Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 46 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1832-S1839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

BUDGET CONTROL ACT RESOLUTION

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was
signed into law by the President last August, set in place budget
enforcement measures in the Senate for budget years 2012 and 2013, as
well as established caps for 10 years to address discretionary spending
and established the so-called supercommittee to address entitlement
spending and revenues.
Specifically, to provide continued enforcement in the Senate for 2012
and budget year 2013, section 106(b)(2) requires the chairman of the
Budget Committee to file not later than April 15, 2012: (1) allocations
for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for the Committee on Appropriations; (2)
allocations for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013
through 2022 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations;
(3) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2013; (4)
aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through
2017, and 2013 through 2022; and (5) aggregate levels of outlays and
revenue for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013
through 2022 for Social Security.
In the case of the Committee on Appropriations, the allocations for
2012 and 2013 shall be set consistent with the discretionary spending
limits set forth in the Budget Control Act. Consequently, the initial
allocation matches the discretionary levels set in the Budget Control
Act and will be revised to reflect adjustments to those levels as
authorized by the Budget Control Act.
In the case of allocations for committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations and the revenue and Social Security aggregates, the
levels shall be set consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's
March 2012 baseline. In the case of the spending aggregates for 2012
and 2013, the levels shall be set consistent with the Congressional
Budget Office's March 2012 baseline and the discretionary spending
limits set forth in the Budget Control Act.
In addition, section 106(c)(2) requires the chairman of the Budget
Committee to reset the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard to zero for all
fiscal years and to notify the Senate of this action.
I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing
enforcement in the Senate for budget year 2013, including new committee
allocations, budgetary and Social Security aggregates, and pay-as-you-
go scorecard, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

BUDGETARY AGGREGATES
[Pursuant to section 106(b)(1)(C) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and section 311 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$s in millions 2012 2013 2013 17 2013 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending (on-budget):
Budget Authority................................................ 3,075,731 2,828,030 n/a n/a
Outlays......................................................... 3,123,589 2,944,872 n/a n/a
Revenue (on-budget)............................................... 1,899,217 2,293,339 13,871,251 32,472,564
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY LEVELS
[Pursuant to section 106(b)(1)(D) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and
section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$s in millions 2012 2013 2013 17 2013 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays....................... 495,077 633,714 3,722,461 8,772,738
Revenue....................... 556,498 675,120 3,872,899 8,925,443
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARD FOR THE SENATE
[Pursuant to section 106(c)(1) of the Budget Control Act of 2011]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$s in millions Balances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years 2012 through 2017.............................. 0
Fiscal Years 2012 through 2022.............................. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE COMMITTEE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 106(b)(1)(A) AND 106(b)(1)(B) OF
THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 AND SECTION 302 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974--BUDGET YEAR 2012
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct spending legislation Entitlements funded
-------------------------------- in annual
appropriations acts
Committee Budget ----------------------
Authority Outlays Budget
authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations:
Security discretionary budget authority................ 816,943 n/a
Nonsecurity discretionary budget authority............. 363,536 n/a
General purpose discretionary outlays.................. n/a 1,320,414
Memo:
on-budget............................................ 1,174,581 1,314,517
off-budget........................................... 5,898 5,897
Mandatory.......................................... 752,574 736,733
--------------------------------
Total............................................ 1,933,053 2,057,147
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry..................... 11,263 12,010 120,963 105,872
Armed Services........................................... 141,487 137,506 107 105
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs...................... 55,448 53,912 0 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.................... 15,068 9,797 1,440 1,374
Energy and Natural Resources............................. 3,620 4,512 445 445
Environment and Public Works............................. 41,734 3,349 0 0
Finance.................................................. 1,464,370 1,459,722 536,698 536,459
Foreign Relations........................................ 30,356 25,956 159 159
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs............... 99,262 94,484 9,832 9,832
Judiciary................................................ 11,324 12,184 767 762
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions................... -16,581 -3,219 14,497 14,361
Rules and Administration................................. 42 131 26 26
Intelligence............................................. 0 0 514 514
Veterans' Affairs........................................ 2,477 2,650 67,016 66,714
Indian Affairs........................................... 3,159 1,311 0 0
Small Business........................................... 1,799 1,799 0 0
Unassigned to Committee.................................. -716,252 -743,765 110 110
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 3,081,629 3,129,486 752,574 736,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the section 302 allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations for 2012 is set consistent with the discretionary spending limits as set forth in the Budget
Control Act and in the preview report on discretionary spending limits submitted by the Office of Management
and Budget as part of the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the United States Government. To ensure
consistency, for 2012, an offsetting adjustment has been made to ``Unassigned to Committee.'' As such, for
purposes of Senate enforcement, the allocations to the Committee on Appropriations and other Committees are
set exactly at baseline for 2012.

