[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10329-10343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SHARED SACRIFICE IN RESOLVING THE BUDGET DEFICIT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1323, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1323) to express the 
     sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the 
     budget deficit.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein 
for up to 10 minutes each.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about the 
meeting tomorrow the President has called at the White House--a summit, 
I think it has been referred to, one for which I have great hope. I 
hope it will be a summit where both sides leave their weapons at the 
door, sit across the table from one another, and begin talking about a 
comprehensive solution to a comprehensive problem. The solution to that 
problem, though, does not lie in creating villains and enemies. In the 
last 2 weeks, we have heard a lot of rhetoric coming from the White 
House demonizing people who have corporate jets or demonizing people 
who make over $1 million.
  I was reminded in this debate about millionaires in the debate in 
1969 in America. It was one of the first debates I ever watched. I had 
returned home from the service, I had begun my business, and a report 
came out in the newspaper that 155 Americans who made over $1 million 
paid zero taxes. I personally was astounded. Everybody else was 
astounded. Congress went to work to close the loophole, and they did it 
by creating something known as the alternative minimum tax--something 
to make sure someone who paid no tax at least paid ``their fair 
share,'' and I put that in quotes.
  Today, it is not 155 millionaires who are paying the alternative 
minimum tax; 34,200,000 Americans are, because oftentimes when Congress 
goes to target one person, they catch everybody in a bigger loop.
  I do not think we need to demonize those who employ Americans, those 
who create the jobs, those who make our economy run, any more than we 
should villainize people who want to try to save Social Security or 
Medicare.
  The President in his two speeches last week targeted millionaires, he 
targeted job creators, he created villains, and he created enemies. 
None of that will help us to solve a problem.
  Now, the President is not the only one playing that game. A little 
bit of criticism can go to both sides.
  As we look at this chart that has been on the floor in the last 2 
weeks about what has happened in the last 30 months since the President 
was elected as to critical things, unemployment is up by 1.9 million 
people--17 percent in terms of the rate--gas prices are almost double, 
and the Federal debt is up 35 percent. But, remember, it was $10 
trillion when the President was elected, so it is not just the 
President's fault, but he is making it worse. Debt per person is now up 
by $11,258, and health insurance premiums are up by almost 20 percent. 
In fact, the only thing that is down in the last 30 months is the 
expectations of the American people--expectations of what our future is 
going to be like.
  So for a moment I would like to offer some historical suggestions as 
to what both sides can do tomorrow at the White House, when they leave 
the weapons at the door, sit at the table, and really begin to 
negotiate.
  One is to look back in history when we have had big problems and we 
came up with big solutions. The 1980s is a particular time. I was in 
the State legislature then. I followed what was happening in 
Washington. In fact, when I was 39 years old in 1983, Ronald Reagan and 
Tip O'Neill had a meeting at the White House. I was not there, but 
allegedly it went something like this:
  The President said: Well, Social Security is going broke in about 20 
years. We just got that report. We need to fix it.
  O'Neill said: I agree.
  The President said: I am willing to work on it, but I am not willing 
to raise the tax.
  O'Neill said: Well, I am willing to work on it, but I don't want to 
cut the benefit.
  They looked at the Actuary and said: What do we do?
  The Actuary said: Well, you push the eligibility out, and you get the 
system back in actuarial soundness.
  I was 39 in 1983. I would have been collecting Social Security at the 
age of 65 in 2010. But because Reagan and O'Neill got together, they 
pushed my eligibility out by 1 year to age 66, not age 65, and now 
incrementally it goes up 2 months a year to age 67 in a few years. That 
put the system in actuarial soundness for 67 years. The reason it is 
now all of a sudden in trouble again is the protracted economy, and 
these difficulties have caused people--baby boomers--to now go to the 
bank of Social Security and collect early Social Security at age 62. So 
we have had a rush to Social Security because of the unemployment and 
the uncertainty in our economy. But Reagan and O'Neill fixed Social 
Security by pushing the eligibility out. They did not raise the tax, 
but they did raise the ceiling upon which it was levied.
  I think it is interesting politically--I note the President should 
understand and all of us should recognize--the next year was 1984, and 
President Reagan won 49 of 50 States, a year after he fixed Social 
Security.
  So I do not think we ought to demonize people for trying to solve the 
bigger problems of our debt and deficit. Everybody in this room knows 
you could cut every discretionary dollar out and you would still owe 
$300 billion in the deficit. The only way we are going to fix Social 
Security and Medicare is if we are going to fix the debt and deficit.
  On Medicare, I was disappointed that when Paul Ryan in the House came 
up with a forthright plan, he was immediately demonized. In fact, he 
was invited to the White House and criticized face to face at a 
conference the President had. That was just for trying.
  It is about time all of us start trying, we start trying to find 
common ground, we start to look at our solutions in a comprehensive 
way. It is a time where we stop calling names and instead we start 
calling numbers, we start looking at what it is we can do within our 
control to put our spending

[[Page 10330]]

back in line, amortize our debt over time to a reasonable amount, and 
reduce our deficit over time. It is not going to be fixed with one 
stroke of a pen or one single piece of legislation, but it is going to 
begin to be fixed when both sides sit down at the table and understand 
that this is the fourth quarter of the ``major super bowl'' of the 
future of the United States of America. Continuing to shoot each other 
and throw bricks and bats and create victims and create enemies and not 
talk about the real problems is just making it worse for all of us. It 
is time we made it better for the American people.
  I spent the weekend with the American people who live in the State of 
Georgia celebrating our independence on the Fourth of July and spending 
some time with five of my nine grandchildren. I remember Saturday night 
watching my grandchildren play in the den, looking down at them. They 
were not looking at me. I was just watching them play, and I thought 
about their future. I thought about what their future was going to be 
like in a country that ran unlimited debt and deficits, that inflated 
its dollar, lowered its expectations, and was not the America I had 
been fortunate enough to live, work, and be born in.
  Recognizing my age and my time, I know my future--the years I have 
left--is all about those children and those grandchildren. I want to be 
a part of the solution for the problem today but a part of their 
expectations for the future. I do not want them to look back and say: 
Granddad made it worse. I want them to look back and say: Granddad made 
it better.
  Tomorrow is an opportunity for the President of the United States to 
lead. He has templates with which he can lead. He can either choose to 
take isolated enemies and isolated arrows and shoot them at people or 
he can, instead, look back at his deficit commission. His deficit 
commission, which I voted for, by the way--I was one of the Republicans 
who voted for the creation of the deficit commission--came back in 
December with a comprehensive recommendation that should have come to 
the floor for debate. It dealt with Social Security. It did not deal 
with Medicare. It dealt with the Tax Code. It dealt with spending. It 
dealt with expenditures. It lowered tax rates and raised opportunity. 
The President did not even let it come to the floor of the Congress of 
the United States. He looked the other way.
  It is time we look straight in each other's eyes and say there are 
solutions out there that good people of good will can find a way to do, 
just as Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. But I do not want to be a 
part of making it worse. I want to be a part of making it better.
  I hope those at the conference tomorrow sit down with that type of 
attitude--we do not create enemies and villains, we do not make it 
worse, but we begin a platform and a template where in the next 3 to 4 
weeks we can begin to amortize our debt over time, reduce our deficit 
over time, raise the expectations of the American people, and cause a 
brighter future for our children and for our grandchildren.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am going to speak to another issue 
first. But I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for his comments. 
We are in different political parties, but I listened to him and I know 
he is sincere. I think it is that spirit that can lead us to a 
solution. I hope we can find it. I will address the specifics of it 
later in my remarks.


