[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5036-S5044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now reaching a critical hour in the 
Congress of the United States on the question of extending the debt 
limit of the Nation and of fundamentally dealing with the debt of the 
Nation. I don't think there is any serious person in either body who 
does not understand that we must deal with the debt itself as we extend 
the debt limit. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. The 
gross debt of the United States will reach 100 percent of our GDP by 
the end of this year. The best economists in the country, of whatever 
philosophical stripe, are telling us we are on an unsustainable course 
that must be changed.
  Mr. President, in the midst of this, we have had the House so far 
unable to send us a package. Now, we are told they do have the votes 
because they have added a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
as part of their package. The balanced budget amendment they previously 
proposed in the House of Representatives can never pass the Senate--at 
least as this body is currently constituted--and it should not pass 
this body. It is deeply flawed. To attach that to a measure that has to 
pass both Houses before Tuesday of next week, frankly, is an indication 
of a lack of seriousness on the part of our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives.
  Ultimately, there has to be a bipartisan agreement. Our friends in 
the other party control the House of Representatives, the Senate is 
controlled by my party, the Democratic Party, and we have a Democrat in 
the White House. No serious person can fail to understand that putting 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is deeply 
flawed into that package absolutely guarantees it cannot pass in this 
Chamber. That would take a two-thirds vote. I don't believe it would 
even command a simple majority here, much less a two-thirds vote.
  So here we are at the eleventh hour, and people in the other body 
seemingly are still not serious about coping with the challenge of both 
extending the debt limit to avoid a default, which would be 
catastrophic, and dealing with the debt itself. I understand 
ideological rigidity. The time for that is past. The time now is to 
work together in some reasonable way so we advance legislation that 
both extends the debt limit to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a 
default and deals with the debt threat itself.
  The New York Times on Wednesday had this story: ``On All Levels of 
the Economy, Concern About the Impasse.'' What they were talking about 
is the rating agencies saying that if we don't do both, if we don't 
extend the debt limit and deal effectively with the debt itself, they 
are going to downgrade the rating of our credit as a country. The story 
goes on to say:

       Economists and analysts are trying to gauge the costs to 
     the economy and consumers if the United States loses its 
     solid-gold credit rating--a move that appears more likely now 
     that the stand-off in Washington over government spending has 
     calcified. Some economists say the effects of lowering the 
     Federal Government's credit rating

[[Page S5037]]

     to AA from AAA can be measured in the billions of dollars in 
     increased borrowing costs for the government and in the 
     billions more that consumers, corporations, states, and 
     municipalities will have to pay for their credit. It also 
     could erode consumer and business confidence, slowing even 
     further the economy and job creation.

  It has started already. We have just learned the latest numbers on 
economic growth. They were a tepid 1.3 percent. This uncertainty being 
created by a failure to deal with our debt and with an extension of the 
debt limit is creating a headwind for our economy, reducing economic 
growth, slowing job creation, and costing us a stronger recovery.
  I want to remind colleagues that every 1 percentage point increase in 
interest rates adds $1.3 trillion to the deficits. So kicking this can 
down the road and not facing up to it has enormous consequences: $1.3 
trillion added debt for every 1 percent increase in interest rates. 
This is just the effect on the Federal Government. Trillions more would 
be the effect on consumers, on companies, and on other levels of 
government with an increase in interest rates.
  The proposal by the Speaker that apparently the House is now prepared 
to send us has fatal flaws, and here they are:
  First of all, it would repeat the default crisis in just 6 months. 
That would continue the uncertainty and put the economy at further 
risk. Our friends on the other side have repeatedly said how 
uncertainty is hurting this economy, and now they themselves want to 
create more uncertainty. It makes no sense.
  The Boehner plan includes significantly less deficit reduction than 
does the Reid plan. The Boehner plan, as I understand it--we have not 
been able to calculate his newest version fully--was in the range of $1 
trillion of savings. Majority Leader Reid's plan is well over $2 
trillion of savings.
  Third, the Boehner plan provides no firewall between security and 
nonsecurity spending. That means even deeper cuts on the domestic side 
of the ledger because we all know what happens if you don't have a 
firewall.
  Finally, it requires an irresponsible balanced budget amendment 
approach that has been clearly rejected here and will be rejected 
again. That is certain.
  Standard & Poor's has warned against repeated debt ceiling debates. 
Here is what they said on July 26:

       We would be concerned if we thought that the debt ceiling 
     debate would come back and be open and we'd have to go 
     through all this again and again and again. That would be a 
     negative, in our view.

  This is the rating agency that determines what the interest rates 
will be on the debt of our country--not directly but indirectly because 
if they rate down our creditworthiness, that will increase interest 
rates. So they are sending a very clear signal: Don't do the Speaker 
Boehner plan that has only a 6-month extension and repeat this whole 
process and create more uncertainty and put the economy further at 
risk. To avoid a U.S. credit rating downgrade, S&P wants to see a 
bipartisan debt-reduction effort, not the totally partisan approach 
Speaker Boehner has for the moment chosen to pursue. I don't know what 
could be more clear.
  The other body is in control of our friends in the other party; this 
body is in control of the Democrats. At the end of the day, we have to 
come together. We have to work together.
  Now, I have been part of two efforts to work together.
  Last year, the fiscal commission--18 of us were given the 
responsibility to come up with a plan to get our debt under control. At 
the end of the day, 11 of the 18 agreed on a plan--5 Democrats, 5 
Republicans, and 1 Independent--fully bipartisan. I was proud to be 
part of the 11 who agreed to that plan.
  This year, I have been part of the Group of 6--3 Democrats, 3 
Republicans--who were asked by about 30 of our colleagues to see if we 
could find a way to implement the findings of the commission because 
for the commission's findings to be implemented, they had to have a 
super-supermajority. They had to have 14 of the 18 agree, and even 
though we had 11 of 18, it wasn't enough. So about 30 Senators met at 
the beginning of this year, the end of last, and asked a group of us--
6, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans--to see if we could come up with a 
bipartisan plan. We worked all year, hundreds of hours, and we have 
agreed. We have laid out a plan for our colleagues. It is the only 
bipartisan plan before either Chamber.
  Speaker Boehner at this late hour is still pursuing a plan only on 
the Republican side of the aisle and only in one Chamber. That can't 
possibly be a recipe for success.
  David Beers, Standard & Poor's global head of sovereign ratings, said 
this on July 26:

       We will measure the deal on a number of parameters. One is, 
     is it credible? And credibility, among other things, means to 
     us that there has to be some buy-in across the political 
     divide, across both parties, because politics can and will 
     change going forward. And if there's ownership by both sides 
     of the program, then that would give us more confidence. It's 
     not just about the number. It's about the all-in intent.