[[Page S1833]]

Mandatory.......................................... 815,671 802,183
--------------------------------
Total............................................ 1,862,671 2,024,680
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry..................... 13,397 15,126 124,580 111,791
Armed Services........................................... 146,698 146,584 110 108
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs...................... 22,167 17,455 0 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.................... 15,016 10,043 1,423 1,431
Energy and Natural Resources............................. 5,276 5,832 58 58
Environment and Public Works............................. 41,789 3,446 0 0
Finance.................................................. 1,337,888 1,328,474 590,738 590,431
Foreign Relations........................................ 28,640 26,334 159 159
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs............... 102,276 98,148 9,834 9,834
Judiciary................................................ 18,545 12,964 787 817
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions................... -15,400 -4,136 15,009 14,883
Rules and Administration................................. 41 8 27 27
intelligence............................................. 0 0 514 514
Veterans' Affairs........................................ 999 1,167 72,319 72,017
Indian Affairs........................................... 753 1,060 0 0
Small Business........................................... 0 0 0 0
Unassigned to Committee.................................. -746,680 -736,277 113 113
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 2,834,076 2,950,908 815,671 802,183
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues that this
morning I filed the budget deeming resolution for 2013 pursuant to the
Budget Control Act passed last year. This resolution sets forth the
spending limits for fiscal year 2013 at the levels agreed to by
Democrats and Republicans in last summer's Budget Control Act. It
allows the appropriations committees to now proceed with their work in
drafting bills for next year, and it ensures the Senate will have the
tools to enforce the spending limits we agreed to on a bipartisan
basis.
I want to emphasize for my colleagues that we do have a budget. Those
who continue to claim we do not have a budget are either unaware of
what they voted on last year or are seeking to deliberately mislead the
public. The Budget Control Act was passed by the House of
Representatives, it was passed by the Senate, and signed into law by
the President. It is the law of the land, and it established the key
components of the budget for 2012 and 2013.
Here is the language from the Budget Control Act itself. It is very
clear the Budget Control Act is intended to serve as the budget for
2012 and 2013. It states:

For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 through April 15, 2012 . . . the allocations,
aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply
in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.

It goes on to use that exact same language for fiscal year 2013.
In many ways, the Budget Control Act was even more extensive than a
traditional budget. It has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution
that is not signed by the President. I think most Members here know a
budget resolution is purely a congressional document. The Budget
Control Act is actually the law.
No. 2, the Budget Control Act set discretionary spending caps for 10
years instead of the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution.
No. 3, it provided enforcement mechanisms, including 2 years of
deeming resolutions which allow budget points of order to be enforced.
And No. 4, it created a reconciliation-like supercommittee process to
address entitlement and tax reforms, and it backed up that process with
a $1.2 trillion sequester.
So these claims that we do not have a budget can now be put to rest.
By filing the deeming resolution provided for in the Budget Control Act
this morning, the budget levels have been set for next year.
Last week, we received CBO's updated budget estimates, which allowed
me to complete work on the budget deeming resolution for 2013. The
filing of this deeming resolution was required under the Budget Control
Act. I filed a similar resolution for 2012 back in September. The
Budget Control Act is crystal clear that the spending limits in the
resolution should be set at the levels agreed to in the Budget Control
Act.
Again, here is the language taken directly from the law. It states:

Not later than April 15, 2012, the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget shall file . . . for the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2012
and 2013 consistent with the discretionary spending limits
set forth in this Act.

It doesn't say at a level below the limits set forth in this Act, it
says at

[[Page S1834]]

a level consistent with the limits set forth in this Act.
Let's remember what these limits mean. Under the Budget Control Act
spending caps, discretionary spending is cut by about $900 billion
below the CBO baseline over the next 10 years, and that is not
including the sequester cuts. That is just the results of the Budget
Control Act spending limits.
Let me make clear, our House Republican friends now seem to be
walking away from these levels, even though they agreed to them last
year. Let's look at what they said last summer. Here is what House
Budget Committee Chairman Ryan said on the House floor on August 1:

What the Budget Control Act has done is it has brought our
two parties together. So I would just like to reflect for a
moment that we have a bipartisan compromise here. That
doesn't happen all that often around here; so I think that's
worth noting. That's a good thing. And what are we doing? We
are actually cutting spending while we do this. That's
cultural. That's significant. That's a big step in the right
direction. We are getting two-thirds of the cuts we wanted in
our budget, and, as far as I am concerned, 66 percent in the
right direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong
direction.

So last summer our House Republican colleagues were pleased to be
getting 66 percent of what they wanted. They made an agreement. They
shook on it. They ought to keep the agreement they made.
It seems that our House Republican friends are on their own, because
at least so far the Senate Republican leadership has agreed we should
keep to the spending limits we took on last year. Here is what Senate
Minority Leader McConnell said on the floor last month:

We have negotiated the top line for the discretionary
spending for this coming fiscal year. . . . We already have
that number. . . . There is no good reason for this
institution not to move forward with an appropriations
process that avoids what we have done so frequently under
both parties for years and years: either continuing
resolutions or omnibus appropriations. . . . I hope we can
join together and do the basic work of government this year
and do it in a timely fashion.