                             Trying Warsame

  But first I wish to address the comments made by the Republican 
Senate Minority Leader McConnell. It relates to a front-page story 
across the United States this morning, where we have apprehended the 
man Ahmed Abduikadir Warsame, a Somali individual who is now being 
charged with terrorist crimes and going to be tried in the State of New 
York.
  This man apparently was apprehended and held for several months on a 
naval vessel of the United States where he was interrogated about his 
involvement in terrorism and then they brought in prosecutors, criminal 
prosecutors from the United States, who interrogated him about what 
they thought would be actionable crimes that could be prosecuted in the 
United States.
  He is now being brought to New York for a trial. The statement made 
by Senator McConnell this morning on the floor of the Senate suggests 
that this was a bad decision on the part of our President and the 
Department of Justice to try this man in the criminal courts of the 
United States.
  Senator McConnell has made this speech many times before. He believes 
that trying terrorists in the courts of the United States makes America 
less safe, and it less likely that we could convict them. He argues 
they should be held at Guantanamo and tried in military tribunals. His 
argument has some surface appeal unless you know the facts.
  The facts are that under President Bush after 9/11 and under 
President Obama, more than 400 suspected terrorists have been tried in 
the criminal courts of America, article III constitutional courts, and 
convicted. They have been tried in our courts and convicted. They are 
serving time in the prisons of the United States of America. That is 
right: convicted terrorists, convicted in criminal courts, now serving 
time in prisons across America, including in my home State of Illinois 
at the Marion Federal Penitentiary.
  So to argue that we cannot successfully convict a terrorist in the 
United States, as Senator McConnell did this morning, is to ignore 
reality. The reality is that President Bush used his Department of 
Justice and our courts to successfully prosecute terrorists. During the 
period of time since 9/11, only around 5 accused terrorists were tried 
in military tribunals--400 in article III criminal courts, 5 in 
military tribunals.
  Senator McConnell makes the argument--and others have joined him--
that the only place to try them is in military tribunals. The fact of 
the matter is, we do not have a very good record in military tribunals 
trying would-be terrorists. There is a variety of reasons for it. The 
Supreme Court did not agree with our procedures. Some of the cases were 
not very good. The bottom line, though, is to say to any President, 
whether it is Republican George Bush or Democrat Barack Obama, Congress 
is going to tell you the best place to try a terrorist--do we have that 
expertise? I do not. I am not sure Senator McConnell does. I think it 
is up to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, and the Attorney General to make that call.
  Take the would-be terrorist to the court where we are most likely to 
convict. Take him to a tribunal where they are going to get a fair 
hearing in the eyes of the world, and conviction is most likely. That 
is what I think the American people want.
  To come here and second guess the President because he has held a man 
for 2 months in military interrogation and now is being prosecuted in 
our criminal courts is totally unfair, unfair because the same standard 
was not applied to the Republican President who tried hundreds of 
would-be terrorists--accused terrorists--in our criminal courts 
successfully. That is a fact. That should be on the record.
  I meant what I said about Senator Isakson of Georgia. He is a 
Republican, I am a Democrat. He is my friend. I like him. We do not 
agree on everything. Our voting records are much different. But what he 
had to say this morning was the right thing. And what he had to say 
this morning, I think, should open the eyes of America about where we 
need to go.
  Yesterday, the President sat down and said, we need to be serious 
about deficit reduction. We do not need a mini deal, we need something 
that speaks authoritatively to the world that the United States 
understands its deficit challenge and is prepared to make the hard 
choices to address it. I think the President is right.
  I was interviewed this morning by a Quincy, IL, radio station. They 
said: Well, why would not you take a mini deal and get it over with? 
Well, if you think you will take a mini deal, you

[[Page 10331]]

will probably be offered a mini, mini deal. At the end of the day, 
little or nothing will happen. Here is the problem we face. It is a 
real problem. For every dollar we spend in Washington, we borrow 40 
cents. We borrow it from countries all around the world. The No. 1 
creditor of the United States is China. China loans us money so that we 
can spend for government purposes.
  How do we spend the money? Well, if you look at Federal employees, 
more than half of the Federal employees in the United States of America 
work for one department, the Department of Defense. If you look at 
expenditures, some of the fastest growing sections of our budget have 
been on the military side as we wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
participate in the NATO exercise in Libya.
  That is a pretty expensive undertaking. We know that that has gone up 
84 percent--military spending in the last 10 years, gone up 84 percent. 
We know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs, 
such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, agriculture payments, 
veterans payments, spending for those payments over the last 10 years 
has gone up 32 percent.
  We know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic 
discretionary spending, which would include things such as building 
highways, keeping Federal prisons open, providing Pell grants to 
college students, giving children from poor families early childhood 
education, putting money at the National Institutes of Health for 
medical research, that is one section of the budget--it comprises 12 
percent of our budget--and in the last 10 years, that part of our 
budget has gone up zero percent; no increase in spending in that 
section.
  Most of our spending goes into the military--84 percent increase over 
10 years--and mandatory programs--32 percent over 10 years. The biggest 
driver, in terms of Federal spending, the thing we cannot seem to get 
hold of, is health care costs. And you know that as an individual, 
whether you are trying to buy health insurance for your family, run a 
small business and trying to cover the owners and workers, or look at 
it from a State and local viewpoint when it comes to public employees.
  I could analyze the health care system, I do know about it. But I 
will tell you that it is a model that is unsustainable. You cannot 
watch the cost of health care go up beyond inflation every single year 
and expect to control deficits, whether it is your family deficit, your 
city deficit, or your national deficit. But that is the reality of 
where we are today as we face the current situation.
  I listened as the Senator from Georgia, whom I respect very much, 
talk about what President Obama inherited. I wish to add a little 
perspective to it. The last time the Federal Government balanced the 
budget, ran a surplus, was in the final 2 years of the Clinton 
administration, William Jefferson Clinton, Democratic President of the 
United States.
  We generated a surplus in those years; that is, we collected more 
money in taxes and revenue than we paid out. That had not happened for 
decades. At that point, as William Jefferson Clinton left office as 
President, the national debt of America, the accumulated net national 
debt of America from George Washington through William Jefferson 
Clinton was $5 trillion--$5 trillion, and we had a surplus in our 
annual budget. When President George W. Bush took over and President 
Clinton handed him the keys to the White House, he said: Next year, if 
you follow my budget, you will have a $120 billion surplus.
  That is what President George W. Bush inherited: $5 trillion national 
debt, a government running a surplus of $120 billion in the next year.
  Fast forward 8 years later. At the end of President George W. Bush's 
8 years in office, let's take a snapshot. What did it look like then? 
The national debt was no longer $5 trillion 8 years later, it was 
almost $11 trillion. It more than doubled in an 8-year period of time. 
And, when President Obama took office, instead of being handed a budget 
for the next year with a $120 billion surplus, as President Bush was 
handed by President Clinton, President Obama was given a budget and he 
said: Next year, if you follow our budget you will have a $1.2 trillion 
deficit, 10 times the amount that President Bush had in surplus. 
President Obama was told: You will have that in deficit. You will owe 
that much. The books do not balance.
  What happened in 8 years? Well, several things happened. First, we 
waged two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we did not pay for them. I 
think back in my history, and I can remember as a kid that every 
birthday I would receive a savings bond, U.S. savings bond. I used to 
think it was interesting. They would hand me these $25 U.S. savings 
bonds, and I knew they cost $18.75. But if I did not do anything with 
them and held onto them for almost 10 years, they would be worth $25. 
So Grandma and Grandpa would give me the $25 savings bond--I would 
think it is only $18.75, and I stuck it away. You know. The reason I 
bring it up is those savings bonds were the way we financed wars. 
Americans sacrificed and loaned money to their government, and they 
bought savings bonds.
  It was my family tradition. It was a tradition of America. But when 
it came to the two most recent wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that did 
not happen. We borrowed the money from other countries. So during that 
8-year period of time, under President Bush, we waged two wars and 
borrowed the money and added it to the national debt.
  We did something else. No President in the history of the United 
States of America ever has cut taxes in the midst of a war. You know 
why? Because you have your ordinary budget of government. You have got 
to pay for it. Now you have got a new expenditure, with hundreds of 
thousands of troops in the field, and families saying, keep them safe 
and bring them home, and you are spending billions of dollars there. 
How could you cut taxes?
  That is what happened. During the Bush administration, they cut 
taxes. Two wars unpaid for, cut taxes, and then President Bush signed 
into law programs--dramatically expensive programs that were not paid 
for. Medicare prescription Part D was one of them. So you had these 
programs signed into law, wars not paid for, taxes cut, and, at the end 
of an 8-year period of time, the national debt rose from $5 trillion to 
over $10 trillion, almost $11 trillion.
  The Republican Party has a philosophy, the Democratic Party has a 
philosophy. There are those of us who think that sometimes we should 
listen to one another and try to learn from one another. I think this 
is one of those occasions. But I will say to my friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle in the Senate and the Republican leaders 
in the House, those who are arguing that the best way to get the 
American economy moving forward at this point is to give tax cuts to 
the wealthiest people in America, they have forgotten their history. 
That is exactly what we did under President George W. Bush, and look 
what happened--the biggest deficits in the history of the United 
States. When Barack Obama raised his hand off of that Lincoln Bible, 
taking the oath of office, that month we lost 700,000 jobs in America. 
Unemployment was running rampant and kept going.
  Using the Republican economic theory of tax cuts for the wealthiest 
people in America--it did not work then. It will not work now. It is a 
tired old idea. It may give them points in opinion polls. It does not 
give America points and credibility around the world. It is a position 
they are taking.
  Having said that, I guess I could stop here and they would say: 
Durbin, that was a heck of a Democratic speech.
  Let me go a little further. I was on the deficit commission. I sat 
there for 10 months and listened to everything. It was split, Democrats 
and Republicans, and the President appointed the commission. There were 
Democratic and Republican Senators, and the same thing with House 
Members. I came to the conclusion that there were some positions the 
Republicans had taken that were wrong, and there were positions that 
Democrats had taken that

