[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.


 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 2013
                                            [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................         546,000             n/a
  Nonsecurity discretionary budget authority.............         501,000             n/a
  General purpose discretionary outlays..................             n/a       1,222,497
  Memo:
    on-budget............................................       1,040,954       1,216,461
    off-budget...........................................           6,046           6,036

[[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  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--5-YEAR: 2013
                                  2017
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Direct spending     Entitlements funded
                                   legislation            in annual
                             ----------------------  appropriations acts
          Committee                                ---------------------
                                Budget    Outlays     Budget
                              authority             authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Nutrition, and      68,505     69,522    621,798    555,464
 Forestry...................
Armed Services..............    785,241    789,181        526        518
Banking, Housing, and Urban     116,992     22,559          0          0
 Affairs....................
Commerce, Science, and           80,462     57,377      8,232      7,987
 Transportation.............
Energy and Natural Resources     27,448     30,418        290        290
Environment and Public Works    208,452     16,701          0          0
Finance.....................  7,137,214  7,117,022  3,575,357  3,575,244
Foreign Relations...........    120,995    128,043        795        795
Homeland Security and           543,020    525,170     48,890     48,890
 Governmental Affairs.......
Judiciary...................     60,712     61,114      4,181      4,217
Health, Education, Labor,        53,890     75,053     83,049     82,705
 and Pensions...............
Rules and Administration....        192        273        146        146
Intelligence................          0          0      2,570      2,570
Veterans' Affairs...........      4,410      5,418    379,554    378,044
Indian Affairs..............      3,070      4,893          0          0
Small Business..............          0          0          0          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--10-YEAR: 2013 2022
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Direct spending       Entitlements funded
                                                                         legislation              in annual
                                                                 --------------------------  appropriations acts
                            Committee                                                      ---------------------
                                                                     Budget      Outlays      Budget
                                                                   authority                authority   Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry............................      140,875     1.40,748  1,246,830  1,108,772
Armed Services..................................................    1,720,688    1,724,542      1,040      1,022
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.............................      229,617      -10,992          0          0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation...........................      168,316      118,271     18,930     18,302
Energy and Natural Resources....................................       54,432       58,498        580        580
Environment and Public Works....................................      416,410       32,490          0          0
Finance.........................................................   17,071,487   17,063,729  8,604,008  3,603,595
Foreign Relations...............................................      227,925      238,279      1,590      1,590
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs......................    1,183,459    1,146,352     94,635     94,635
Judiciary.......................................................      112,276      114,750      9,087      9,109
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions..........................      293,935      316,470    194,653    193,975
Rules and Administration........................................          376          442        326        326
Intelligence....................................................            0            0      5,140      5,140
Veterans' Affairs...............................................        7,047        9,216    806,272    803,252
Indian Affairs..................................................        6,493        8,347          0          0
Small Business..................................................            0            0          0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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.

                          ____________________