  Mr. President, are our colleagues listening? The solution cannot be 
found on just one side of the aisle in one Chamber. This is going to 
require bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. We are going to have to act 
like adults, not like kids in a schoolyard pointing fingers, spreading 
rumors, spreading blame. That will not lead to success.
  Here is the circumstance we face. The red line is the spending line 
of the United States going back 60 years, and the green line is the 
revenue line of the United States going back 60 years. What you can see 
is that the revenue of the United States as a share of our national 
income is the lowest it has been in 60 years. Spending as a share of 
our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. Revenue is 
the lowest, spending is the highest--that is why we have record 
deficits. Clearly, you have to work both sides of the equation to get a 
solution.
  Some of our friends on the other side are saying: Don't touch 
revenue. Some of our friends on both sides are saying: Ah, and don't 
touch entitlements. Don't touch Medicare, don't touch Social Security, 
don't touch Medicaid.
  If you can't touch revenue and you can't touch the entitlements, you 
can't solve the problem by definition. When you are borrowing 40 cents 
of every dollar and you exclude all revenue--that is half the 
equation--and you exclude 60 percent of Federal spending--if you 
eliminated all the rest of Federal spending, every dime for defense, 
for nondefense discretionary, if you eliminated every dime, it wouldn't 
solve the problem. At some point we have to get serious and real with 
the American people. The balanced budget amendment our colleagues in 
the House sent us previously, that has already been rejected here once. 
Now they are putting it in the package to send to us again at the 
eleventh hour--it is a balanced budget amendment that is as deeply 
flawed as any amendment I have seen in 25 years in this Chamber.

  Let me review what our friends on the other side sent us in a 
balanced budget amendment that was rejected here just in the last few 
weeks:
  No. 1, it would restrict the ability to respond to economic 
downturns--meaning we would compound the decline. That is bad 
economics, and it is not going to pass.
  No. 2, it uses Social Security funds to calculate balance and 
subjects that program to the same cuts as other Federal spending even 
though Social Security has its own trust fund and is separately funded.
  No. 3, it shifts the ultimate decisions on budgeting to unelected and 
unaccountable judges.
  No. 4, it requires a State ratification process that could take years 
to complete. We don't have years to wait for a State ratification 
process for a constitutional amendment. We need to make these spending 
and revenue decisions ourselves, and do it now. It is our 
responsibility. Let's not wait for the States to ratify a 
constitutional amendment before we take the action that is necessary.
  The balanced budget amendment the House previously sent us has the 
risk of turning a recession into a depression. Why do I say that? There 
is no provision in the amendment they sent us for an economic downturn 
as being an exemption from the balanced budget requirement. That is 
Hoover economics all over again. How many times do we have to learn the 
harsh lesson that when we are in an economic freefall, the only entity 
big enough to pull us out is the collective organization of

[[Page S5038]]

our government? That is the only place that has the muscle to prevent a 
recession from turning into a depression. The balanced budget amendment 
our colleagues sent us before would absolutely lock down the Federal 
Government's ability to respond. That would be a profound mistake and 
contradict all we have learned in economics since the Great Depression.
  This is what Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise 
Institute, said about this constitutional amendment. He called it a 
``really dumb idea.''
  This is what he said:

       Few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more 
     destructive in reality than a balanced budget amendment.
       Here is why: Nearly all our States have balanced budget 
     requirements. That means when the economy slows, States are 
     forced to raise taxes or slash spending at just the wrong 
     time, providing a fiscal drag when what is needed is 
     countercyclical policy to stimulate the economy. In fact, the 
     fiscal drag from the states in 2009-2010, was barely 
     countered by the Federal stimulus plan. That meant the 
     Federal stimulus provided was nowhere near what was needed 
     but far better than doing nothing. Now imagine that scenario 
     with a federal drag instead.

  The Washington Post ran an editorial about the House balanced budget 
amendment headlined, ``A Bad Idea Returns.''

       Rewriting the Constitution is the wrong way to deal with 
     the debt.

  Here is what they said in their editorial:

       Worse yet, the latest version would impose an absolute cap 
     on spending as a share of the economy.
       It would prevent Federal expenditures from exceeding 18 
     percent of the Gross Domestic Product in any year. Most 
     unfortunately, the amendment lacks a clause letting the 
     government exceed that limit to strengthen a struggling 
     economy. No matter how shaky the State of the Union, 
     policymakers would be prevented from adopting emergency 
     spending such as, the extension of unemployment insurance and 
     other countercyclical expenses that have helped cushion the 
     blow of the current economic downturn.

  It doesn't stop there. This is what Senator McCain said on the 
Republican balanced budget amendment proposal on July 27:

       What is amazing about this, some members are believing we 
     can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in 
     this body with its present representation, and that is 
     foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many 
     of our constituents. . . . That is not fair to the American 
     people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the 
     debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarro. Maybe some people 
     who have only been in this body for 6 or 7 months or so 
     believe that. Others know better. . . . It is time we 
     listened to the markets. It is time we listened to our 
     constituents. Most of all, it is time we listened to the 
     American people and sit down and seriously negotiate 
     something. . . .

  Senator McCain had it exactly right. Sending us a deeply flawed 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States at 
the eleventh hour is not designed to achieve a result. It is designed 
to achieve a headline, a bumper sticker slogan that will not help us 
solve the problem.
  Here is what a top economic adviser to former President Reagan said 
about the House balanced budget amendment. This is Bruce Bartlett, a 
former Reagan administration top economic adviser. He said:

       I have previously explained the idiocy of right wing 
     advocates . . . of a balanced budget amendment. However, the 
     new Republican balanced budget proposal is especially 
     dimwitted. . . . In short this is quite possibly the 
     stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. 
     It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the 
     back of a napkin. Every Senator cosponsoring this balanced 
     budget amendment should be ashamed of themselves.