[[Page 10332]]

were also wrong. It was time for us to try to do something smart and do 
it bipartisanly. I voted for the deficit commission; 11 out of 18 of us 
did. I think I surprised more people than I ever imagined. But I think 
it was the right thing to do.
  The morning I voted for it, my son, who happens to live in Brooklyn, 
in the Presiding Officer's State, sent me an e-mail saying: Thanks, 
Dad, you are doing the right thing. Well, every dad wants to hear that 
once in a while. I said that at this commission meeting. It meant a lot 
to me that my son, whom I greatly love, would have that kind of respect 
for that kind of decision.
  Here is what we did and what we need to do now. Here is what we need 
to say to the American people: We can get out of this mess. America is 
a good, strong nation. We are good people, smart, hard working, and we 
have a great tradition when it comes to dealing with challenges, 
whether it is waging wars, or fighting recessions, or putting a man on 
the Moon. We can do it. We have done it, and we will do it again. Start 
with that premise. Don't bad-mouth this country, because we are blessed 
to be living here. This country and its history have proven over and 
over again that it can tackle the biggest challenges and meet them head 
on. Do you know who wins this battle? It is average Americans--those 
who have waged our wars, who were the soldiers and went off to war, my 
brothers in the Korean war, and others, regular old families who said 
it is our patriotic duty and we will serve. They continue to do it time 
and again.
  When it comes to sacrifice, Americans know that spirit as well--not 
only the can-do spirit, but the spirit of, sure, my brothers each gave 
4 years of their lives to the U.S. Navy, and so many others did. It 
says that Americans are willing to step up and participate in a 
national effort. When they think we are all together as a nation moving 
in the right direction, they want to be part of it, I want to be part 
of it, America wants to be part of it. When we talk about solutions to 
problems, we talk about everybody rolling up their sleeves and getting 
involved.
  I know the poorest of the poor can't. They don't have the resources, 
or they may not have the physical or mental ability, whatever their 
circumstance, and I am ready to help the most vulnerable people. Asking 
them to sacrifice and pitch in is maybe too much in some circumstances. 
The rest of us should pitch in.
  Here is what we ought to do. First, we should not say that anybody in 
America who is wealthy and comfortable in life is going to be spared in 
sacrifice. Everybody has to give. Those who are better off than some 
should give more. I don't think that is unfair. Life has been good to 
them; America has been good to them. When we need them, they should be 
asked to help. So the notion of raising taxes on the wealthiest people 
should not be something we automatically reject. It should be part of 
the conversation.
  Second, we have a Tax Code that you could not carry with two arms 
because it is so big, loaded with laws and regulations and, frankly, 
most people don't know what is in it. I will tell you the people who do 
know: the special-interest lobbyists in Washington, the tax lawyers, 
and some people in congressional committees. In there, you will find 
that we spend almost $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures. Most people 
don't understand that. I learned a little about it in the deficit 
commission; $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures in the Tax Code equals 
all the credits, all the deductions, all the exclusions, and everything 
that you can take to reduce your tax burden. And $1.2 trillion also 
represents the entire amount of discretionary spending each year in the 
United States. It is a big sum of money. So we spend it in our 
expenditure levels, from the Defense Department all the way through the 
Agriculture Department, and everything in between; and we forgive, or 
don't collect, the same amount in the Tax Code.
  Who benefits from that? Let's look at the basics. Seventy percent of 
the American taxpayers do not itemize on their tax returns. They file a 
standard return. So the Tax Code doesn't mean anything to them. If 
there is a special deduction, unless it is a refundable tax credit--a 
rare category--it doesn't help them. Seventy percent of Americans don't 
touch it. What are the biggest deductions under the U.S. Tax Code 
today? In all my wisdom and education and experience on Capitol Hill, I 
said it is the mortgage interest deduction, right? Wrong. The biggest 
single deduction is the employers' exclusion for health care premiums. 
Employers are able to exclude from income the amount of money they 
spend for health insurance for their employees. No. 2 is the mortgage 
interest deduction. I use it. My wife and I bought our home and thought 
about it ahead of time. OK, we have mortgage interest deduction, maybe 
we can buy a little more home. A lot of families do. When you look at 
the mortgage interest deduction and realize that 70 percent of 
Americans don't itemize, look at the 30 percent who do, it turns out 
that mortgage interest deduction--the lion's share of that money goes 
to the very highest income categories in America. So that comes as a 
surprise. Do you think it is a middle class tax cut? It is not. It is, 
by and large, a tax cut for wealthy people.
  I want to preserve that part that protects middle-income families. 
But, again, shouldn't those in the highest income categories be willing 
to see a change in that deduction if it means America's deficit is 
going to be finally brought under control?
  When we look at the Tax Code, we need to be honest about it. There 
are things in there we cannot afford to do any longer--things that 
maybe we never should have done. We can clean up that Tax Code. What we 
found in the deficit commission is that by cleaning it up, we could 
actually produce enough revenue to lower marginal tax rates. I hope my 
Republican friends tune in at this point. They applaud this, and I do 
too. If we can lower marginal tax rates for families--even businesses 
in America--that is a good thing; I am for it. But it means being 
honest and tackling the Tax Code.
  The other thing we have to look at is entitlements. This is where it 
gets dicey on my side. I like Paul Ryan. Congressman Paul Ryan is from 
the Midwest, and maybe I am partial as a result. He is from Janesville, 
WI. He studied this issue and knows it well. We come to different 
conclusions, but he did tackle the entitlements. I think he went too 
far with Medicare. Doubling the out-of-pocket expenses for people under 
Medicare is a nonstarter. Eliminating Medicare as we know it and 
putting these folks in the ``loving arms'' of health insurance 
companies in their sixties and seventies is not any kind of favor for 
the elderly in America. So I disagreed with his conclusions. I would 
not vote for that. In fact, I voted against him.
  I don't disagree with Paul Ryan saying that we have to look honestly 
at Medicare. If we don't do that, in 10 or 12 years it will go broke. 
We cannot let that happen. So we have to look at Medicare in a sensible 
way to reduce the costs of Medicare.
  Let me give one example. In the Medicare prescription Part D Program, 
prescription drugs for seniors, I think Medicare ought to offer an 
option. The government ought to have an option that people can choose 
voluntarily, one way or the other, to try to buy pharmaceutical drugs 
in bulk, reducing their costs, so that seniors pay less. Is that a 
radical concept? No. It is exactly what we do in the Veterans' 
Administration. We can do it under Medicare prescription Part D, 
reducing that program and the costs to seniors, and create as part of 
the spectrum of competition a Medicare prescription program--one people 
can opt into if they want to. So there are ways to save money in 
Medicare without endangering basic benefits.
  Here is the last thing I will say. I see my colleague from Louisiana 
here. I don't want to keep him waiting. Tomorrow, I will be honored to 
be invited to the White House with Senator Reid to meet with the 
President and the leadership in the House and Senate--Democrats and 
Republicans. The President said: Leave your ultimatums at the door. 
That is good advice. He understands that if we don't extend the

