and humane 
way. We can protect the basic safety net. One of the elements in that 
safety net is Medicaid.

  Yesterday, I had a meeting with some people I respect very much. They 
came in to see me. They represented the heads of children's hospitals 
from all over the United States, even from your State. My family has 
relied on those children's hospitals in Washington, DC, and in Chicago 
and other places, and thank goodness they are

[[Page S4285]]

there. I do not know of a more caring, competent profession in America.
  More than most hospitals, children's hospitals bring in patients on 
Medicaid. These are patients who are not from families who are wealthy, 
they are not from families who have private health insurance policies--
no, by and large, they are the poorest families.
  One-third of the children in America are covered by Medicaid. That is 
where they get their health care. If we talk about cutting back on 
Medicaid, this program for low-income and disabled people, those 
children will be unfortunate victims in that budget discussion. Also, a 
large part of Medicaid goes for elderly people who have spent their 
life savings and are living their last years in nursing homes and 
convalescent centers. Medicaid pays that. Cutbacks in Medicaid run the 
real risk of pushing those people out of quality care into lower 
quality care or the streets.
  Is that what America is all about? Would we preserve a tax break for 
a person who owns thoroughbred horses and then say that unfortunately 
that elderly lady has to leave the nursing home she has been in? Would 
we preserve a tax break for someone who owns a yacht and say that 
unfortunately we will not be able to cover the cost of a needed surgery 
for a poor child at a children's hospital in Chicago.
  If that sounds like an exaggeration, it is not. That is what this 
debate comes to--whether we want to defend tax breaks for the well-off 
people in America at the expense of the most vulnerable. We are better 
than that, and most well-off people whom I know--and I have friends who 
are doing very well in life--would not be afraid to pay a little bit 
more in taxes to make sure America continues to move forward. They feel 
blessed to be part of this country and blessed to be successful in this 
country, and they do not resent the suggestion that they need to pay a 
little more when times are difficult. They are certainly prepared to 
sacrifice.
  Some come to the floor here and think it is an outrage to ask oil 
companies not to take a subsidy in their most profitable year. They 
think it is an outrage to ask the most wealthy people in America to 
give up a tax break on a jet they happen to own and use for personal 
purposes or business purposes. I don't think that is what America is 
about, and I don't think that is what we should be about.
  Let's come together in a bipartisan fashion and make the spending 
cuts which need to be made, both on the defense side and the nondefense 
side, and then deal with revenue sources, either making certain that 
those in the highest income categories are paying their fair share of 
taxes or at least do not receive the current tax subsidies that are 
going their way, and let's deal with the reality of this budget 
deficit.
  Time is a-wasting. If we wait until August 1 to get this done, it may 
be too late. At some point, if we are not careful, 30 bond dealers 
somewhere in the United States or some other country may start this 
ball rolling before we do. If they do, questioning the credit 
reputation of the United States of America, interest rates will start 
moving up and we will not be able to move fast enough to stop it. That 
is why the President was impatient yesterday. That is why we should be 
in session this next week. And that is why we need to start rolling up 
our sleeves and stop walking out of meetings on budget negotiations and 
stay in the room until we get the job done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to be sure where we are now. 
Are we in morning business at this point in time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that only so I have some 
recognition of what the time availability is. I do not plan to take too 
long.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10-minute grants.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder what the American public 
thinks about when they see an empty Chamber, hear mutterings about 
class warfare. What puzzles me is, which class is making war against 
which class and where are the casualties? As we look around, I ask the 
question, Are we picking on the poor rich folk, those with abundant 
wealth, those who earn over $1 million a year, those who have been 
fortunate enough to have been able to bring their talent, their 
ability, to the world's most important stage? Are they immune from 
taking a bit part on the stage of human concerns once in a while 
because they are being asked to make an extra contribution to the well-
being of our country? I don't think so. I don't think so. I am one of 
those who are fortunate and feel lucky enough to succeed because of a 
government action. Few of us--certainly not me--who served in the 
military achieved the status of a hero like our friend, Dan Inouye, who 
sacrificed so greatly for his country and has the highest medal awarded 
for bravery America can give. But because I did my duty, I was serious 
about it, and I served overseas, I was rewarded with the GI bill to pay 
my college education and even given a little stipend with that. It 
turned my life around. It enabled me to be one of three founders of a 
company called ADP, a company employing 45,000 people.