  That is from a former top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. Is 
anybody listening? Is anybody paying attention to how far off base 
things have slipped in the other body to send us at this moment, at 
this critical juncture, a plan that has absolutely no chance of passing 
in this body, and should not?
  What is so deeply flawed is--in addition to the other points I have 
made--the balanced budget amendment the House Republicans sent us 
earlier set a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP. Well, let's add up 
what that would mean.
  We can see Social Security is the red band. That is about 5 percent 
of GDP. If we add defense and all other nonhealth care spending, that 
takes us up to about 16.5 percent of GDP. Interest on the debt takes us 
to over 18 percent of GDP.
  Do you notice what is missing? Medicare. In the Republican plan they 
sent to us with a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, if we fund Social 
Security, if we fund defense and other nonhealth spending, and we fund 
interest on the debt, there is no money left. There is no money for 
Medicare. There is no money for Medicaid. There is no money for any 
health care spending. That is what the House of Representatives sent us 
in the last several weeks as a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
  When some on our side called it cut, cap, and kill Medicare, they 
were not kidding. If we add it up, it does not add up. Not only that, 
the balanced budget amendment our colleagues in the House sent us in 
the last few weeks also said it would take a two-thirds vote to get any 
additional revenue even though revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 
years. They would apply a two-thirds requirement to get more revenue. 
Really? So they would protect with a two-thirds vote requirement every 
tax scam, every offshore tax haven, every abusive tax shelter that is 
currently being used by some to avoid and evade the taxes they owe our 
country.
  I have shown this picture on the floor of the Senate many times. This 
is a little building in the Cayman Islands. It is a little five-story 
building that claims to be home to 18,857 companies. They all say this 
is their business headquarters. I have said that is the most efficient 
building in the world. A little five-story building down there, and it 
is the headquarters of 18,000 companies. Anybody believe that? Anybody 
believe that 18,000 companies are operating out of that little building 
down in the Cayman Islands? They are not operating their businesses out 
of there. They are engaged in a giant tax scam to make all the rest of 
us pick up their responsibilities.
  All of us who pay what we owe are getting stuck by the companies that 
are hiding out in this little building down in the Cayman Islands 
avoiding the taxes they owe our country. There are no taxes down in the 
Cayman Islands, so they operate out of this little building down there, 
five-story building, 18,000 companies. They avoid paying the taxes they 
owe and stick all the rest of us with the responsibility. That is not 
right.
  The constitutional amendment our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives sent us would protect that behind a wall of a two-
thirds vote, which means we would have an impossible time ever fixing 
this problem. It is hard to get a 60-percent vote much less two-thirds. 
They would protect every offshore tax haven, every abusive tax shelter, 
every unfair tax preference that is in the current code because they 
would require a two-thirds vote to change it. That flawed amendment is 
not going to pass the Senate--not now, not later this year, not next 
year because it, itself, would require a two-thirds vote. It is not 
going to happen. So I would say to our colleagues in the other Chamber 
that sending us a totally partisan approach with a deeply flawed 
constitutional amendment is not going to work. It is not going to help 
solve the problem.

  Now is the time for us to join in a serious dialogue about solving 
the problem--solving the debt threat overhanging the country which will 
require not a $1 trillion package as is in the House offering but a $4 
trillion package. The occupant of the chair well knows of what I speak. 
He was Governor of West Virginia. He dealt with a fiscal crisis in his 
State, and he guided his State through that crisis not by operating 
just on one side of the aisle but by working together with people on 
both sides to come up with solutions, not political slogans.
  We are way beyond that. We are within days of a default on the debt 
of the United States that would have catastrophic consequences for the 
economy of our country.
  It is time. It is time, I say to my colleagues, to come together to 
do something that can pass--to deal, yes, with the debt limit but also 
to deal with the debt itself. It will be an empty gesture if we just 
extend the debt limit and we don't deal with the debt itself.
  Our leader, to his credit, has put something together that begins to 
take ideas from both sides of the aisle to try

[[Page S5039]]