I hope so too. I hope our House Republican colleagues are listening.
We still must come together on a budget plan that addresses the long-
term fiscal imbalances we confront, but the short-term budget is in
place and it is in law. It was included in the Budget Control Act that
everyone agreed to last summer. It provided for about $900 billion in
discretionary spending cuts.
The Senate is now poised to proceed with its business. I have filed
the budget deeming resolution for 2013, and we will be moving forward
with appropriations bills at the levels we all agreed to. I believe
House Republicans should do the same. If they fail to do so, they will
once again threaten to shut down the government and needlessly imperil
the economic recovery.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this time, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to corporate
welfare. At a time when our country is borrowing over $1 trillion a
year, I think it makes no senses to loan money to countries we are
borrowing from. For example, we borrowed $29 billion from Mexico, and
yet we are sending them $8 billion of the money we borrowed from them
to subsidize trade.
A lot of the subsidized trade goes to very wealthy corporations. When
12 million people are out of work in the United States, does it make
sense for the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize loans of major multinational
corporations? The President is big on saying, well, these rich
companies need to pay their fair share. Well, why then is the President
sending loans out to these very wealthy corporations? And he is
actually giving them their fair share of our taxpayer money. Why is
that occurring?
I have often asked the question, Is government inherently stupid?
Well, you know, I don't think government is inherently stupid, but it
is a debatable question. Government doesn't get the same signals your
local bank gets. Your local bank has to look at your creditworthiness.
Your local bank has to make a profit. Your local bank has to meet a
payroll. But once the government gets in charge of these things, Katy-
bar-the-door. We don't have a good track record with government banks
because they do not feel deep inside the same pain that an individual
banker feels when he gives a loan.
We have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losing $6 billion of your money a
quarter. And what do they want to do? They want to expand another
government bank. So get this right. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that
are government banks are losing $6 billion a quarter, and recently they
wanted to give their executives multimillion dollar bonuses. They said,
Well, you have to pay people if you want to keep good talent. My
question is, How much talent does it take to lose $6 billion a quarter?
I think there are people here today watching the Senate who would take
$19 million a year to run one of these government banks only to have
their record be that they lost $6 billion a quarter. That is
outrageous. Then wanting to expand a new government bank and give money
to very wealthy corporations that are making a profit? It makes no
sense whatsoever.
Jefferson said government is best that governs least. What did he
mean by that? He meant he wanted government to be small because
government is inherently inefficient. Government doesn't get the same
signals. That is why we should only let government do the things the
private sector can't do. Banking is something the private sector can
do. We are not talking about starting new companies, for the most part;
we are mostly talking about subsidizing very wealthy multinational
companies.
But let's look at the companies the Export-Import Bank is
subsidizing. One of them is called First Solar. You may have heard that
a lot of these solar companies are big contributors to President Obama.
I wonder if that has something to do with them getting loans. But here
is the loan First Solar gets from Export-Import. They get paid and they
have a loan that says they are going to make solar panels, and then who
is going to buy the solar panels? Themselves. So they made a deal with
another company they own and the taxpayer is stuck financing a loan so
First Solar can make solar panels and then buy them from themselves.
That sounds like a good deal. You get the government to subsidize a
loan to buy your own product.
Who else are we subsidizing? We gave $10 million in loans to
Solyndra. You may have heard of Solyndra. Solyndra is owned by the 20th
richest man in the United States, who just happens to be a big
contributor to President Obama. Coincidence? I don't know.
Guess who works for the Department of Energy. Solyndra's lawyer's
husband works for the Department of Energy, and he was apparently a big
fan of these loans and a big fan of restructuring these loans. Do you
think people approving the loans should be related to the people
getting the loans?
Robert Kennedy, Jr., of the famous Kennedy family, got $1.8 billion.
Just so happens they are big political supporters of the President
also. How did they get the loan? Somebody who used to work for Kennedy
now works in the loan department at the Department of Energy. Sounds as
though there might be a conflict of interest.
This is a real problem. But this is a problem that is endemic to
government banks. Once you let the government get hold of the banks,
and once you let them make the loan decisions, they do it and they give
the money to their favorites. So when one party is in charge, their
favorites get them; when the other party is in charge, their favorites
get them.
The government shouldn't be in this business. These are large
multinational corporations that can find loans for themselves. Guess
what. Sometimes they are loaning money to other governments that then
compete with our industry. We are loaning money to India, to whom we
also owe billions of dollars, but then India subsidizes an airline that
competes with U.S. airlines. It doesn't make any sense at all. But we
continue to do things that are counterproductive, counterintuitive, at
taxpayers' expense. Then we say, well, to keep good talent, we have to
pay these guys millions of dollars to run these government banks.
The problem is government banks don't respond the way business does.
They respond in a fashion where they do not feel the pain. No one loses
their job. No one loses a night's sleep over a government loan. When a
bank loans you money, someone has to make a profit and meet a payroll.
It is different. You have the checks and balances of the marketplace.
You don't

[[Page S1835]]