  Our parents were poor. We worried about meals on the table. We 
couldn't afford the right kind of clothing. We couldn't afford a 
bicycle that my mother bought me for my birthday. My father argued 
about whether it had to be taken back because it was $1 a week and we 
couldn't afford it.
  Mr. President, 45,000 people. ADP is one of America's most successful 
companies. I don't want to dwell on this, but it's one of the companies 
with the longest growth record in profits, 10 percent each and every 
year, for 42 years in a row--42 years in a row. A kid from the back of 
the candy store.
  So I look at our country, and I look at what it is we are trying to 
do, and it is hard to figure out. What happened? Why are we looking at 
these drastic cuts in programs that can help people? Why are we not 
engaged in ways to help people, to continue to provide help and 
assistance to help them get along in life and to be prepared to take 
over the leadership of the future.
  Are our friends on the Republican side willing to end Medicare as we 
know it, decimating one of the most successful programs in the history 
of our country? They are willing to unravel the very fabric of our 
Nation and critical services that helped families struggling to give 
their kids a decent education, good health, a future, a job 
opportunity? What is it they want to take away with these cuts?
  I can tell you, as a businessman for a long time--30 years before I 
got here--I am accustomed to looking at business sheets and financial 
statements. And one doesn't have to be an accountant or executive to 
understand that on a financial statement there are two parts, two 
significant parts: one is expenses, costs; the other is revenues. 
Revenues is the income you have to get in order to be able to afford to 
pay the expenses. If all you want to do is just cut expenses, then you 
are cutting the sinew and the flesh and there is not much left.
  Here is what ought to happen--we should be saying to those who are 
the wealthiest: living with wealth is a pleasure, but that doesn't mean 
you don't have an obligation to the country and to have to do something 
a little different. Instead, they are making the wealthy wealthier, the 
most privileged more privileged than they have been, and that is true.
  When you look at the big oil companies pocketing $4 billion a year 
each and every year, those are tax breaks that are unconscionable. But 
when you look at this--and I think about a period of time when I was 
growing up, and I look at a time during the war, World War II, and we 
had a program called the Excess Profits Tax. We said those companies 
are making so much money, they have to do their share and be helpful to 
the country at large and to make certain they pay some share of what 
the country is going through.
  I just checked because I wanted to be sure. To date we have lost 
4,400 Americans to the war in Iraq. We have lost over 1,600 to the war 
in Afghanistan. Those are homes that are without a son, a daughter, a 
brother, a father at

[[Page S4286]]