to resolve this crisis. It would save the Nation from an immediate 
economic crisis. It would provide a significant downpayment on deficit 
reduction--more than $2 trillion--and it would put in place a special 
joint congressional committee, equally divided, Democrats and 
Republicans, to find additional savings. Also, there is no new revenue 
in this plan. Our friends on the other side have thus far said--at 
least in the House of Representatives--they can accept no new revenue, 
none, not a penny. So our leader has said: OK. I don't like that, but 
if that is your line in the sand, for right now we will accept it so we 
can find a solution both sides can support. So no new revenue, more 
than $2 trillion of spending cuts, and a special joint committee to 
come up with a plan to achieve even greater savings. That is a pretty 
good offer to the other side to say: We hear you. We want to work with 
you because we need a solution.
  We are just days away from a true crisis, one that would be self-
inflicted. I say to my colleagues, let's not go there. Let's come 
together. We have shown we can do it in the past. We need to do it 
now--not with blame, not with finger-pointing, but by saying this is a 
time to join together, to stand shoulder to shoulder to prevent 
irreparable damage being done to our country.
  I say to my colleagues: Now is the time, this day, we have to find a 
way to come together.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling and making 
reforms, or budget cuts at least, that would allow us to show we are 
not going to have business as usual in Washington but that we are going 
to raise the debt ceiling with the necessary reforms.
  Despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three 
concerns:
  First, we do know at this point, because of the time it has taken us 
to cobble together something that could be put through both of our 
Houses and signed by the President, that we have fundamental 
differences in the principles of how we should run our government. I 
think it is very clear that Republicans have stood for no taxes, 
especially in this economic environment. We believe piling taxes on top 
of the cost of the Obama health care system that is in the process of 
being implemented would keep our businesses from hiring people and 
getting this 9.2-percent unemployment rate down. I think we all agree 
we need to bring that unemployment rate down, but we have fundamental 
differences about what is causing it and how we can solve it.
  No. 2, we all agree, I believe, or 95 percent of us agree, that we 
cannot default on the debt in our country. I do believe in both Houses 
the vast majority believe we should not go into default. The costs of a 
default are not being considered nearly enough. The costs of a default, 
of interest rates going up, of having to give backpay, having to 
correct some of the many issues we will face by having some of the 
people who are owed money but not paid, and having to pay interest and 
extra interest if we are in default. We cannot allow that to happen. I 
think we all agree on that.
  We are all troubled with the delay in resolving this issue. The delay 
I think has been caused for many reasons. Of course, our fundamental 
differences are one. But I believe that although Members of Congress 
and leaders in Congress have been talking for a long time, the 
President has never put forward a real plan.
  The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have put forward 
plans. I believe there is a common ground that can be found between 
these two proposals. But they are not the same. In fact, I think the 
Republican leader in the Senate has also put forward a plan, and I 
think we are seeing the different pieces of the plans that have been 
put forward now starting to come together.
  I believe the Boehner plan is a good one. I believed in the cut, cap, 
and balance legislation, where you cut spending now to make your 
downpayment, you cap spending every year for the next 10 years at a 
level that brings down the overall deficit, and you send a balanced 
budget amendment to the States for ratification. I feel so certain if 
we could pass a balanced budget amendment from this Congress and send 
it to the States, it would be ratified and it would put us on the real 
course for fiscal responsibility, the course that would assure that 
Social Security is sound, that Medicare works, and that our children 
and grandchildren will not inherit a debilitating debt that hurts our 
economy. So I do believe that cut, cap, and balance legislation was the 
right way forward. But Congress is split. We have a majority of 
Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. Therefore, we are 
not going to get everything that any one of us believes is right. 
Certainly we are not going to get the Boehner plan in the Senate. But 
it is the right approach, and we will have to take a few steps at a 
time and I hope we will be able to come to terms on a way forward with 
the principles of cutting spending, putting a cap on spending, and not 
raising the debt ceiling any more than the cuts that can be counted.
  That is what concerns me about the Reid plan. Senator Reid is calling 
for $2.7 trillion in an increase in the debt ceiling. The purpose, as 
the President has stated, is to get through the next election in 2012 
and not deal with this again. But the next election should not be the 
focus. The focus should be, how do we show that our country is on the 
right track to get this enormous debt whittled down by whittling down 
the deficits and having sound budget principles.
  This $2.7 trillion would be the largest debt ceiling increase in the 
history of America. The previous largest debt limit increase was $1.9 
trillion, which President Obama signed into law in February of last 
year.
  This debt ceiling increase in Senator Reid's proposal is not paid 
for. It offers $1 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion increase. Many 
of those cuts are illusory. They are not cuts that can be counted. To 
say we are going to label $1 trillion of cuts savings from leaving 
Afghanistan and Iraq is not credible. We don't know what the obstacles 
are going to be in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. We also don't know 
what we might have to do in the Middle East going forward. Afghanistan 
is not settled. We have to have a certain level of stability on the 
ground in Afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions we have 
already spent and the lives of our military personnel in Afghanistan 
because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for 
terrorism that will or can come to our country. It did once already. We 
have been over there to try to wipe out al-Qaida and the Taliban. We 
have been over there losing American lives and spending American 
taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. To say we 
are going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next 10 years when 
we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground 
is not sound policy, and it is certainly not sound national security 
policy. So that is illusory.
  Then the other parts of the cuts that I think are very hard to 
decipher are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, which we all want to do, 
but we don't have the guarantee of those cuts.
  I think it is important for us to look at the cuts and try to make 
sure that if we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we raise it only 
the amount of the actual cuts that we can produce.
  In Majority Leader Reid's legislation there is a joint committee. 
There is also one in the Boehner bill. In the majority leader's 
legislation the committee has to report, but its product doesn't have 
to be passed and enacted before the debt ceiling is lifted. That is the 
real problem in Senator Reid's proposal. The bill would lose its 
expedited status, and the joint committee would dissolve on January 13, 
2012 under Senator Reid's proposal and then we would still have the 
lifting of the debt ceiling that has already been enacted. That is not 
the way to go forward.
  The joint committee proposed in the Boehner plan is forced to produce 
savings, and the forcing mechanism in this

[[Page S5040]]

case is the fact that the debt limit can't be increased unless the cuts 
are enacted. So you will keep the governor on the debt increase by 
assuring that there have to be cuts in spending dollar for dollar.
  Third, there is no balanced budget amendment included in the Reid 
proposal and, in fact, there is no requirement that we even vote on a 
balanced budget amendment.
  I know that it would be very difficult to pass a balanced budget 
amendment right now out of Congress, but I do believe it is the best 
thing we could do for the long-term security of our country. So I would 
hope as we come together--because we know the reality here. The Reid 
bill is not going to pass the House and the Boehner bill is probably 
not going to pass the Senate. So we have got to come together with a 
plan. Maybe it is a short-term plan that has a dollar-for-dollar cut 
along with the raising of the debt ceiling or maybe we can get more 
after we dispatch the two bills that are now before the Congress, and 
try to put something together that has the best parts of both.
  I could not support the Reid plan as it is today and I do support the 
Boehner plan, but I also know that neither of them is going to pass the 
other House. So I think it is incumbent on us to now go forward and 
let's quickly start doing the work that could produce results, and that 
is to try to get the best of both of these before the August 2 
deadline. I think we have got to be open to what can work that stays 
within the principles of no tax increases and no debt ceiling increase 
without the same amount of dollars at least to be cut from spending, 
with real cuts that can be assured. I think the American public is 
looking not for promises but for the assurance in the law that we will 
not be able to raise the debt ceiling without some cutting of spending 
and reforms that would equal the amount the debt ceiling has increased. 
We can go forward with those principles which I think both sides would 
agree to at this final few days we have before that debt ceiling is 
reached. It is time to vote on these bills and then get down to the 
real work of determining what is the best in both that we can pass in 
both Houses.

  Thank you.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage 
in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Nation 
watches the activities in the Capitol and on Capitol Hill as someone 
from the State of Wyoming, where we live within our means and balance 
our budget every year, and as a result we actually have a surplus in 
the State. Contrast that to what is happening in Washington with an 
incredible debt--$14 trillion--more than people can actually fathom.