[[Page 10333]]

debt ceiling by August 2, it will have a dramatic negative impact on 
the American economy. It is as if you would default on your mortgage--
same result. Our creditors around the world will say: Oh, America is 
not going to pay its bills on time, so maybe we won't loan them money. 
Maybe if we loan them money, we will raise the interest rate. If they 
raise the interest rate on our government, they will raise the interest 
rates across our economy, whether you are borrowing for a home, a car, 
or whatever it is. It would be the height of irresponsibility for us to 
default on America's debt. That debt ceiling needs to be extended so 
that interest rates don't go up, because if they do, it will hurt our 
economic recovery and put more Americans out of work.
  The template for our meeting tomorrow should be the President's 
deficit commission. I will only take exception to one thing Senator 
Isakson said earlier. He said that the President did not let it come to 
the floor for a vote--his deficit commission. In fairness to Senator 
Isakson, that wasn't the President's responsibility. It is our 
responsibility to bring it to the floor for a vote. I have been trying 
for 6 months now, with a handful of other colleagues--Democrats and 
Republicans--to bring this to the floor so that we would have a vote on 
it. I will keep on trying, as we should. I think it remains the best 
way to approach the deficit challenge. Let's put everything on the 
table. Look to the deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles commission, 
which gave us guidance as to how to get out of this. If we do get it 
done--and we can do this--I think it is going to inspire people around 
the world to believe again in America's future as an economy, to invest 
in America, and we will create jobs. It is going to be like the 
turnaround that occurred when Bill Clinton came to office and said, ``I 
am taking the deficit seriously,'' and he passed the deficit reduction 
plan by one vote in the House--I was there--and by one vote in the 
Senate when Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote. Look what 
happened to the economy. There was a dramatic increase in business 
ownership, business creation, and home ownership.
  That, to me, can happen again if we come up with a bipartisan, 
sensible, inclusive budget deficit plan of the magnitude the President 
called for yesterday.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, will the Chair inform me when I have 
consumed 12 minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, first, I rise to celebrate that we are 
finally, after months and months of doing everything under the Sun but 
facing our gravest challenge, which is spending and debt, focused on 
that on the floor of the Senate. That is progress. We have a long way 
to go, but at least that is progress.
  For months, I have been urging us as a body, urging the majority 
leader, who controls the floor, please, let's focus on our gravest 
challenge, Federal spending and debt, and not wait until the eleventh 
hour, not wait for a crisis atmosphere. Let's put on the floor 
meaningful legislation about spending and debt.
  For months and months, unfortunately, we did everything but that on 
the floor of the Senate. The majority leader looked for every bill and 
every topic but that, and it was all sorts of cats and dogs--many of 
them, quite frankly, trivial, unnecessary legislation, particularly 
compared to this grave challenge of spending and debt.
  Finally, last week, a group of conservatives here said enough is 
enough. We should not go out on our planned July 4 recess, which was 
scheduled to be all of this week. We said we are going to block that. 
It takes unanimous consent for that to happen. We said we would block 
it and, sure enough, we did. We said, wait a minute, we are not 
blocking that just to be here. We are not blocking that to be here and 
continue to move on to every other issue under the Sun but spending and 
debt. We did that to finally focus on the floor of the Senate on the 
gravest of all of our current challenges--Federal spending and debt.
  We said we are going to vote against the motion to proceed to the 
Libya debate. Libya is an important matter. In fact, that debate is 
long overdue in Congress. Those votes are long overdue. But that 
challenge does not rise to the level of our greatest fundamental 
challenge right now as a nation, which is spending and debt. We said we 
are going to block that motion to proceed to yet another unrelated 
matter, and we did. We rounded up the votes in the last half week and 
got those necessary votes to block that motion to proceed. As a result, 
the distinguished majority leader pulled that vote, he vitiated that 
cloture vote yesterday.
  Finally, we have an instrument on the Senate floor--a motion--about 
this central challenge we face, spending and debt. So that is progress. 
I urge all of my colleagues to come down and join this most important 
debate. I continue to urge the majority leader to put meaningful, 
substantive legislation on the floor about this topic. We have motions 
on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. It focuses us on the proper topic, 
spending and debt. That is progress.
  But, of course, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not do anything 
or change anything. We still have further to go in terms of bringing 
meaningful legislation to the floor, our gravest challenge, Federal 
spending and debt.
  Why do I insist this is our top challenge at hand? The facts speak 
for themselves. Of every $1 the Federal Government spends--of every 
$1--over 40 cents is borrowed money--over 40 cents of every $1. Imagine 
if we ran our household that way. It wouldn't take long for one to hit 
a financial dead end and virtual bankruptcy--if out of every $1 our 
family was spending, 40 cents of it was borrowed money.
  What does that mean? It means we are collecting, as a nation--as a 
Federal Government--about $2.2 trillion a year. That is a lot of money, 
$2.2 trillion. The problem is we are spending $3.7 trillion--way, way, 
way more than we are collecting.
  The distinguished majority whip mentioned entitlement spending, and I 
agree with him that is a big part of the issue which we must face in a 
careful, substantive way because Medicare is one of those big 
entitlement programs. It, too, is on an unsustainable path. The average 
American pays about $110,000 into Medicare over his or her lifetime--a 
lot of money--but, on average, that average American receives in 
benefits over $430,000 under Medicare. There again, it is not tough to 
do the math. That is unsustainable, when the average American pays in 
$110,000 and receives in benefits over $300,000.
  Social Security is another huge entitlement program. This year, it is 
taking in less than it is spending on current retirees. That day of 
reckoning was going to be several years down the road, but it has been 
accelerated. It is here now--right now. Social Security is taking in, 
in tax revenue, less than it is paying out in benefits to retirees.
  What does this mean? This adds up and up and up. So we have more new 
debt under this administration--more new debt under President Obama--
than the debt compiled under all the previous Presidents combined, from 
the first George Bush to the latest George, George W. Bush. We have 
more new debt under this President than the debt accumulated from all 
those previous Presidents combined. We must do something, and we must 
do something about the real problem, spending and debt.
  Washington, in a bipartisan way, has a spending problem. The 
fundamental problem isn't that we are undertaxed. We all know that, no 
matter what station in life we come from. The fundamental problem is, 
Washington doesn't live within its means, such as we as families do as 
we sit around our kitchen tables and look at our budgets. Washington 
has a fundamental spending and debt problem, and we need real 
solutions--rigorous, disciplined solutions--to get that under control.
  How do we go about that? To me, it comes down to three important 
things: cut, cap, and balance--cut, cap, and balance. Cut: We need to 
cut the budget now. We need to cut the budget this

[[Page 10334]]