need to have the government involved here.
There are a couple questions we should ask before doing what the
other side wants to do. They want to expand the size of this corporate
welfare. They want more corporate welfare going out to multinational
corporations. In doing so, they want you, the taxpayer, to be on the
hook for more money.
I would say we have to ask some questions. Should we be dispensing
loans based on political favoritism? Should it matter if one is a big
contributor to the President? Should that matter in getting a loan? No.
I think that ought to be illegal. If it is not immoral, it ought to be.
It is immoral. It should be illegal. We shouldn't be doing that.
Then the other question is, does it make sense to borrow billions of
dollars first from China or India and then send it back to them to say:
Please, buy our products with it. So we borrow the money from them, and
then we send it back to the very same countries. It makes utterly no
sense. I ask the Senate to consider seriously whether, at a time we are
running a $1 trillion deficit, it makes sense to be subsidizing
profitable, large multinational corporations. I don't think so, and I
don't think the taxpayer thinks so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the last several days there has been
an immense outpouring of concern about the so-called JOBS bill the
House has sent to us, and this outpouring should weigh upon us. It
should make us question the speed and the lack of deliberation with
which we are considering this House bill and question the wisdom of
just sending it back to the House if there is one amendment to it,
which is on the Ex-Im Bank, and hoping that somehow or another
investors are going to be protected in a conference instead of by the
Senate. What we are considering should be done with great deliberation,
and we should take the time to get this right.
The House majority leader suggested yesterday that those of us who
are concerned about the House bill are ``creating phantom investor
protection issues.'' We did not create these issues. People who know
far more about capital markets than the House majority leader or myself
or probably any of us have asked us to reconsider what we are poised to
do.
Start with the Council of Institutional Investors. This group's
members invest a combined $3 trillion in our Nation's capital markets.
They include the Nation's largest pension funds, university endowments,
and foundations. The Council of Institutional Investors, an outside,
independent, objective group whose sole purpose in life is to make sure
investors are given sound opportunities and are not defrauded, is
warning us that rather than boosting investment in our economy, we
could frighten investors out of the market. They are asking us, they
are pleading with us to reevaluate, and we should.
Next, take a look at the letter from the current SEC Chairman Mary
Schapiro to the Banking Committee last week. Chairman Schapiro issues a
lengthy list of warnings about provisions in the House bill. She sums
up her warnings this way: ``If the balances tip to the point where
investors are not confident that there are appropriate protections,
investors will lose confidence in our markets and capital formation
will ultimately be made more difficult and expensive.''
That is precisely the opposite of the impact we should want.
We should listen to the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, which warns us that the House bill ``would create
marketplace and investor confusion'' that dampens rather than
strengthens investment in growing companies.
We should listen to the association that represents State securities
administrators. What does that association do? They warn us that
``Congress is on the verge of enacting policies that although intended
to strengthen the economy, will in fact only make it more difficult for
small businesses to access investment capital.''
We should listen to the editors of Bloomberg News, one of the most
trusted sources of commentary on the markets, who tell us that
provisions of the House bill ``would be dangerous for investors and
could harm already fragile financial markets.''
Can any of us who have lived through the fearful days of the
financial crisis, days when we wondered if the entire economy would
crumble--can any of us or should any of us vote to rush through this
body legislation that threatens harm to fragile financial markets? Do
we want to live through that again?
We should amend this flawed House bill so we can create opportunity
for American workers, companies and investors and not opportunities for
fraudsters, boiler room hucksters, and con artists. We can do that, and
we should do that. One way to do that is to invoke cloture on the
alternative that Senators Jack Reed, Mary Landrieu and I have offered
and to begin debate and amendments on that alternative so the Senate's
deliberative process can begin.
If that cloture vote fails, the only remaining prudent alternative is
to reject the cloture motion on the underlying bill so the Senate can
begin to deliberate and consider amendments to a bill that has aroused
such concern among so many experts whose very job it is to protect
consumers.
Some may fear that by slowing a runaway train, they risk being
portrayed as hostile to job creation or to small businesses. After all,
how can we oppose legislation titled the ``JOBS Act''? It takes more
than a clever acronym to create jobs. As the astonishing amount of
concern among market experts tells us, this JOBS Act--this so-called
JOBS Act is not a jobs act but an invitation to the kind of fraud that
destroys jobs.
The Senate is the place where care and deliberation is supposed to
rule and is supposed to rein in the excesses of haste and incaution,
and I urge my colleagues to undertake that responsibility today.
I yield the floor and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Budget

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was a bit surprised--although one is
never totally surprised in this body--when my Democratic colleagues
were saying this morning that something bad has happened because the
historic budget that would change the debt course of America, that has
been announced by Congressman Paul Ryan and his House Budget Committee
today, violates the Budget Control Act. It spends a few billion dollars
less than what was capped in the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control
Act that passed put a cap on the roughly $1 trillion of discretionary
spending only. And from that $1 trillion-plus cap, the House would
reduce spending by $19 billion in the proposed budget today, and this
somehow violates good spirit around here and is the wrong thing. But I
would just say that when the Budget Control Act passed in the wee hours
of the morning at the eleventh hour and the 59th minute before a
government shutdown occurred, we knew it wasn't enough of a reduction
in spending. It wasn't half of what experts have told us needs to be
reduced over the next 10 years to put America on a sound debt path.
We are on a disastrous debt path. We are heading to the most
predictable financial crisis this Nation has ever faced because we are
spending 40 cents per dollar more than we have. We are borrowing 40
cents of every dollar we spend--borrowing it--just to maintain this
level of spending.
So the House made some changes or made a proposal to reduce the
spending level below the Budget Control Act, and they also recognized
that the $1 trillion or so in spending that was covered by the Budget
Control Act--and that is the discretionary spending--is only a little
over 40 percent of total spending. Over half of the spending is in the
entitlement mandatory spending category. They proposed really nothing