  But people understand spending more than they have or more than comes 
in, and families all around the country realize they can't do that. 
Well, in America, as a nation we have been doing that for many years--
spending money we don't have, sending out more than comes in, to the 
point we have had to borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow. Each time 
we borrow too much, which continues to happen, we have to raise the 
debt ceiling--the amount of money that can be borrowed.
  The President has now asked that we raise the debt ceiling again, but 
he has asked that it be raised the largest amount in the history of our 
country--in the history of this great land. That has an impact on 
people and families all around the country. They are concerned because 
they know they can't spend more than they bring in, they can't spend 
more than they have.
  They think back to the days of John Kennedy saying: ``Ask not what 
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' 
and people in Wyoming are concerned that it may switch one day to: Ask 
not what your country can do for you, ask what your country must do for 
China because last year, of every dollar we spent in this country, 41 
cents of it was borrowed, half of it from overseas, and a lot of it 
from China.
  So how do we stay a great and strong nation, the leader of the world, 
when we owe that kind of money to another country--a country that does 
not necessarily have our own best interests at heart?
  That is why as this debate and discussion is going on about the debt 
ceiling, the debt limit, people in Wyoming tell me their biggest 
concern is not the debt limit, it is the debt. The debt is the threat. 
It is a threat to our own national security. Those aren't just my 
words; those are the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
who said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt.
  So I am so pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by my 
colleague from Nebraska, a neighbor, a next-door neighbor, a former 
Governor of Nebraska, who, as a Governor, lived with a system where he 
had to balance the budget every year, and the buck stopped with him.
  So I ask my colleague from Nebraska, a former Cabinet Member who has 
run a major Cabinet and a department within the U.S. Government, 
perhaps he could share with us what was involved in having to make 
those tough decisions and actually being held to make those decisions.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. It is my pleasure to 
be on the Senate floor with him and to talk about my experience in 
dealing with the reality of a balanced budget amendment.
  As I said a couple of weeks ago when I spoke on the floor about this 
issue, I heard many come to the floor who said: This is a bad idea. 
This is bad policy. Some have even gone so far as to describe it as 
almost kind of a radical approach. I have lived with a balanced budget 
amendment. I have to say I did not find it to be a radical approach 
whatsoever.
  In the State of Nebraska where I was Governor for 6 years, and 
actually prior to that when I was mayor of the State capital, the 
community of Lincoln, I had to balance the budget. I had no choice 
whatsoever about that. In fact, in Nebraska, we had an additional 
provision. Decades and decades ago, when those who wrote the Nebraska 
Constitution started thinking about what kind of State they wanted, I 
think they wisely realized that at some point the politicians would try 
to hand off or give away the State treasury and promise everything to 
everybody for obvious reasons: to get elected, to get reelected.
  So in the State constitution they said we can't borrow over $100,000. 
So we had two requirements. One was that on an annual basis the budget 
had to be balanced, and the spending could not exceed the revenues. The 
second requirement was that we couldn't issue any bonds or debt to 
balance that budget and, in fact, we go so far as to not have any debt 
whatsoever, really. We have a few lease-purchase agreements on some 
equipment, but that is it. We don't even have debt for our highways. We 
don't lay a mile of concrete for a highway if we don't have the money 
to pay for it.
  So for those who have described this as sort of a radical approach, 
let me describe to them how this approach has worked in our State.
  Today in our State, our unemployment rate is 4.1 percent--4.1 
percent. I will go across the State very soon and do townhall meetings 
in large communities--from the largest, Omaha, to some of our very 
smallest. I can almost assure my colleagues that one of the comments I 
will hear in our rural communities where they are working hard to be 
business friendly and grow jobs and opportunities for their residents, 
they will say to me: One of the challenges we have, Mike, is finding 
the skill of labor we need to fill the jobs we are creating.
  I will also share with my colleagues that this experiment--this 
radical approach that some have described--has resulted in a 
legislative session that ended early this year, that balanced the 
budget, and did not borrow any money. I will also share with my 
colleagues that our pensions are funded. There are no stories about 
Nebraska pensions are underfunded; that they

[[Page S5041]]