year and next year. We need immediate meaningful cuts. That is why I 
support those immediate meaningful cuts in the Federal budget. We can't 
put off meaningful cuts for 1 year or 5 years or 10 years. We need them 
right now.
  A few weeks ago, we had some budget proposals on the floor. We had 
several Republican proposals and we had President Obama's proposed 
budget. The Obama budget didn't cut in a meaningful way. In fact, it 
doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled the debt in 10. On the 
Republican side, we had three different alternatives, all of which cut 
the budget in a meaningful way, and I voted for all three. We need to 
start now, today, with cuts.
  But that is not enough. That is short term. We need immediate cuts, 
we need medium-term caps, and we need balance. So let's discuss caps. 
What do I mean by a cap? I mean we need established spending caps in 
each major category of the budget that takes some sort of extraordinary 
supermajority in the Congress to supercede. We need a glidepath to 
actually get through those caps to a balanced budget in a reasonable 
period of time.
  There are several proposals in this body. There are several proposals 
in the House, mostly from the Republican, conservative side--virtually 
all of them--to establish those caps, to get us on that disciplined 
mandatory path so we reach that balanced budget.
  Third, and finally, balance: The goal needs to be a balanced budget, 
and it can't be a goal generations off. It can't be a goal decades off. 
It needs to be a goal within our sight. The only way, ultimately, I 
believe, we can absolutely ensure that is through a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  I am very proud to be a coauthor, along with all my Republican 
colleagues--every single one of us--of a strong, meaningful, 
substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. This has been 
debated in this body and the House for some time. The last time it was 
voted on, on the floor of the Senate, it came within one vote of 
passing. We need to have this ultimate protection and straitjacket and 
enforced discipline to say we are getting to a balanced budget, we are 
going to stay there, and we are not going to get in this state again.
  Virtually every State in the country has such a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment under their State constitution, and that 
enforced discipline works. That straitjacket at the State level works. 
It works in my State of Louisiana. We have such a provision in our 
State constitution which says we can't have a State budget which is out 
of balance. That mandate, that requirement for a balanced budget works. 
Every year, the legislature, working with the Governor, produces a 
balanced budget. If they go out of session and 1 month later revenues 
fall and the budget goes out of balance, they have to come back in 
within a set period of time and they have to rebalance that budget. It 
is not fun. It is not easy. It has been particularly difficult in this 
horrible economy for the last several years, but because of that 
mandate, because of that constitutional provision, it gets done. That 
is what we need at the Federal level. We need a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment.
  So I repeat: cut, cap, and balance. It is an important formula. It is 
simple but substantive and it will get us where we need to be.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 12 
minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.
  I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together 
and continue this debate and move it to the next level.
  As I said when I began, the first thing I wish to do is recognize and 
celebrate progress because, after months of resistance from the 
distinguished majority leader, we are finally on the Senate floor 
actually talking about our most pressing challenge, spending and debt. 
But it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is a procedural motion.
  Let's get to the real substance by having meaningful legislation--
cut, cap, and balance legislation--on the floor of the Senate, open to 
amendments and open to wide-ranging debate. That is the history and 
tradition of the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't been the practice of 
the Senate all that much in recent years, but we are trying to get back 
to that. So let's put that meaningful, substantive legislation about 
spending and debt on the floor of the Senate, have that debate, have 
amendments, and have a free flow of ideas.
  Cut, cap, and balance--we can get there. We can do the work of the 
American people. We can rein in this runaway Federal spending and debt, 
and we must. We must do it now. Because if we fail to meet this 
challenge this year--if we fail to meet this challenge this year--I 
believe there are going to be dire consequences for our economy and for 
all American families as a result.
  Having this topic on the floor of the Senate is a start, but it is 
only a start. Let's build on this, put substantive legislation on the 
floor about spending and debt, and act on that meaningful, substantive 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I begin on my time, I would like 
to ask my colleague from Louisiana if he would answer a question.
  Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  My colleague is right. We should move on this, this year. We 
certainly agree with that. Of course, the balanced budget amendment 
wouldn't take effect for years to come. But my colleague just voted for 
the Ryan budget, which actually increased the deficit. Not only did it 
not move deficit numbers down, but it increased the deficit. So how can 
he reconcile all this nice, grandiose talk about a balanced budget 
amendment with voting for a budget that actually increased the deficit?
  Mr. VITTER. Well, first of all, I voted for that budget as well as 
the Toomey budget. The Toomey budget, which was my first choice and 
preference, balances the budget in 10 years. That would be my first 
choice.
  The Ryan budget gets us way down the path compared to anything else 
proposed on the Democratic side, such as the President's budget, which 
on the Senate floor actually got 0 votes out of 100. So while the Ryan 
budget is not my first choice, it is a dramatic improvement on the path 
we are currently on.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would note, for my colleague--reclaiming my time--the 
Ryan budget is not a dramatic step in that direction. The Ryan budget, 
as I understand it, does not do a thing in the first decade to reduce 
the deficit. It cuts a lot of spending, but it also cuts taxes and it 
raises defense spending.
  Mr. VITTER. If I may respond, through the Chair.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Please.
  Mr. VITTER. That is not true. It reduces the deficit. It doesn't 
balance the budget within the 10-year window, which is my strong 
preference--the Toomey budget does do that--but it gets us going in the 
right direction. It reduces the deficit, and it is a particularly 
dramatic improvement over anything proposed by this administration.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  I would say it is time to walk the walk, not talk the talk. Whenever 
folks refuse to step to the plate to actually balance the budget--the 
last President to do so being Bill Clinton--they start talking about a 
way distant, future balanced budget amendment. This balanced budget 
amendment they talk about is not going to solve our problem in the next 
5 years. We have to get to work right now, and that is what we are 
trying to do on this side, with a fair and balanced approach.
  The balanced budget amendment my colleague speaks about would, if we 
look at the amounts--18 percent GDP--cut deeper than the Ryan budget. 
It would end Medicare as we know it. It would mean things we take for 
granted, such as food safety inspectors and flight inspectors, would 
have to be cut, and then it makes it impossible to close tax loopholes 
for millionaires and

[[Page 10335]]

billionaires. It is not a balanced budget amendment; it is an 
unbalanced budget amendment because it simply reflects an ideological 
view that my good colleague and friend from Louisiana has but does not 
reflect the views of either a majority of this Chamber or certainly the 
American people.
  So let's walk the walk. Let's not just talk the talk. I think that is 
very important to note. Cutting spending, which is done in the Ryan 
budget, is not going to work in terms of balancing the budget. It just 
can't, unless we decimate programs, such as Medicare, without revenues.
  That is what I am here to talk about today. I rise today in support 
of the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice. The clock is ticking. 
Time is running short to reach a deal on reducing the deficit and 
raising the debt ceiling. We are walking the walk and not simply 
talking the talk about some ephemeral balanced budget amendment that is 
unbalanced and will not pass.
  Yesterday, the President said we needed to reach a deal within 2 
weeks in order to avoid roiling the financial markets. Democrats are 
working in good faith, identifying spending cuts and tax loopholes to 
close. And what are our Republican colleagues doing?
  Well, since stalking out of the negotiations 2 weeks ago, they are 
now sticking to their blind ideology and playing political games, such 
as inviting the President to come to the Capitol, when they know he 
can't, to deliver a message he has already heard. The Republican leader 
has continued to insist that we can't raise a single dollar in revenue, 
no matter how wasteful the tax break or how generous the substance.
  Madam President, here is what it is coming down to. In the home 
stretch of negotiations, our Republican colleagues seem to be willing 
to tank the economy rather than end a single tax subsidy. Democrats are 
committed to reducing the deficit and getting our Nation back on a 
sensible fiscal track, but we know everyone must pay their fair share. 
We know there has to be compromise to get things done. We can't just 
draw a line in the sand and say: My way or no way; it will lead to 
fiscal Armageddon.
  So over the past several weeks, we have offered a number of wasteful 
tax breaks that should be ended as part of the debt ceiling deal: 
ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry making record profits; 
the ethanol industry, which 36 Members on the floor, including the 
majority leader, supported, to their credit, and corporate jet owners, 
will save us tens of billions of dollars.
  Now, paradoxically, our Republican colleagues are now arguing that 
tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners are too small to 
consider ending. They have argued that because they will only save 
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. They say that is not enough and 
so we shouldn't be discussing them now.
  Well, I disagree. Tens of billions of dollars that we can save on 
wasteful subsidies are certainly worth pursuing.
  But let's turn our attention to the matter at hand, one of the 
biggest of all taxpayer giveaways that Democrats are trying to end: tax 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
  I rise today in strong support of the Senate resolution that says, 
simply, instead of ending Medicare as we know it, instead of cutting 
college scholarships and cancer research, instead of balancing the 
budget solely on the backs of the middle class, let's end some breaks. 
Let's end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
  Let me repeat that because that is the essence of our dispute, of our 
disagreement. You can't varnish it any other way. I know the other side 
tries to say we are raising taxes, trying to imply that we want to do 
it on middle-class people. We don't. We are not going to touch a person 
whose income is below $250,000. Some of us would even go higher, 
$500,000, $1 million. But every one of us on this side says: If you are 
a millionaire, you should share some of the sacrifice. The other side 
resists, and then they try to hide by saying it is raising taxes. It is 
not raising taxes on average folks. It is not raising taxes at all. It 
is simply going back to the level under Bill Clinton where we had 
record prosperity, record jobs, and record income growth for the 
highest end people as well as for middle-class people who got income 
growth as well.
  So let me repeat the nub of this and why we have this resolution on 
the Senate floor. Here is what it says: Instead of ending Medicare as 
we know it, instead of cutting college scholarships and cancer 
research, instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle 
class, let's end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. This 
would save over $100 billion a year and hundreds and hundreds of 
billions in the long run. It is not just a small amount.
  I ask my Republican colleagues, is that savings significant enough to 
at least merit discussion and not just take it off the table?
  The GOP budget would end Medicare as we know it to give hundreds of 
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. The 
resolution says, simply: Don't let that happen.
  Let me say this: I respect people who have made a lot of money. There 
are many of them in my State. They work hard. God bless them. But many 
of them, when you talk to them, are the first to say they should share 
in the sacrifice. There are some who would say no, but I don't think 
they represent mainstream America or mainstream American opinion.
  In normal times this would be a consensus opinion, the fact that we 
shouldn't end Medicare as we know it to give hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax breaks to the richest Americans. In normal times that 
would be a consensus position.
  Republican Presidents and political leaders have long supported 
raising revenue combined with cutting spending to reduce deficits. 
Ronald Reagan, for instance, because he wanted to shrink government, 
but he was fiscally responsible. But the Republican Party has been 
dragged so far to the right by an ideological fringe that they now see 
this balanced approach as an extreme position.
  What it comes down to is this: Would Republicans rather end Medicare 
than end tax breaks for billionaires? It is a simple choice, and this 
resolution will make the answer to that question clear.
  Again, will Republicans do anything, even risk default, to protect 
tax breaks on the highest income people, millionaires and billionaires? 
And would they rather end Medicare and solely rely on cuts that hurt 
the middle class than admit that some tax subsidies, such as those for 
big oil companies and corporate jet owners, are a waste of taxpayer 
dollars? Well, Madam President, we will soon find out.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
Chamber for not to exceed 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. I don't anticipate taking 20 minutes of time. I hope to be 
back on the Senate floor this afternoon talking about a related 
subject, but I do want to take the opportunity essentially to bring us 
back to the central problem we are facing in this Chamber and in this 
country; that is, dealing with an out-of-control spending program in 
Washington, DC, that has occurred over many years.
  In fact, the accumulation of debt not only is at the federal level, 
but it has been at the State level. It has been at the local level. It 
has been at the personal and the private level. We have been in a cycle 
of debt accumulation that simply is coming to an end, and it is coming 
to an end because we can no longer afford to pay the interest and can 
no longer afford to fulfill the promises that have been made on a 
political basis to people over a whole series of years, both by 
Democrats and Republicans, and only accelerated in a dramatic fashion 
in the last 3 years where we have seen an explosion of spending at the 
Federal level. This simply cannot continue and be paid for under any 
system of taxation at all.
  So what we have seen is a nice deflection away from the central 
issue, a deflection into--well, the whole thing