[[Page S1836]]

under the Budget Control Act to make any changes.
So the Ryan budget proposed to spend next year $180 billion less than
the President's budget proposed that he submitted earlier this year.
And did the President's budget adhere to the BCA? My colleagues say,
oh, they are mostly disheartened that Republicans would take the
spending down below the level by about $19 billion or so under the
Budget Control Act numbers. But I didn't hear them complaining when
President Obama submitted his budget.
Do my colleagues know what the President's budget did? It wiped out
over half of the spending cuts in the Budget Control Act. Can my
colleagues imagine that? We agreed on $2.1 trillion in spending
reductions, and $1 trillion of that was voted on explicitly, and $1.2
trillion was an automatic sequester or an automatic cut in spending if
the committee didn't reach a long-term agreement. The committee didn't
reach an agreement, so automatically $1.2 trillion in cuts was to be
imposed. That is the current law. President Obama's budget wipes it
out. Not only does he add, therefore, $1.2 trillion immediately to
spending as a result of wiping out the sequester we agreed on just last
August, he adds another $500 billion in spending. His budget he
submitted just a few weeks ago calls for spending increases of $1.6
trillion more than was in the Budget Control Act.
So my good friend Senator Conrad, who chairs the Budget Committee,
and our Democratic leadership, who are threatening a government
shutdown because Congressman Ryan and the responsible House Budget
Committee proposed actually taking a few more billion dollars out of
discretionary spending, want to complain about that. I didn't hear them
complaining when we had the most astounding event after the President
signed the Budget Control Act that passed both Houses at the eleventh
hour: a compromise agreement--a compromise we all knew was not
sufficient. And 5 months later, before the ink is hardly dry on it, he
proposes to wipe it out.
No wonder the American people don't trust Congress. We say in August:
We are going to save $2.1 trillion--trust us--and we are going to raise
the debt ceiling so America can continue to borrow at this
extraordinary rate, but we are going to cut spending. We are going to
raise the debt ceiling, but don't worry, we promise to cut spending.
And the President of the United States, within 5 months of that
agreement being reached, submits to us a budget that wipes out half of
it. I am amazed that nobody has been talking about it. I have tried to
raise the issue. It just points out to me how silly it is that our
colleagues in the Senate would complain about Congressman Ryan.
The American people gave Republicans a majority in the House of
Representatives. We are facing the most systemic debt threat this
Nation has ever faced, and they knew it, and they proposed last year
and again this year a historic budget that would alter the debt course
we are on. It would take us from unsustainability to sustainability. It
would take us on a path that we would hope avoids a debt crisis,
although we are so close to it, I am not sure we can avoid it.
Hopefully, we can avoid a debt crisis, but our debt is tremendous. Our
individual, per capita debt is $44,000 per man, woman, and child--
greater than any country in Europe and greater than Greece. We are in
the danger zone; clearly, we are.
So they proposed this budget last year and again this year, and it
laid out a plan. So what happened? The President of the United States
calls out Congressman Ryan and castigates him in a speech, and he is
sitting right in front of him. The Senate Democrats, who haven't
produced a budget in 3 years because they are afraid to, because they
don't have the courage to lay out the tough choices that are going to
be necessary to save this Republic financially, attacked Congressman
Ryan and his House Members for trying to do the right thing. It is
unbelievable to me. I am just amazed. Now we have them complaining that
he goes a little below the Budget Control Act numbers. Give me a break.
Does anybody not know what is going on here? The American people do.
They gave a shellacking to a lot of the big spenders in the last
election. Surely we would have thought Congress got the message. The
House did. Apparently, the Senators have not.
Senator Reid, our majority leader, said it would be foolish to have a
budget. Foolish to have a budget? The law requires us to have a budget.
By April 1, we should have one in the committee. We are not going to be
meeting before then. We should have one pass both Houses by April 15.
That is the law. It is in the United States Code. Unfortunately, I
guess, we don't go to jail as a result of not passing one because we
haven't passed one here for 3 consecutive years. We haven't passed a
budget in 3 years.

Senator Reid said it is foolish to pass a budget. Why? I think he
meant politically. It would be foolish for him to allow a budget to
come to the floor where there is free debate, an opportunity to offer
amendments in large numbers, and actually debate the challenges and
vote on them. Senators--in public; not in secret meetings but in
public--actually vote on these issues that are important to America and
held accountable, and the American people can see how tough the choices
are because the choices are tough. It is not going to be easy to
balance this budget. I am telling my colleagues, I have seen the
numbers. I am ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and I have
sat down with my staff, and I wish I could say it would be easier than
it is. It is not going to be easy.
So this is a frustrating moment. I am not really surprised. Here we
are, going into the summer, trying to deal with a financial systemic
threat to America that Admiral Mullen calls the greatest threat to our
national security--our debt. We have done nothing about it. The House
has. The Republican leadership in the House has done their duty. They
produced a courageous, thoughtful, responsible debt course change that
will put us on the road to prosperity, not decline. Their budget
includes tax simplifications and tax reductions even, while they are
doubling the amount of savings President Obama achieves. The House
budget, although it doesn't balance in 10 years--and I wish it did, but
it doesn't balance in 10 years--adds half the debt in the next 10 years
that President Obama's budget proposes. It cuts it more than half. It
puts us on a path. And in the outyears, it is even more positive in its
effect and clearly takes us out of this disastrous course we are on. So
they should be congratulated for being honest and detailed.
Speaking of details, why don't we see the Democratic Members of this
Senate lay out their budget plan?
Last year, Senator Reid called up the House budget so all could vote
against it. So Senator McConnell called up the President's budget.
Every Democratic Member voted against that. Senator Toomey's thoughtful
budget----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 11 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. The net result was that the President's plan was
brought up, and voted down 97 to nothing. All Democrats voted against
the Toomey plan. All of them voted against the House plan. They voted
against everything. Not one plan did they produce that they voted for.
That is the course we are on today. I do not think that is a plan and a
policy you can be proud of. I think it is unworthy of a party giving
leadership in the Senate at this critical time in history.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Gasoline Prices

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have returned to the Senate floor today
to talk about what is a true crisis for many Louisianans, many
Americans, which is the ever-rising price of gasoline at the pump. This
hits everybody in their tough pocketbook in a horrible economy. It is a
true crisis for many American families all around the country.
In this debate--and it has been a significant national debate--a lot
of Republicans say: Well, President Obama does not have a plan, does
not have a policy to address the price at the pump. A lot of supporters
of President Obama say: Well, no President can have a significant
impact, can determine the price at the pump.