have been borrowing out of the pensions so someday when somebody 
retires the pension will not be there for them.
  I will wrap up my comments by drawing the contrast. The contrast with 
the government that I find here is this: For over 800 days we haven't 
had a budget. Under the leadership of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, the Democrats, we have not had a budget for now going on 3 
years. We are being asked to approve the largest debt increase in our 
Nation's history. That is what this debate is all about.
  In addition, we are closing in on $15 trillion worth of debt. The 
projection is that in about 4 or 5 years from now we will owe $20 
trillion of debt.
  My colleague mentioned I was in the Cabinet. When I came to join the 
President's Cabinet as the Secretary of Agriculture and I shook the 
Lieutenant Governor's hand who has now been the Governor for 8 years--
he is now the President of the National Governors Association--I wished 
him well. I did not have to say to him: I am very sorry about all the 
debt I have taken on, because there was none. The bills were paid, the 
budget was balanced, the pensions were funded, the unemployment rate 
was low, and he has continued that conservative legacy.
  By comparison, when Barack Obama leaves the Presidency, he will tell 
his successor: I ran up the largest debt in our Nation's history--
larger than any President in front of me. That is the legacy he will 
leave behind for his children and his grandchildren and ours, and that 
is the sobering reality of today's debate.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Nebraska. I think about the fact that he had to use honest 
figures, honest accounting.
  I see now a proposal by the majority leader that, to me, seems to be 
full of accounting gimmicks, tricks, things such as using money as 
savings that was never intended to be spent at all, saying we will save 
all of this money by not being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan for the 
next 10 years and counting $1 trillion in savings when there was never 
even an intention to spend that in the first place. I don't think 
anyone in this body or on Capitol Hill believes we will be at surge 
levels for the next 10 years in 2 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq.
  So I ask my colleague from Nebraska--and we are also joined by our 
colleague from South Dakota--he couldn't have done something like that 
in balancing his budget in Nebraska?
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we would never have done that. Had I 
walked into the unicameral for my State of the State Address and done 
things such as are being proposed here today, I literally would have 
been run out. The State senators would have looked at the Governor and 
said: We need a new Governor. And I think they would have joined in a 
very bipartisan response to that kind of approach.
  My colleague is absolutely right. I looked through the proposal, and 
I have to say, in all due respect to the majority leader, this isn't 
going to get the support I think he hopes for. It isn't going to 
happen. It is going to be voted down. It will not go to the finish line 
because people just can't support it.
  This idea that somehow we are going to get a savings because we are 
not going to be funding the surge levels in Afghanistan, well, no one 
was going to do that. The President wasn't asking for it. That money 
was never requested. So to grab that out, as somebody pointed out--and 
I wish I could remember who--in a column today, they said that is like 
trying to grab a savings based upon the fact that we will not be 
invading Canada this year.
  Well, yes, we are not going to invade Canada, but that is not budget 
savings, and it is not a budget savings to somehow claim we are not 
going to fund the Afghanistan war for the next 10 years at surge levels 
because that was never anticipated.
  I want to solve this problem, but we have to be real with the 
American people about how we are solving this problem--with real 
savings. I know it is painful. My goodness, I have been there. I have 
cut budgets before. I have had to lay off people. But I think we have 
to just be straight with the American people and say this is what it is 
going to take to get there.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota is here, 
and he has been a Member of this body longer than I have. To me, this 
debt ceiling increase seems to be the largest in history by any 
standard, whether we include inflation or not. I think the previous 
largest one was $1.9 trillion, and that was also with this President.
  So when we think about this President and what he inherited and where 
we are now, it seems to me--I would ask my colleague from South Dakota 
to respond--it just seems he is making it worse.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I certainly echo what has been said by my 
neighbors, my colleagues from Nebraska and Wyoming. Their States, as 
well as mine, all have a balanced budget amendment that requires our 
States to live within our means. Our States do it. They do it the old-
fashioned way. They do it by--in our case, in the State of South 
Dakota, this year--having to make some hard decisions about spending. 
But they balanced their budget, and they did it without raising taxes, 
which I think is a great model for what we ought to be doing in 
Washington, DC.
  As the Senator from Wyoming has pointed out, this is the largest 
requested increase in the debt ceiling in history. At $2.4 trillion--
and, of course, I think we are going to be asked at some point to vote 
on the Democratic leader's proposal, which, as both of my colleagues 
have pointed out, doesn't get us there.
  If we even use the standard I think everybody realizes makes a lot of 
sense--and that is if we are going to increase the debt limit by $2.4 
trillion, we also ought to look at how we reduce spending by $2.4 
trillion. That way we are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction in 
spending, and we are fundamentally addressing the real issue, which 
isn't the debt limit, it is the debt.
  We all talk about the debt limit, and it is looming, looking us right 
in the eye right now. But the real issue is the fact that year over 
year over year we continue to spend more than we take in.
  We are not living within our means. Both Senators have talked about a 
balanced budget amendment. I was here as a freshman Congressman in 
1997, the last time that was voted on. It was voted on in the Senate. 
It never made it to the House because it needed a two-thirds vote, and 
it got 66 votes in the Senate. Had it been able to pass here and come 
to the House, I think we would have passed it.
  I cannot help but think how much better our fiscal situation would be 
today had we been able to do that back in 1997, because at that time 
the overall Federal debt was $5 trillion. Today it is $14 trillion. So 
there has been a $9 trillion increase in the Federal debt in that short 
amount of time.
  It is important we tackle this issue. It is important we do it in a 
way so the American people know we are serious--that this is not 
gimmicks, this is not smoke and mirrors and all the things that I think 
make people in this country so cynical about the way Washington, DC, 
operates.
  As the Senator mentioned, the Reid proposal on the debt limit 
essentially counts over $1 trillion in savings that were never going to 
be spent in the first place. So it is a gimmick and it is not real. It 
is phony. We all know that.
  We have to get real. We have to put forward a serious effort if, one, 
we are going to convince the American people we are serious about this, 
but, more importantly, if we are going to do something meaningful about 
getting this spending and debt situation under control.
  I hope we will be able to defeat that when it comes to the floor and 
actually do something, if we can get the House bill over here, which 
has not only spending cuts in the near term but also a process whereby 
we can get some entitlement reform that deals with the big drivers of 
Federal spending; that is, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and 
then also get a vote on a balanced budget amendment such as all of our 
States have on the books and which has enabled our States to live 
within their means, not spend money they do not have, and continue to, 
in spite of this down economy, perform above the average.
  I think of all of our States, probably in terms of unemployment, in 
terms of economic performance--if you look at them relative to other 
areas around

[[Page S5042]]

the country--living within their means. It is a good model if you want 
to have a good, strong economy and create jobs for the people in your 
States. That is something we ought to be doing at the Federal level, 
and that is why it is so important we take the right approach. The bill 
that will come over from the House of Representatives does that. The 
bill that has been proposed by the Senate Democratic leader does not.
  Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting because my colleague from South 
Dakota mentioned this figure, this two point some trillion dollars. 
People in Wyoming last week said: How do they come up with that number? 
Like the Senator, I agree that for every $1 they want to increase the 
debt limit, they should say we should find $1 of real savings, honest 
savings, savings you can point to, as the Senator needed to do as 
Governor, and as we believe here.
  That is what the approach they are dealing with in the House does. 
They have come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling, deal with 
avoiding a default, and they extend this for a number of months.
  People say: Well, how do you get this $2.4 trillion number? The 
President had a White House press conference last week, on July 22, and 
he said--it is astonishing. The President of the United States told the 
country:

       The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend 
     this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

  Not extend the debt ceiling so we can avoid default, not so we can 
focus on jobs and the economy and the overall debt and the spending, 
but so that--as he said, his bottom line, the only bottom line, is that 
we have to extend it beyond the next election.
  Then the Treasury Secretary was on one of the television shows on 
July 24, and he said:

       Most important, we have to lift this threat of default . . 
     . for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the 
     table through the election. . . .

