[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3868-3870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are going to have a vote a little bit 
later this afternoon to proceed to a bill which I do not happen to 
think is a very good bill, but I am going to vote to proceed to it, 
because the majority leader has made clear we will have the opportunity 
to offer amendments. I know some of my colleagues specifically wish to 
offer amendments to get to the heart of the subject that should be most 
on our minds today, which is reducing wasteful Washington spending, to 
get our fiscal house in order. In order to provide that opportunity, we 
should, in my view, proceed to that legislation so we can offer those 
amendments. We should be laser-like focused on the deficit, the debt, 
the spending of the Congress, and what we can do to get a handle on 
that spending, so that we do not mortgage our children's future.
  It starts, of course, with a budget. A few weeks ago, the President 
submitted his budget to Congress, but it seems to me the message that 
budget sends is one of more spending, bigger government, and one that 
trumps America's well-founded concerns about this huge debt we are 
piling up and how it jeopardizes our Nation's future.
  Under this budget, the debt held by the public will double by the end 
of this President's term in 2012 and then triple by 2019, to an 
astonishing $7.3 billion. Think about that for a moment. In all of our 
history, from 1789, from George Washington through George W. Bush, we 
accumulated roughly $5 billion of debt. This President's budget, in his 
first term, will double that. So in the term of President Obama, we 
will accumulate as much debt as every President of the United States 
combined before that. That is too much. It will triple in the next 5 
years. That is what we are talking about with regard to this budget. 
The debt is actually going to be larger than our entire economy. Think 
of the attendant consequences.
  It not only undermines confidence in our economy, but it crushes 
private sector investment and, therefore, job creation. This budget 
punts on everything serious we need to do to bring down the debt. It 
accelerates our path to national bankruptcy, it ignores all the major 
components of the President's debt commission's deficit financing or 
reduction plan. It punts on serious spending cuts and punts on 
entitlement reforms.
  In fact, the Washington Post editorialized the day after the budget 
was submitted, calling the President the ``Punter in Chief.'' It is a 
failure of leadership, and it indicates to me that the President is not 
taking the debt problem seriously.
  As Erskine Bowles, who was the Democratic chairman of the President's 
fiscal commission, said, ``The White House budget request goes nowhere 
near where they will need to have to go to resolve our fiscal 
nightmare.''

[[Page 3869]]