[[Page S1837]]

I think both of those statements are equally wrong. I think the
President, this administration, does have a policy. They have made
specific proposals and it would, if we enact it, have a significant
impact on the price at the pump. It would just be the wrong sort of
impact. It would drive the price even higher than it is now, not help
American families by stabilizing that price.
I want to focus on one very specific, clearly laid out policy of
President Obama, and that is to increase taxes on oil and gas and
energy producers--increase taxes on that product, which I think clearly
is going to only drive up the price at the pump.
President Obama has advocated this very consistently for a long time.
He advocated it as a Senator. He laid it out as a central plank of his
energy policy when he was originally running for President in 2008. He
has fought for it ever since, including it in every budget submission
to Congress. He has always advocated increasing taxes on domestic oil
and gas energy producers.
To underscore this point, one of the President's biggest supporters
in the Senate, Senator Menendez, has introduced this concept in the
Senate. Yesterday, Senator Menendez introduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax
Subsidies Act, which, again, does exactly the same thing as the
President has long advocated. It increases taxes on that product. It
increases taxes on those domestic producers.
I think the American people get it. We can argue about fairness. We
can argue about other considerations. But in terms of the impact this
is going to have on the price at the pump, I think the American people
get it. It is economics 101: If you tax something more, you tend to
drive the price up in the market, and you decrease supply. Again, that
is economics 101.
I could talk about the true facts of this with regard to energy
companies--the fact that they pay an effective tax rate of about 41
percent, the fact that they account for enough revenue to cover 10
percent of our entire discretionary budget, that they are not
undertaxed at all by any reasonable comparison. But I am not going to
focus on that because, quite frankly, I do not care about the direct
impact on the companies. I care about the direct impact on Louisianans,
on Americans, on consumers, on what so many low or middle-class
families are dealing with right now--that real crisis I talked about
that you face every time you go to fill up your car; that is, the
burden of skyrocketing prices at the pump. That is what we should all
be concerned about. As I said, I think it is pretty obvious, it is
economics 101, that if you tax something more, the price at the pump,
the price in the market goes up, and you get less of it.
But even if that were not so obvious, we have history to look at.
There is a very clear history lesson from the Carter years, when this
same experiment was actually enacted. Back then, in 1979, it was called
the windfall profits tax. You may remember that debate. Well, that was
actually enacted here in Congress, here in Washington--the Crude Oil
Windfall Profits Tax Act. It was passed back then, and it went into
effect on April 2, 1980. Again, the same arguments, the same policy:
Somehow the tax treatment of these companies is unfair. Somehow they
are not paying their fair share--even though the facts show otherwise--
so we are going to increase the tax on those domestic energy producers.
Well, what happened? The first thing that happened was the price at
the pump went up. It went up significantly for several years. There was
a lot going on in the world at the same time. I know folks will point
to developments in the Middle East and everything else. But that is
what happened immediately following the enactment of that law. The
price went up by about 50 percent and stayed there for several years.
But let's look at other factors. You can argue about the impact of
politics and developments in the Middle East on price. What about
things that should not be so impacted by developments in the Middle
East? What about things such as domestic production and whether that
increased or decreased? Well, in fact, as a direct result of the
windfall profits tax, domestic oil and gas production, energy
production, went down over that entire period from between 3 percent to
6 percent. If you look at the entire period of the tax, it went down.

In this debate, everyone at least has paid lip service to the idea
that we should be producing more energy here at home. Yet in this
historical example, in this experiment, increasing the tax on this
product did what you would expect it to do, again from economics 101:
It decreased that activity here at home. It decreased domestic
production.
What else did it do? Well, the second big impact it had was it
increased our dependence on foreign oil. Again, you can connect the
dots. This is exactly what you would expect. If you increase taxes on
domestic production, you decrease that supply, and guess what. We are
even more dependent on those unstable foreign sources we want to get
away from. That is exactly what happened in the Jimmy Carter
experiment. He passed the windfall profits tax, and during the entire
tenure of that tax, dependence on foreign oil increased significantly--
between 8 percent and 16 percent.
Then something that might be a little less obvious is the impact on
revenue. There were enormous promises made about the revenue this
windfall profits tax would bring in. Well, at the beginning it did have
that impact, but guess what. Over time that impact declined enormously,
down to actually a zero net revenue increase by 1987. The tax was
eventually repealed in 1988, but this impact on revenue went down to
zero before that repeal, not because of the repeal. It went back to
zero in 1987.
This purple, as shown on this chart, is what was promised. This
purple is the increase in revenue that was promised and projected by
President Carter. This gray, as shown on the chart, is what happened.
Sure, there was an immediate spike. Then guess what. Domestic energy
producers reacted. They did less activity here. If you tax something
more, you get less of it, we are more dependent on foreign sources, we
drive out that activity--those jobs and that revenue. So there was a
steady decline, until it was actually zero net additional revenue in
1987, leading to the repeal in 1988.
So I would hope, when we look at this proposal--I would hope first we
focus on the American people, we focus on their plight every time they
go to fill up their gas tank, with these ever-increasing prices, and
our top goal is to give them relief.
Increasing taxes on that product, increasing taxes on domestic
producers of energy, is not going to give them relief. It is going to
do exactly the opposite. Every rule of economics says that. If you tax
something more, you get less of it, you increase the price in the
market. History proves that--a very clear lesson from the Carter years
that some folks on this Senate floor, President Obama, and others, want
to repeat. This is not good policy if we truly want to help the
American people with their everyday struggle with the price at the
pump.
I think what is going on is a completely different agenda. Folks are
so set against fossil fuel, folks want to advantage new forms of energy
so much that they are willing to resort to actually increasing the
price at the pump to do it. That is exactly what Secretary of Energy
Chu advocated in late 2008 right before he was appointed to his present
position. Let's not do that. The American people cannot afford it. They
need relief. They need it now.
An American President can make a difference. Unfortunately, this one
has a policy that would make a difference in the wrong direction.
Taxing something more increases the price, produces less of it. We need
to be doing the opposite. We need to be increasing domestic supply,
bringing down the price, helping the American people in their everyday
struggles with their family budgets, with how to manage their scant
resources in a very tough economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 1836