  This debt is the threat. This debt of nearly $15 trillion, going to 
over $20 trillion in the next couple years, to me is the threat. The 
elections can take care of themselves. I think the American people will 
be shocked, astonished, and disappointed to hear that is the 
President's only bottom line.
  I do not know what the Senator's comments or thoughts are on that, 
but I am expecting better.
  Mr. THUNE. If you think about what this debate ought to be about, it 
ought to be about America's economic security. It ought to be about 
making sure we are putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path and 
creating the conditions for economic growth, and I would argue there is 
a direct correlation between those two. If we do not get spending and 
debt under control, I think we are going to bankrupt the country, we 
are going to increase interest rates, we are going to make it more 
difficult and more expensive for businesses in this country to create 
jobs. So clearly there is a direct correlation between the issue of 
spending and debt and the economy. But the economy and the implications 
of what we do here on the economy ought to animate everything we do. We 
ought to be thinking about: How is this going to impact the economy? We 
should not be thinking about politics. That is why it was disturbing to 
hear the President say his prerequisite in all this is that we get 
through the next election. To me, that was a statement that was 
profoundly about politics and certainly not about America's economic 
security, which ought to be first and foremost in our minds.
  Subsequent to that, even yesterday, you had members of the 
President's team suggesting this might somehow disrupt the Christmas 
vacation. I thought: You know, of all the things we ought to be 
thinking about right now, the next election, the next holiday--those 
probably are not going to be consequential if we do not take steps to 
address the issue before us today; that is, this massive increase in 
our Federal debt, the year-over-year deficits we continue to run, the 
fact that we continue to live way outside of our means. That is what I 
think the American people want to see us focused on. I think that is 
what the people of South Dakota certainly want to see us focused on as 
well.
  Mr. JOHANNS. That is exactly what the people of Nebraska want to see 
us focused on.
  The debate that is occurring now absolutely is one of the most 
important debates we have had literally in the history of this country. 
It was encapsulized in a statement in a column today that I read from a 
man I have a lot of respect for, Charles Krauthammer. He said this 
about this debate. He said:

       We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on 
     the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare 
     state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between 
     citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two 
     parties--social-democratic vs. limited-government--have 
     underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's 
     inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care 
     reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. 
     The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental 
     divide.

  He could not be more right. This is a debate that must occur, as 
uncomfortable as it may be. Think of where we have been as a nation in 
the last year and a half. Literally, when the President came to office, 
the first thing he wanted us to do was to pass a trillion-dollar 
stimulus plan, if you factor in the interest that was going to be paid, 
on promises that it was going to fix the economy and employ people, 
that unemployment would not go over 8 percent.
  What happened? Unemployment shot beyond that. Today we see the growth 
of our economy is literally pitiful. There is no way this economic 
growth can deal with employing more people.
  Then what was the next thing? A health care bill that, quite 
honestly, the vast majority of Americans did not want. And by the day, 
story after story, analysis after analysis comes out and says all the 
promises made during this health care debate by the President and the 
Democrats will not be fulfilled. There was a story yesterday that this 
is not going to bring health care costs down. This increases health 
care costs, and it is one thing after another thing after another 
thing.
  The American people spoke loudly and clearly in November. They said: 
Get the fiscal condition of the United States under control. I will say 
this. I do not think anybody is expecting miracles. It took us decades 
to get in this position. It is going to take concerted, conservative 
effort to get out of this position over a period of time. But it is on 
debates such as this where this must start. It is on debates such as 
this where we must force this government to be smaller, to be more 
efficient; otherwise, the legacy we leave behind for our children and 
our grandchildren is $20 trillion of debt in 4 more short years. They 
will have their own wars to fight. I wish they would be free of war. 
But they will have their own wars to fight, their own flu pandemics to 
deal with, their own items on their agenda--education or health care, 
whatever, that they want to improve--and where will they begin? They 
will begin with a $20 trillion debt in 4 years. That, as a nation, 
should be unacceptable to us. That is why we need to do everything we 
can at every stage to turn this around and start this Nation on the 
right course.
  Mr. THUNE. I also had the opportunity to read the very column the 
Senator from Nebraska is referring to, the Krauthammer column this 
morning, and I was struck by many of the same things the Senator 
observed. I think it is important to note that we are a nation 
historically that has believed in a limited role for the government. 
That is what distinguishes us in many respects from some of our 
European allies. I think what this debate on the debt limit does, with 
the broader debates we need to be having here about spending and debt 
and budgets--that is, if we ever had a debate on a budget. As the 
Senator said, we have not had now a budget in 821 days. April 29, 2009, 
was the last time this Senate passed a budget. So it is hard to talk 
about these big issues we need to be focused on when you do not even 
get a budget on the floor of the Senate to have an opportunity to 
debate and vote upon.
  In fact, when you think about the fact that we spend $3.7 trillion 
annually of the American people's tax money, you would think you would 
have some idea, some blueprint, some path of how you are going to spend 
that. Yet we have not had that here. So we have not had an opportunity 
to debate that budget.

[[Page S5043]]

  But this does get at the heart of a very big philosophical 
difference. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have a view of 
government that is much more expansive, which is why I think they can 
explain passing the multitrillion dollar health care bill a year ago 
and the trillion dollar stimulus bill and the new CLASS Act, which is 
going to be another entitlement program that will end up running huge 
deficits into the future.
  I do not think that is what the American people have as a vision for 
this country. I think we need to get back to a role, a size for our 
government that is consistent with the historical average, the 
historical norm. It might surprise some of my colleagues to know, if 
you go back to the formative stages of our Nation's history, in the 
year 1800, we only spent 2 percent of our GDP on our government--2 
percent. This year, we are going to spend over 24 percent. Arguably, 
life has gotten a lot more complicated. There is a lot more going on in 
this country, and certainly there is a responsibility that government 
has. But we have gotten away from the concept that I think is the 
foundation of this great country; that was a belief in a limited role 
for the Federal Government, not this expansive, sort of Western 
European social democracy type approach which the Senator from Nebraska 
alluded to.
  I certainly think the people in my State of South Dakota, and I would 
argue in Wyoming and Nebraska, as I said before, have a history and a 
tradition and a heritage of living within their means. Also, I think 
they have an understanding of what government should and should not do. 
I certainly believe the people whom I represent want us to get back to 
that. And it starts here. It starts now. It starts by getting spending 
under control, by putting Federal spending on a downward trajectory 
instead of this consistent incline we have seen. In the last 2 years, 
we have seen non-national security discretionary spending increase by 
over 24 percent. If you add the stimulus spending in there, it was 84 
percent. That is how much spending has increased in the last 2 years of 
this administration.
  That has to stop. I think the American people sent a loud, clear 
message in November of last year, and it is incumbent upon us to have 
listened to that message and to do everything we can to get this train 
turned around. I think we are going to have a big fight over that 
because the other side believes the way you fix this debt crisis is to 
increase your revenues, to raise taxes, which would be a huge mistake, 
particularly now in the middle of an economic downturn.
  It starts by getting spending under control. It starts by keeping tax 
rates and regulations low on our job creators in this country, and 
creating conditions that are favorable to economic growth and job 
creation, as opposed to what we are seeing now, which is more and more 
regulation, higher taxes, more mandates--all the things that make it 
more difficult for our job creators to do what they do the best; that 
is, to get people in this country back to work.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the column that has been referred to, the Charles 
Krauthammer column from this morning's Washington Post called ``The 
Great Divide.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 29, 2011]