[[Page 10336]]

comes down to whether we tax millionaires and billionaires. The 
President's speech last week, which set the stage for all this 
discussion, is a nice deflection away from what we all know we need to 
do. And what we need to do is address this out-of-control deficit, out-
of-control accumulation of debt that is simply unsustainable.
  Now, it is pure arithmetic and it is easy arithmetic. When we spend 
$3.7 trillion a year, and revenues coming in are only $2.2 trillion a 
year, we are racking up, on a year-by-year basis, a deficit of $1.5 
trillion or greater a year. And that deficit has to be paid. How is it 
paid? Well, 40 cents of every dollar that is spent has to be borrowed 
in order to pay for the promises that have been made.
  So until we as a body put aside this ``gotcha'' stuff that may allow 
political positioning for the 2012 election but doesn't address the 
real problem, we are not going to solve this problem. There has been a 
lot of posturing going on, and I am not here to address that in 
specific detail at this particular point in time except to say that we 
need to refocus on the real task before us. The real task before us is 
understood by the American people. They understand that we cannot 
continue spending money at the rates that we are spending it.
  Our debt has skyrocketed 35 percent to a limit of $14.3 trillion in 
just the last 2 years. Our annual deficit, our yearly deficit, is now 
three times greater than the highest deficit of the previous 
administration. Today, as a result of a stagnant economy and as a 
result of uncertainty imposed on our economic system, we have 14 
million Americans out of work, and that number is conservative because 
those are the ones who are looking for work. Those who have given up 
looking for work amount to a significant number, and those who may 
never have an opportunity to get back into the workforce ought to be of 
great concern to us.
  These facts, combined with the warnings that have been given to us by 
the financial markets, should make it clear to all of us, from the 
President to Members of Congress and both parties and to the American 
people, that this current plan we are operating under, the President's 
economic plan, is not working; that the plan of spending more and 
borrowing more is not getting our economy back to where it ought to be 
and not getting people back to work.
  Over the weekend, I was privileged to be able to give the Republican 
address following the President's weekly address to the Nation. In that 
address I suggested that instead of the current plan that we are 
following under, we ought to look at models that are functioning much 
better and working to see what we can learn.
  Representing the State of Indiana, I am proud to be able to say that 
the model that our State has used has taken us from a deficit position 
to a surplus position without raising taxes. By reducing spending and 
actually cutting taxes and balancing our budget, we have now seen a 
significant change in the financial fortune of the State of Indiana and 
Hoosiers who occupy that State.
  This administration has increased spending, increased borrowing, 
raised taxes, and expanded the growth of government. Now the credit 
agencies are looking at our Federal Government and warning of dire 
consequences and downgrading of our debt, at the same time the model 
used in Indiana, which cut taxes, cut spending, and balanced our 
budget, resulted in a AAA credit rating, the best rating you can get.
  Now, the President's plan during this time, the only one that we can 
work off of, is his $4 trillion budget, which would have increased 
deficit spending not decreased it. Interestingly enough, the only plan 
that we have in front of us--a comprehensive plan at this point in time 
from the President or his party--is the plan the President introduced. 
We have had some nice speeches, and we have had some nice rhetoric. We 
have heard about the dire consequences of not coming up with a sensible 
plan before we hit the debt limit ceiling now scheduled for August 2. 
But the only concrete plan proposed to us in this Chamber and in the 
House of Representatives from Democrats is a $4 trillion budget which 
was voted on in the Senate and was defeated by unanimous vote. Not one 
Democrat voted for the President's budget plan. Yet no alternate plan 
has been proposed. There may be one in the works. We would like to see 
it. We would like to work off of it.
  I don't understand how you can negotiate any kind of a final proposal 
if you don't have something to work with and the only thing we now have 
before us is simply a resolution on the matter of whether we ought to 
tax millionaires and billionaires.
  Even if we went forward and did that, even if we took 100 percent of 
all of the income earned by all of those who are in the millionaire and 
billionaire category, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what 
we need to do. It would do nothing to adjust and reform spending 
programs and duplication of spending and bureaucratic overlap in 
Washington that has been accumulating year after year after year. So it 
is a nice diversion. It is a nice way of playing class warfare. It is a 
nice way to set yourself up for some good talking points back home, 
positioning yourself for some good rhetoric if you are running for 
reelection. But it doesn't address the problem we have.
  Here we are, having canceled our July 4 recess in order to discuss 
the budget and the plight we are in and try to come together and 
fashion a plan. We need a plan that we can assure the American people 
will put us on a much sounder fiscal path; calm the financial markets 
and the credit rating agencies; and reassure those from all over the 
world who invest their money in America that we finally have our hands 
around the problem, we are coming up with sensible solutions, America 
will continue to be a safe place to invest your money and the dollar 
will continue to be a sound currency in which the world can put their 
confidence.
  I was encouraged by the President's statement recently that we ought 
to move forward. I hope the President's remarks on the budget last week 
were perhaps to satisfy his base or to politically position himself for 
more serious negotiations. I hope that is the case. The President has 
indicated, I believe, that we must take bold steps and take them now in 
anticipation of what needs to be done by August 2; and therefore he has 
called for a summit tomorrow. It is time we put aside the political 
rhetoric and the gamesmanship. It is time we get down to some serious 
bargaining and negotiating and come up with what I think most of us 
believe is necessary in order to accomplish what we need to in 
addressing this very critical problem that has steep consequences.
  There is agreement, I trust, that we need serious spending 
reductions--some have estimated that in the $2 trillion range over a 
10-year period of time. Others say to really get at the problem, it 
needs to be double that or more, in the $4 trillion to $5 trillion 
range.
  There also needs to be a commitment to restructure entitlement 
programs. We all understand and know the three major entitlement 
programs--Medicaid, Social Security, and especially Medicare--are 
running out of money, are not sustainable under the current program, 
and need to be restructured.
  Once again, this is something that is ripe for political positioning 
and posturing. The fact is that unless we address structural changes in 
the entitlement programs, those programs will have to be drastically 
reduced, if not eliminated, in the future because they simply are not 
sustainable, given the current number of recipients drawing benefits as 
opposed to the money that is going into most programs. Anyone who says 
we are doing this on the backs of senior citizens, on low-income 
people, is not realistically acknowledging the facts. These programs 
are going broke. There are those, on both sides of the aisle, who are 
standing and saying this has to be part of our solution to our spending 
and deficit problem. Those who are saying this is not part of the 
solution simply are telling seniors we are going to allow your program 
to go broke or there are going to be severe consequences.