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Cantwell-
Johnson-Graham-Shelby amendment that is going to be voted on shortly in
this series of votes we are going to be having, and to urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment that would reauthorize
the Ex-Im Bank for 4 years, until 2015. The current authorization is
set to expire in May of this year, so it is very urgent we pass this

[[Page S1838]]

authorization. It would increase capacity for the bank because there is
demand.
The Ex-Im Bank, people may know--or maybe not know--supplies credit
stability to foreign purchases of U.S. product, where the purchaser has
limited access to private sector capital due to political risk or
instability or limited access to capital. It is something we have had
since 1934. So this program has been a way for U.S. manufacturers,
small businesses, a variety of U.S. companies, to make sure they get
sales of their products in international markets. It has been an
incredibly important tool. Somebody called it one of the most important
toolboxes in U.S. economic capacity to help our economy.
In 2011, the bank supported over $41 billion in U.S. exports from
over 3,600 U.S. companies, and it has supported nearly 290,000 export-
related jobs in America. So that is a very big impact. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the reauthorization of this program will
help reduce the deficit by over $900 million over the next 5 years.
That is right, a program that is run by the government that actually
helps our deficit be reduced, and that is because of the amount of
money that is made from these transactions and returned to the
Treasury.
I wish to thank my colleagues: Senators Johnson, Graham, Shelby,
Warner, Schumer, Brown, Hagan, Coons, Akaka, Murray, Landrieu, Kerry,
Kirk, Durbin, Shaheen, McCaskill, Lieberman, and Casey for all
sponsoring this important amendment.
The reason we are out here is to make sure our colleagues know this
is the 25th time this legislation has been up for extension since the
original Executive order establishing it. I am looking at the record:
1983, passed by voice vote on the reauthorization; passed by unanimous
consent in 1992--passed by unanimous consent many of the times.
Here is a program that over the last several decades has been passed
by unanimous consent. Yet all of a sudden this legislation is being
stalled or held up. What I want to make sure my colleagues know is what
an important tool it is for job creation and why it is so important
that we not take the capital that is left over in the Ex-Im program and
delay it because what is going to happen if we do not get this
reauthorization done right away is that they are going to stop the
activity that is actually helping job creation in the United States.
As we can see in 2011, the total number of jobs it helped support was
nearly 300,000 jobs. That is a pretty good impact by basically saying,
as a program of a financing of last resort, the United States is going
to make sure U.S. companies can get their products sold in various
marketplaces. That is why the chamber of commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, many companies and organizations are
supporting this legislation.
As an added bonus, as I said, it is generating revenue to the U.S.
economy. In fact, it has generated a lot of money, $3.7 billion for
U.S. taxpayers since 2005. I know some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle think the program could have more transparency. I
will vote for more transparency for the Ex-Im Bank. But if one of my
colleagues can figure out with more transparency how to get more than
$3.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury out of a government program, I would
love to hear about it because this is a program that has worked
successfully.
Let's talk about some of the places these jobs were created; I mean,
actually supported and helped sustain. In Pennsylvania, in 2011, $1.4
billion in export products were helped to be purchased by the Ex-Im
Bank and supported over 9,000 jobs in the State. So there is help and
support for those small businesses, those manufacturers in Pennsylvania
that want to access international markets, but there are purchasers,
just like with the SBA program or other finance programs that needed
help and support in getting the financing done.
Let's look at Massachusetts, another robust State: $566 million in
exports in 2011. That was over 4,000 jobs supported through this Ex-Im
program. In my State there are many jobs. We can see from looking at
the list of the companies that got support through this, we have--
obviously, aviation has done very well with having this kind of
financing, particularly competing in a big global market where other
countries have this kind of financing tool.
But we also have a lot of small businesses. We have clean tech, we
have agriculture, we have a lot of different companies. Texas, probably
another State that has been a huge winner in having the Ex-Im program,
35,000 jobs supported by the Ex-Im Bank in Texas and almost $5
billion--$4.9 billion in business that was the done in the State of
Texas through this program.
So my colleagues can see this is a very viable and important program
to get reauthorized. I know some people think we ought to hold it up,
and some are saying let's stop the program altogether--stop it and get
rid of it, even though it has been around, it has been a tool, it has
been authorized many times on unanimous consent. But now all of a
sudden some people think this program has not served the American
public and the American job economy very well.
I would differ with them. It has served us very well. Another example
is Florida. It has, in 2011, helped support $1.1 billion of Florida
products sold in international markets and helped support over 7,600
jobs in that State--again, a big boost to that economy.
Let's look at North Carolina. It has helped support over 3,300 jobs
and over $456 million in exports. What I also like about this is that
for the first time with this legislation, the textile industry is going
to get a member of the Export-Import Bank. That is to further help
export products from places such as North Carolina and South Carolina
get access to the marketplace and to make sure they are being
competitive on an international basis.
The last chart, Ohio, which is over $398 million and 2,888 jobs. So
all these are important jobs for our economy. As I said earlier, this
program is expiring in May. If we fail to reauthorize it now, what we
are going to run into is the Export Bank cutting off those types of
businesses, those types of jobs in the very near future because they
are almost at their capacity for this year. So instead of saying:
Washington or Florida products or Ohio products or Pennsylvania
products ready for sale, basically what we are going to say is: U.S.
products in a warehouse waiting for opportunity.
We are basically going to say the door is shut on selling these
products because we have not gotten our job done in making sure the
export program is reauthorized. I hope my colleagues will realize that
around here very few things are getting done very efficiently. There
are lots of things being held up, and the U.S. economy is paying the
price for it. If we cannot push something such as the Ex-Im Bank
through this process that again has been authorized and reauthorized so
many times either by unanimous consent or voice vote and all of a
sudden we are going to turn it into a political football, then the
American economy is going to pay the price for that.
I urge my colleagues to help us get this Cantwell-Johnson-Graham-
Shelby amendment passed out of the Senate today and on its way to the
House so we can expedite the process of making sure we do not have a
sign across America: ``U.S. products stuck in warehouse'' but instead
we have a sign that says: ``U.S. exports on the gain. United States
making great headway and selling great products and services around the
globe.''
I know my colleagues earlier today were saying: There are some things
people want to change. The amendments people want to offer in this
legislation are from people who want to stop this program. This
legislation has transparency. It has improvements that have been
recommended on market-based rates, and it puts the United States in a
competitive advantage to make sure we are competing in a world in which
export market opportunity has grown something like 500 times in the
last 25 years.
If we want to be in the jobs game, we have to get our products
overseas. The Ex-Im Bank will continue to help us do that. I urge my
colleagues to support the Cantwell-Johnson-Graham-Shelby amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I wish to express deep concerns about the so-called
JOBS Act sent to us by the House and to commend my senior Senator Jack