  We cannot spend, borrow, and tax our way to prosperity. 
Unfortunately, that is what the budget request proposes to do. Let me 
review a few key facts and some of the numbers in the budget. Under the 
category of ``it spends too much,'' the size of the Federal Government 
would nearly double since the day President Obama took office. Let me 
say that again. Under the President's budget, the size of the Federal 
Government will nearly double since the day he took office.
  You cannot claim with a straight face that represents anything close 
to fiscal discipline. Over the next 10 years, the President proposes 
$8.7 trillion in new spending in this budget, with $46 trillion in 
total spending. Spending in the 2012 fiscal year is projected to be a 
record $3.8 trillion or 25.3 percent of the gross domestic product, 
which is the highest spending ratio to GDP since World War II.
  I will note that while the President has touted the 5-year $400 
billion in spending freezes in his budgets, those freezes merely lock 
in spending levels reached after the massive spending binge that 
occurred on his watch. In my view, the status quo is not good enough. 
It is like closing the door to the barn after the horse is already 
gone. The President says his spending would cut $1.1 trillion over the 
coming decade. Yes, that is true, but that is from what he planned to 
spend. So if he made an extraordinarily irresponsible request for 
spending and then cuts it by $1 trillion, it is not something to be 
cheering about. The figure is smaller than the projected $1.5 trillion 
deficit for the year 2011 alone. We need to do and we can do much 
better.
  Under the category ``it borrows too much,'' the budget adds $13 
trillion in new debt by the end of the decade. Gross debt by the end of 
the decade will reach $26.3 trillion or 107 percent of gross domestic 
product. That figure eclipses the size of the entire economy.
  Gross debt is projected to remain above 100 percent of GDP for every 
following year. The effects of high debt on an economy are well known. 
They include fewer jobs, less investing, and a lower standard of 
living, and that is not acceptable.
  Under the category of ``taxes too much,'' in total the President's 
budget includes $1.6 trillion in new taxes on families, small 
businesses, and job creators. Much of that is new taxes on energy, 
including on the gasoline we buy, and new taxes on ObamaCare, the 
health care reform. In fact, the President's health care bill is 
mentioned more than 250 times in the IRS's fiscal year 2012 budget 
request. The IRS has said it will have to hire thousands of new workers 
to implement the new taxes in the health care law. Let's remember, we 
are not in our current predicament because we are an undertaxed nation. 
It is because of wasteful Washington spending.
  I am deeply disappointed the administration has not put together a 
more responsible and serious budget proposal. I had hoped the White 
House had received the message that Americans sent in the last election 
about spending and debt and the size of our government. It is time for 
us to make tough choices. We need to focus on progrowth policies, which 
includes much lower levels of spending and borrowing, and leaving more 
money in the private sector where it can be put to good use, including 
job creation.
  Republicans want to work with the President to seriously cut 
government spending and bring down the debt. House Republicans took the 
first step by putting together a proposal that will cut spending to 
2008 levels. That is the level prior to the Obama era spending binge, a 
binge which included, among other things, the failed stimulus plan and 
other massive spending bills.
  That is the kind of meaningful action we need. I ask the President: 
Lead. Work with our leaders on both sides of the aisle to do a better 
job of promoting prosperity through much more sensible fiscal policies.
  As I said, my colleagues will have amendments they will be bringing 
to the floor this week in an effort to point him in the right 
direction.
  Another thing that is of concern to Americans and that we ought to be 
doing something about here at the Federal Government level is the 
problem of energy production and the implications of that through 
things such as higher gas prices.
  Notably, the Energy Department recently estimated that the average 
American household can expect to spend $700 more at the gas pump this 
year than it did in 2010. Since President Obama came into office our 
gasoline prices have doubled.
  In a tight oil market, new domestic supply can have a very positive 
impact on gasoline prices, and developing that supply would create many 
well-paying American jobs. So, today, I want to talk about national 
policies in support of affordable, new domestic energy. This is an 
opportunity for government to set the stage for job creation in the 
private sector, rather than continue its attempts to create jobs on its 
own through costly legislation.
  Although we import 63 percent of our oil, America has abundant 
supplies of both oil and natural gas here at home. In a Washington Post 
op-ed published in 2008, columnist Robert Samuelson wrote at ``it may 
surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third 
largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be 
producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply 
off limits. They include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of 
Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.''
  So, why have not these energy development projects moved forward?
  Let me provide some background. Before leaving office, President 
George W. Bush lifted an executive moratorium that had previously 
barred oil and natural gas development in the deep waters of the Gulf 
of Mexico, and Congress subsequently rescinded a statutory moratorium 
that year. These actions were intended to open an estimated 5.8 million 
acres in the central gulf to oil leasing and make as much as 16 billion 
barrels of oil available.
  However, after the Deepwater Horizon oilspill in the gulf in 2010, 
the Obama administration imposed a new moratorium that all but halted 
deep-water exploration and development in the area.
  A number of investigations were conducted to determine the cause of 
the Deepwater Horizon accident and protect against similar incidents in 
the future, and that was appropriate. But it was neither necessary nor 
wise to halt all off-shore energy exploration and development in 
response to the spill. The country needs a reliable supply of oil to 
fuel our cars, homes, and power plants, not to mention satisfy the 
numerous manufacturing processes that rely on oil. Locking away the 
vast supply of oil in the deep waters of the gulf merely increased our 
Nation's vulnerability to oil shocks emanating from abroad, and put 
consumers at risk of higher gas prices.
  Despite Federal court orders, it was not until the end of February 
2011 that the Interior Department finally issued the first permit to 
allow the resumption of energy exploration and development. 
Unfortunately, the permit was for just a single project. Essentially, 
the moratorium has become a ``permit-torium,'' or an extreme slow down 
of drilling permits allocated by the administration. This slow down has 
included delays, suspensions, revocations, and cancellations of lease 
permits. These moratoriums have caused six deepwater rigs to depart the 
gulf for other countries, taking valuable jobs, revenue, and income 
with them.
  Others may soon leave as well. Former President Bill Clinton 
understands the damaging impact these de facto moratoriums have on the 
economy. Last Friday, he called the continued delays ``ridiculous.''
  Just as we should reopen the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico to 
prudent exploration and development, so too should we lift the 
moratorium preventing job-creating development of resource-rich areas 
such as Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf, as well as oil shale in 
various Western States.
  Senator Murkowski of Alaska has pointed out that her State has 
estimated oil reserves in excess of 65 years' worth of Persian Gulf oil 
imports. Yet they are virtually off limits.

[[Page 3870]]

  As Alaska's Governor, Sean Parnell, wrote in a recent Wall Street 
Journal op-ed:

       If Americans wonder what our economic Achilles' heel is, 
     they need look no further than the federal regulatory system 
     that delays permits for domestic exploration and production.