home. Where is the sacrifice on the part of the others here? No, no. We 
have to take care of the rich. We have to make sure they are more 
comfortable than they are. Whether it is a bigger yacht or a bigger 
airplane or a bigger house, we have to protect those people. They don't 
need any protection. What they need to do is share in the pain America 
is going through, and this is a reminder for me.
  Make no mistake, greed is the fuel that drives Big Oil, and it is 
time we end their free ride on the taxpayers' dime. The big five oil 
companies have made almost $1 trillion in profit in the past decade. 
That is quite a reward for these folks. BP, $7.1 billion in the first 3 
months of 2011 as they ground out the environment in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Imagine, $7.1 billion. ExxonMobil, $10 billion in a quarter. 
Shell, $8 billion. These are rounding numbers in a quarter. They don't 
need help. What they need is to help their country work its way through 
the crisis that we are in now.
  But then we see what is being asked by those on the other side: They 
want us to have sympathy, have sensitivity toward the wealthiest among 
us because they cannot afford extra money. They cannot afford it--no, 
they cannot afford it because the other people are doing the 
sacrificial work and they don't want to help those kids get an 
education. They don't want to help those families to be able to provide 
a future for their children. They don't want to be able to help the 
families who need health care for the job market. That is not what they 
are about. So why should we use some of the money to invest in America, 
take down our debt, prepare young people for responsibilities for the 
future.
  Big Oil's greed is helping to inflate our deficit and every day 
Americans are footing the bill, going up to the gas station. When 
somebody has to spend $40 to $50 to fill up a tank of gas, very often 
it is at a sacrifice for other things in their lives. It is terrible. 
And you see this all over.
  We have a Republican Governor in the State of New Jersey right now, 
who is doing major cutting, and the result is that a family who makes 
$24,000 a year now, family income, will have to spend over $1,000 a 
year more for their health services. Mr. President, $1,000 to a family 
making $24,000 gross. A family who earns $60,000 will have to spend 
over $3,000 to pay for their health care.
  Why wouldn't my colleagues on the other side--there are a lot of 
intelligent people, and I am sure they are sympathetic people--want to 
put a stop to this madness? Why wouldn't they say: Time to run up the 
flag, and we are all proud to be Americans, and we are grateful for 
what has happened to us? Instead they are saying: You have to have 
more. If you make $10 million a year, you have to have more. If you 
make $20 million or more--whatever it is--you need more. It is an 
outrage.
  Big Oil is doing everything in its power to protect its subsidies, 
and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to help them. 
Last month 45 Republican Senators voted against ending these wasteful 
subsidies and using the money to reduce the deficit. Last week they 
chose to walk out on deficit-reduction negotiations rather than even 
considering putting a stop to Big Oil giveaways.
  Making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes is not going to 
hurt the industry. It just means Big Oil executives might have to do 
with a smaller swimming pool or wait a little while longer to buy a 
bigger yacht. It is clearly offensive, and they are not helping. They 
are not helping lift the spirit of America. People are discouraged. 
They are worried about losing their homes. They are worried about their 
kids not be being able to get an education that they are emotionally, 
intellectually qualified for because they don't have the money because 
it is not available to them.
  When we look at what has happened here--and you have to be fair. When 
this poor guy, the CEO of Exxon, is earning only $29 million a year, 
come on. Give him a break. He has to have a chance to preserve more of 
that income. Why should he pay to help this country weather the storm, 
weather the wars, weather the recession?
  ConocoPhillips, he is not doing as good as the first guy. He only 
made $18 million in 2010. The third one, Chevron, their CEO only made 
$16 million. You know how the money gets to them? Through nickels, 
dimes, quarters, and dollars at the gasoline pump. That is how the 
money gets to them. How else can this CEO pay be afforded except from 
those who pull up to the gas station and say they have to buy 10 
gallons of gas. Mr. President, 10 gallons of gas around here is about 
$45. It is a lot of money.
  But instead of being fiscally responsible by ending the Big Oil big 
windfall, Republicans have another idea. They want to cut the deficit 
by ending Medicare as we know it, the most successful program in 
American history, perhaps, next to Social Security.
  Seniors are struggling, Big Oil certainly is not. I don't think these 
fellows are struggling. I don't think they are doing without anything. 
I wish the other side would listen a little more closely to what the 
American people want. Almost three-quarters of the Americans want us to 
stop giving billions of tax breaks to big oil companies each year. The 
American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, ineffective, and 
basically immoral.
  We should take the $4 billion we give away to Big Oil each year and 
use that money to pay down our deficit. That is a good idea. If we can 
do that, then it starts to make things a lot easier to continue to 
provide the services that are critical, essential to the average 
family.
  We cannot restore fiscal sanity here until we start paying more 
attention to the revenue column in our ledger. As I said before, I was 
a CEO for many years, 30 years before I got here, and I know you cannot 
run a company or a country without a good, strong revenue flow. So I 
call on my colleagues, please, listen to what your country needs. See 
what you can do to make the country stronger. If our middle class, our 
modest-income class starts to fail along the way, we will not be able 
to conduct business as usual. It is for your own protection. Get with 
it. Make sure they understand that you cannot just get more of what is 
coming out; that you have to give something back to this great country 
of ours.
  I call on my colleagues: Get Big Oil off the Federal welfare roll. 
Let's invest in our country's future and not have larger windfalls for 
oil industry lobbyists and lawyers. We have to make sure our children 
and our grandchildren inherit a country that is fiscally sound, morally 
responsible, able to provide health care, able to provide an education, 
able to guarantee that a child can prepare to be a leader in the 
future. We have to make sure that everybody sees a chance for 
themselves to succeed, to not be dependent on government programs, but 
at least be able to have those programs to get them started in life.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________