[[Page S1839]]

Reed and Senators Levin and Landrieu for putting forth a balanced and
thoughtful alternative.
Everyone in this body agrees that Washington should be doing as much
as it can to create jobs for middle-class Americans. But if the
financial crisis of 2008 taught us anything, it is that smart
regulation of our capital markets is a key element of sustained
economic growth.
Unfortunately, this legislation would eliminate key investor
protections and allow for fraud and abuse to flourish in a shadowy
world of unregistered securities. According to John Coates and Bob
Pozen of the Harvard Law and Business Schools, respectively, the House
bill ``could spur more shady deals than new jobs.'' John Coffee of
Columbia Law School has called it the ``the boiler room legalization
act''--a reference to brokerage operations that profit from unloading
questionable securities on unsuspecting and inexperienced investors.
Over the past few days, opposition to the House bill has extended far
beyond economists, with investor and consumer protection groups,
ranging from the Council of Institutional Investors and the North
American Securities Administrators Association to the AARP and Consumer
Federation of America, calling for substantial changes. These groups
have encouraged the Senate to reexamine many of the House bill's
provisions, including ones that would: allow unregulated Web sites to
sell unregistered stock to middle-class investors; permit stock brokers
to advertise risky private offerings on billboards and in cold calls to
seniors homes; and strip away the corporate governance and executive
compensation transparency requirements that we worked so hard to pass
in the 2010 Wall Street reform bill.
Senators Jack Reed, Carl Levin, and Mary Landrieu have worked around
the clock to produce an alternative that maintains key investor
protections. I commend them for their work, and am proud to cosponsor
their substitute amendment. I hope we can use this amendment as a
starting point to negotiate a compromise final bill--one which achieves
the goal of making capital more accessible to small start-ups, without
making the markets riskier for average investors. If we do not take the
time to get this important bill right, I fear we will live to regret
our haste.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro framed well the dangers of undercutting
securities regulations when she warned, ``if the balance is tipped to
the point where investors are not confident there are appropriate
protections, investors will lose confidence in our markets, and capital
formation will ultimately be made more difficult and expensive.'' Let's
pass a capital formation bill that strikes the right balance between
capital formation and investor protections. In my time as U.S. Attorney
and Attorney General, I have seen the devastation that financial fraud
can inflict on a family, and I have seen how unscrupulous con men,
stock jobbers, fraudsters, and boiler room operators can be. It is
worth it to take the trouble to protect against the crooks who could
take advantage of the loopholes this bill leaves to exploit innocent
victims. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed-Levin-Landrieu
alternative and to oppose the House-passed bill. I thank the Chair, and
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________