[[Page 10337]]

  Those who are advocating this, to the contrary, are saying we are 
trying to save those programs. We are trying to ensure that the needed 
health care benefits under Medicare and needed benefits under Medicaid 
and needed income under Social Security that people are depending on 
will be preserved in the future. We are trying to save those programs 
and keep those programs solvent so that a few years from now, as the 
trustees have indicated in their latest report on Medicare--a few years 
from now we will not run into a much more serious problem, which will 
require much more drastic action.
  Also, what we need to do is ensure that we have enforcement programs 
in place so whatever program cuts and changes and reforms that are made 
are not overturned by a future Congress. We need enforcement programs 
to do what we are obligated to do on this floor but often do not seem 
to have the political will to address effectively, programs that will 
automatically kick in to ensure the goals we established are reached, 
whether or not we have the political will to go forward and do it 
ourselves.
  I support a balanced budget. If we had had that balanced budget 
passed in the mid-1990s, when we came close, but failed by one vote 
each time, we would not find ourselves in this position now. We would 
have done what States across America had to do; that is, be straight 
out with their constituents and simply say: Yes, you can have this new 
program; yes, we can expand spending, but constitutionally we are 
mandated to balance our budget so we have two options of getting there. 
We can either reduce spending in other areas, if this is more important 
and has a higher priority, and use that money to pay for it or we can 
raise your taxes. Let's decide which you want to do. Is this program of 
such necessity and does it have the majority support in the State or 
the locality and is the public willing to support it with increased 
taxes? That is not unlike the school referendums, where the school puts 
forward a plan to improve the facilities or hire new teachers and puts 
a referendum before the people of the school district and says: If you 
are willing to raise your property taxes, we add this program or do 
this with the education system. Sometimes they pass. Sometimes they 
fail. But it gives the public the opportunity to determine whether to 
pay for it. It leaves the ultimate financial position at a level of 
balance.
  We should address that. If there is a dispute or difference of 
opinion as to what the components of a balanced budget should be, we 
should have that debate. We should go forward on that and work toward 
some sensible solution. But the only way we are going to guarantee to 
the American people we are not going to return to our profligate ways 
is to establish and enact and give to the States the opportunity to 
enact a constitutional amendment to balance the budget for future 
spending.
  Finally, I wish to include the need for comprehensive tax reform. As 
many in this Chamber know, Senator Wyden and I, on a bipartisan basis, 
have introduced comprehensive tax reform. We are going to talk about 
that a little bit later this afternoon. We have essentially said that 
the Tax Code is dysfunctional. It does not promote growth and 
efficiency. It needs to be reformed. There is a general consensus on 
that.
  We have proposed a way to do it. We are open to suggestions of better 
ways if someone else has some better ideas. We do believe a lot of the 
subsidies and tax exclusions and expenditures in the Tax Code are 
unfair. They are put in for the benefit of a few and not the many. That 
part needs to be reformed.
  There is a very interesting editorial this morning in the Wall Street 
Journal, talking about the ability to broaden the tax base by 
eliminating many of these exclusions but, in return, lowering the 
rates--whether they be individual or corporate rates. That would give 
us the opportunity to promote growth, which is an essential part of our 
reaching fiscal balance and fiscal sanity.
  The time is now. The time is not after the 2012 election. The dire 
situation in which we find ourselves is being watched worldwide by 
financial markets, by all those who lend us money. They want to know 
what the financial future of the United States is going to be. They 
want to know whether we have the will and the commitment to address our 
very serious financial situation and the political situation that goes 
along with it. Are we willing to rise above the politics and do what is 
appropriate and necessary for this country?
  The President said: ``Right now, we've got a unique opportunity to do 
something big.'' I could not agree more with that statement. I am glad 
the President finally has come on board and said let's get engaged 
together and negotiate something big, something that will solve the 
problem. Now is the time for us and the unique opportunity for the 
President to lead.
  But, frankly, we need more than rhetoric. We need specifics. We need 
to put it on the table. We need more than some kind of a rant against 
those who fly on corporate jets, as if that subsidy--which is the 
depreciation issue in the Tax Code, is going to solve the problem or 
whether we are going to impose a higher tax on billionaires and 
millionaires, which didn't even pass a Democratic Congress in December. 
Even if those taxes on the wealthy went up to 100 percent, it is a drop 
in the bucket. This is not a responsible way to go forward and 
negotiate what we need to negotiate.
  The American people understand it. They voted at the polls in 
November of 2010 in a way that should send a signal that we understand 
what is going on and we want to send people to Washington who will 
address this very problem. As this thing has cascaded into 2011 and we 
have dithered and pushed off and rethought through what the schedule 
is, the American people are getting increasingly frustrated over our 
inability to come to terms with this current situation we face.
  Now is the time. Now is the time to put politics secondary to what is 
right for America and what is right for Americans. We have that 
opportunity, a unique opportunity. In one sense, it is good we are 
running up against this debt limit crisis because it is forcing us to 
stop pushing this problem down the road, to stop delaying and waiting 
until after the next election. It is forcing us to take action now.
  We have about 4 weeks to do what is right for the American people 
but, more important, what is right for the future of America, our 
children and grandchildren and generations to come. If we are going to 
be that generation which saddles them with debt they cannot climb out 
of and they are unable to live the simple American dream of raising a 
family, owning a home or a place to live, providing for the education 
of their children and participating in the wonderful experience this 
country has had through sacrifice and commitment and dedication over 
all these years--if we are turning that over to our children with that 
broken dream and broken promise, we have not done our job.
  We are here to do it now. The time is now. Let's have the political 
will to do it. Let's subordinate our political considerations for 2012, 
do what is right, and then we will have left a legacy--win, lose or 
draw politically--a legacy that is important for this country.
  I yield any time left, the remainder of that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his 20 
minutes.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, I stand in total agreement with 
everything my good friend from Indiana has said, particularly the 
emphasis on the time is right; it is now. We have been talking about a 
balanced budget amendment. We have been talking about this problem for 
many years. To me, I feel great frustration that I am even in the 
Chamber right now.
  Quite often what I do--I have a very regular schedule. If I am not on 
a weekend in Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa, someplace having to do with 
the duties I have as the second ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I am back in Oklahoma. I have been a pilot for 50 years and 
I get in a little plane

[[Page 10338]]