  The Federal Government estimates that Alaska's Outer Continental 
Shelf holds 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. We could be drilling now in the Arctic Ocean off the coast 
of Alaska if the Environmental Protection Agency would speed things up 
and issue an air permit. Developing these resources would not only 
generate vast new supplies but translate to a lot of good jobs. In 
fact, a new study by Northern Economics and the University of Alaska 
Anchorage's Institute of Social and Economic Research shows that 
development of oil and gas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Alaska's 
Outer Continental Shelf would create 54,700 new jobs that would be 
sustained for 50 years. An estimated $63 billion would be paid to 
employees in Alaska, and another $82 billion would be paid to employees 
in the rest of the United States.
  As the report notes:

       Domestic energy production is important for the security 
     and prosperity of the United States. The money spent on 
     domestic energy cycles through the U.S. economy, thereby 
     increasing domestic activity and jobs.

  Another resource-rich area in Alaska is ANWR. Despite being one of 
the largest resources of oil and gas in the United States, Alaska's 
ANWR is off limits for energy development. Tapping oil and gas supplies 
in ANWR would require opening just 2,000 acres of the 19 million-acre 
Arctic Plain to such development.
  Remember, ANWR was specifically set aside by Congress for oil and gas 
exploration and development. It was specifically created for that 
purpose. This 2,000 acres would be the equivalent of the airport in 
Phoenix, called Phoenix Sky Harbor, inside an area the size of South 
Carolina--hardly noticeable.
  Using directional drilling with a small environmental footprint, at 
least 1 million barrels of oil a day could be obtained from just this 
one area for the next 20 years. The U.S. Geological Survey has 
estimated that the area could have up to 16 billion barrels of 
recoverable oil, an amount that is equivalent to 30 years of Saudi oil 
imports.
  Analysis from Arctic Power shows that opening ANWR to oil and gas 
production would create approximately 730,000 jobs.
  Those opposed to developing these resources often make the argument 
that it will take 10 years to open ANWR. But if President Clinton had 
not vetoed legislation authorizing Arctic development in 1995, oil 
would likely be flowing from the area today, easing prices and helping 
to insulate our economy from the whims of OPEC. Continued delay will 
only put our Nation further at risk.
  A few final points about abundant onshore oil resources--permits for 
which have also been blocked by the administration. In 2009, the 
administration canceled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah and in 2010 
canceled another 61 in Montana. It has been estimated that the United 
States has approximately 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable 
shale oil, which is roughly three times more than the proven reserves 
of Saudi Arabia. Again, it is all off limits.
  Finally, a note about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In recent 
days, some of my colleagues have called for tapping into the SPR to 
bring down gas prices. But this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a 
national security tool to guard against an economically threatening 
disruption in oil supplies. It was never intended to be used to lower 
gas prices. Our problem today is not a matter of supply. We have plenty 
of supply.
  Since its creation in 1995, a Presidentially directed release from 
SPR has occurred only twice--in 1995, at the beginning of Operation 
Desert Storm, and in 2005, after the devastation Hurricane Katrina 
caused in the Gulf of Mexico. The current SPR inventory is 720 million 
barrels, which equates to about 34 days of oil at current daily U.S. 
consumption. Tapping the Reserve is nothing more than a short-term 
political solution to a problem largely of the administration's own 
making--its continued refusal to allow access to our Nation's plentiful 
resources.
  The benefits of increasing domestic energy production are 
unquestionable, especially at a time when gas prices are soaring and 
good jobs are needed by many Americans. I urge the administration to 
move swiftly in favor of issuing more production permits and urge my 
colleagues to support policies in favor of increased domestic energy 
production. There is no reason for further delay.
  One of the most eloquent spokesman for this same point is on the 
floor, the Senator from Louisiana.
  I am happy to yield the floor to her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to follow the remarks of the 
Senator from Arizona and associate myself with part of his remarks that 
have to do with the energy policy of our country.
  I am disappointed in the administration's reluctance to get the Gulf 
of Mexico back to work. We did have a terrible tragedy in April, almost 
a year ago, April 20, the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. For 40 years 
or longer, 40,000 wells have been drilled safely in the gulf, in 
shallow water and in deep, since 1940, deep water coming into play in 
about 1985. Up until the Deepwater Horizon accident, this industry had 
acted responsibly in large measure with cutting-edge technologies. Yes, 
we have to continue to investigate what happened, but shutting down so 
much of our domestic drilling with the unrest in other parts of the 
world is not the right policy.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator on energy as well 
as tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not a crisis 
of supply; it is a crisis of pricing. SPR should only be tapped when 
there is a supply issue. We can get back to drilling more at home and 
be efficient in other places.

                          ____________________