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

                            The Great Divide

       We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on 
     the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare 
     state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between 
     citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two 
     parties--social-democratic vs. limited-government--have 
     underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's 
     inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care 
     reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. 
     The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental 
     divide.
       The sausage-making may be unsightly, but the problem is not 
     that Washington is broken, that ridiculous ubiquitous cliche. 
     The problem is that these two visions are in competition, and 
     the definitive popular verdict has not yet been rendered.
       We're only at the midpoint Obama won a great victory in 
     2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward 
     European-style social democracy The subsequent 
     counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering 
     rebuke in November 2010. Under our incremental system, 
     however, a rebuke delivered is not a mandate conferred. That 
     waits definitive resolution, the rubber match of November 
     2012.
       I have every sympathy with the conservative 
     counterrevolutionaries. Their containment of the Obama 
     experiment has been remarkable. But reversal--roll-back, in 
     Cold War parlance--is simply not achievable until 
     conservatives receive a mandate to govern from the White 
     House.
       Lincoln is reputed to have said: I hope to have God on my 
     side, but I must have Kentucky. I don't know whether 
     conservatives have God on their side (I keep getting sent to 
     His voice mail), but I do know that they don't have 
     Kentucky--they don't have the Senate, they don't have the 
     White House. And under our constitutional system, you cannot 
     govern from one house alone. Today's resurgent conservatism, 
     with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be 
     particularly attuned to this constraint; imposed as it is by 
     a system of deliberately separated--and mutually limiting--
     powers.
       Given this reality, trying to force the issue--turn a 
     blocking minority into a governing authority--is not just 
     counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in 
     practice.
       Consider the Boehner Plan for debt reduction. The Heritage 
     Foundation's advocacy arm calls it ``regrettably 
     insufficient.'' Of course it is. That's what happens when you 
     control only half a branch. But the plan's achievements 
     are significant. It is all cuts, no taxes. It establishes 
     the precedent that debt-ceiling increases must be 
     accompanied by equal spending cuts. And it provides half a 
     year to both negotiate more fundamental reform (tax and 
     entitlement) and keep the issue of debt reduction 
     constantly in the public eye.
       I am somewhat biased about the Boehner Plan because for 
     weeks I've been arguing (in this column and elsewhere) for 
     precisely such a solution: a two-stage debt-ceiling hike 
     consisting of a half-year extension with dollar-for-dollar 
     spending cuts, followed by intensive negotiations on 
     entitlement and tax reform. It's clean. It's understandable. 
     It's veto-proof. (Obama won't dare.) The Republican House 
     should have passed it weeks ago.
       After all, what is the alternative? The Reid Plan with its 
     purported $2 trillion of debt reduction? More than half of 
     that comes from not continuing surge-level spending in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan for the next 10 years. Ten years? We're out 
     of Iraq in 150 days. It's all a preposterous ``saving'' from 
     an entirely fictional expenditure.
       The Congressional Budget Office has found that Harry Reid's 
     other discretionary savings were overestimated by $400 
     billion. Not to worry, I am told. Reid has completely plugged 
     that gap. There will be no invasion of Canada next year (a 
     bicentennial this-time-we're-serious 1812 do-over). Huge 
     savings. Huge.
       The Obama Plan? There is no Obama plan. And the McConnell 
     Plan, a final resort that punts the debt issue to Election 
     Day, would likely yield no cuts at all.
       Obama faces two massive problems--jobs and debt. They're 
     both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: 
     massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high 
     and chronic unemployment--and a staggering debt burden. Obama 
     is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic 
     dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis nicely serves that 
     purpose--if the Republicans play along. The perfect out: 
     Those crazy Tea Partyers ruined the recovery!
       Why would any conservative collaborate with that ploy? 
     November 2012 constitutes the new conservatism's one chance 
     to restructure government and change the ideological course 
     of the country. Why risk forfeiting that outcome by offering 
     to share ownership of Obama's wreckage?

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 4 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I wanted to do that because I also want to have printed 
in the Record--and I will read just a couple of paragraphs--a letter 
that appeared in today's Casper Star Tribune by Eric Mitchell. It is 
titled ``Smarter than you think.'' He says:

       I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young 
     to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt. 
     Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm 
     only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could 
     almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat 
     and get fish for family and friends.

  He is from Crowheart, WY, a small community.
  He said:

       I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my 
     family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five 
     thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than 
     may dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything.

  This is a 10-year-old. He said:


[[Page S5044]]


       Government shouldn't try to buy everything. It is my job 
     and the people's job to buy the things we need. I don't want 
     the government to think for me. They don't know that I'm a 
     little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers tell 
     me what to do, because they aren't always responsible for 
     their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do with 
     their money. I'm smarter than they think I am. They should 
     follow the rules.

  Here you have a youngster in Wyoming who knows of values, who is 
raised in a family where they live within their means, lives in a State 
where we balance our budget every year, and I think the lesson Eric has 
for the people of Wyoming and the people of this country is one we 
should listen to: We should live within our means, not spend more than 
we have, not continue to borrow. And the threat to our Nation, our 
greatest threat to our national security continues to be the debt, and 
it is incumbent upon this institution to deal with that.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Casper Star Tribune, July 29, 2011]

                         Smarter Than You Think

                           (By Eric Mitchell)

       What does the government think of me?
       Money. Like the banking commercials, I'm not a name, I'm a 
     number.
       I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young 
     to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt. 
     Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm 
     only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could 
     almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat 
     and get fish for my family and friends.
       I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my 
     family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five 
     thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than 
     my dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything.
       Government shouldn't try to buy everything.
       It is my job, and the people's job, to buy the things we 
     need. I don't want the government to think for me. They don't 
     know I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big 
     brothers tell me what to do, because they aren't always 
     responsible for their own things. I don't tell my brothers 
     what to do with their money.
       I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the 
     rules.

                          ____________________