and I go out and talk to real people. People shake their heads and say: 
Why are we still talking about this? Why aren't we doing it? Why is it 
we are so wrapped up in this thing?
  There is not an easy answer. We are supposed to be back here, I 
guess, talking about a Libya resolution. We all realize that is 
something that kind of diverts the attention of the American people 
from the real problem. The real problem of course is the deficit. As I 
see where we are and look at some of the alternatives they have--the 
Senator from Indiana said the Democrats want to, I guess tomorrow 
morning, vote on some kind of a bill that is going to be a tax increase 
on the millionaires. We are right back again with our class warfare. If 
we are to rephrase that statement from an economic perspective we would 
say something like this: It is the sense of the Senate that we should 
raise taxes on America's job creators and entrepreneurs to prevent the 
economy from recovering from this recession.
  That is exactly what we would be doing. Yesterday, I searched through 
a database of the IRS, their historical tax data. If we were to tax all 
the income of those individuals making $1 million or more at a 100-
percent tax rate--in other words, take every cent they have, tax them 
all--the total amount of revenue that would be generated would be $700 
billion.
  Stop and think about that, $700 billion is way less than half the 
deficit President Obama gave us just this year, a $1.65 trillion 
deficit. It is clearly a deceptive thing. The American people, I think 
they assume they are so dumb they can tax millionaires and get us out 
of this mess. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 750,000 
Americans in the highest tax bracket report less than half of the total 
net business income earned in this country. This is income that comes 
from flow-through entities such as the LLCs and partnerships. In other 
words, it comes from small businesses. If we were to tax the small 
businesses as they are going to attempt to do by saying they are taxing 
the millionaires, who is going to be able to grow their small 
businesses? I don't know. No one, I guess, has the answer. There is no 
answer.
  There is no question we have a serious problem in Washington. Our 
debt is at the legal limit of $14.3 trillion, and what caused this 
problem is spending. In the short 2\1/2\ years since coming to office, 
President Obama has managed to increase spending by 30 percent. Thirty 
percent. He incurred a trillion dollar deficit each year and pushed our 
national debt up by 35 percent. The statistic that no one seems to care 
about, and we say it over and over, is this President has increased the 
debt of America more in his 2\1/2\ years than all Presidents throughout 
the history of America from George Washington to George W. Bush. Let me 
say this is not the first time this is coming up. Every time you turn 
around in this administration: Well, we are going to have to increase 
the debt limit. If not, some great crisis will take place. We did this 
on February 17, 2009. I voted against it. They increased the debt limit 
at that time. If you remember, that was the $800 billion stimulus bill. 
In December of 2009, a stand-alone bill to increase the debt limit of 
$290 billion passed. We remember so well Tim Geithner saying if we 
don't do this, it will ruin our credit nationwide. Then again in 
February of 2010, $1.9 trillion. They increased it again. The same 
thing. You have to draw the line someplace. There is going to be some 
point at which you are going to say, no, we are not going to do it 
unless we get some reductions and some fiscal sanity that is built into 
it. Right now, since reaching the legal limit, the Treasury has been 
shuffling money around to pay bills and they will run out of ways to do 
this on August 2. If an agreement to raise the debt limit has not been 
reached by then, Treasury will have to decide which bills to pay and 
which bills not to pay, and nobody wants that.
  In order to raise the debt ceiling, we have to lock in the reforms 
necessary to permanently prevent this income debt crisis. We all know 
the scary statistics, but, to me, solving the problem is easy. We spent 
our way into this problem so we need to stop spending to get out of it. 
Tax revenue has not been our problem. Tax hikes should not be a part of 
the solution. Regardless, President Obama has made very clear he wants 
tax increases to be included in any kind of a debt limit deal. Sure, he 
may say he wants to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. You 
are going to hear it over and over. All these people out here are 
supposed to believe this. It is not true.
  I said earlier the folks he is targeting are those who own small 
businesses and ones that are creating jobs. When you target tax hikes 
on folks such as these, you hurt everybody. This is not what we need to 
do. Our economy is stalling and our unemployment rate is still above 9 
percent. We need to cut spending in the short term. This is a program 
that many people adhere to now. I don't know how many we have. I think 
the pledge includes about 30 Members who say we need to cut spending in 
the short term, cap spending in the medium term, and balance the budget 
in the long term to put the Nation on a sustainable, limited government 
path. This is the only way out of this mess.
  I have been a leader here. I can remember back when I introduced the 
HELP Act. That was when this President first came in and he wanted to 
take the discretionary nondefense spending and freeze it at the new 
level after he increased it by 20 percent. I said, no, let's go back to 
2008 levels. If we had done that, we would not be facing the problems 
we have.
  Decades ago when I was in the State legislature, there was a great 
Senator from Nebraska named Carl Curtis. He came to me one day and he 
said, I have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment here in 
the Senate for decades. The argument they use against it is the States 
will never ratify it. So he came up with the idea, let's preratify a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Well, that sounded great 
to me so I introduced a resolution in the Oklahoma State Senate 
preratifying, which we did, a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. That was kind of fun. We came within two or three States 
of doing this. Had it passed, we wouldn't be here today with the 
problems we are facing. When you look and you say it is going to be 
difficult, it is not difficult. But I believe the only way to be able 
to pull this off and to resolve the problem is to do something about a 
balanced budget amendment. We have proposed one. It is out there. 
Senator Hatch is active in this. We are all looking at it. During 
peacetime the amendment would require a two-thirds majority in both 
Chambers of Congress to authorize the specific deficit funding level 
for a fiscal year. We all understand emergencies can come up. We have 
wars in which case we need to do something about it. This allows an 
escape, but it means two-thirds of the majority of the House and the 
Senate would have to agree to it.
  Importantly, the balanced budget amendment would require a two-thirds 
majority in both Chambers to pass any kind of a tax increase. Our 
problem is our tax increases. That is what the President wants more of. 
The balanced budget amendment is the only reform that will put our 
Nation on a true path to permanent fiscal stability. This is what we 
need to do. This balanced budget amendment is the reform we need, and I 
pledge to oppose any deal to increase the debt limit that does not 
immediately cut the spending in the short term, cap the spending in the 
medium term, and include a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  I urge the Members to seize upon this opportunity. We have not had a 
serious opportunity at a balanced budget amendment now for decades. The 
time is here because we have never faced this before. We have never had 
a President who has proposed and passed $5 trillion of deficit in 2\1/
2\ years. The people of America are not dumb. They know we cannot 
sustain that. They are going to say, all right, we all have to bite the 
bullet and do this thing. We need to do it. The time is right. I agree 
with the Senator from Indiana who said, there hasn't been a time before

[[Page 10339]]

that is right, but this time is right. Now that this legislative agenda 
is dead that we have been talking about, the President has pursued 
aggressive regulations, especially through the EPA, that seriously harm 
the economy. I think a lot of people are confined in their thinking 
about the fact that we are spending too much money. They don't realize 
there is also a cost to overregulation. Right now almost everything the 
liberals have tried to pass through here, such as cap and trade, the 
President and his colleagues in the House and the Senate are trying to 
do through regulation through the EPA, and that is as expensive as 
spending money.
  I don't think this is rocket science. It is something we can pass, 
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and put Americans 
back to work and these are the only things that will resolve our debt 
problems.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate this 
morning. It is concerning to me because as a physician, I am trained to 
diagnose disease. Disease, if you break that word up, is ``dis'' and 
``ease.'' We are not at ease, and I hear us talking all around. I 
listened to the senior Senator from New York very carefully and what he 
had to say, and I wanted to spend a few minutes actually disputing what 
he had to say. Because the premise he said was if we don't raise taxes, 
the vital things that are legitimate roles for the Federal Government 
would have to be eliminated, and I find that very curious because what 
is lacking in the Senate body today is an actual knowledge of all that 
we are doing.
  I go back to March when the GAO report came out on the levels of 
duplication within the Federal Government, and that report was eye 
opening to many Senators. The fact is that report only covered the 
first third of the Federal Government. I have long said during the past 
7 years in the Senate one of our problems is the government is so big, 
we don't know everything it does. What came out of the report was a 
tremendous list of duplication, programs that do exactly the same thing 
in multiple different agencies. For example, we have 124 different 
programs to encourage students in math, science, engineering, and 
technology. Why would we do that? Why would we pay for 124 sets of 
administration? Why would we have the first program for science, 
technology, engineering, and math that doesn't have a metric on it to 
see if it works? Well, you know what the report said. None of them have 
a metric on it to measure whether they are effective.
  We have 47 different job training programs. The report said all but 
three of them overlapped one another and none of those have any metric 
to see if they are effective or work. They cost $18 billion a year.
  We have 42 different programs to teach Americans how to be 
creditworthy and financially sound. Mr. President, 42 across 6 
different agencies? The fact is the Senate doesn't know what it is 
talking about. When we make statements that say if, in fact, we make 
major cuts in the discretionary portion of our budget, the things we 
count on will have to be sacrificed, it is not true, for there is at a 
minimum $350 billion a year spent on duplication within the Federal 
Government, and waste. It doesn't count fraud, which is at least $100 
billion a year in Medicare. It doesn't count the Pentagon, where we 
have the Pentagon having duplicate weapons systems, noncompetitive 
contracts, cost-plus contracts where we have requirement creep so they 
end up costing much more than they ever should because we don't have 
the responsible person over there saying, no, you can't have everything 
you want. What you want is to have the things you need.
  This whole idea that the sacrifices that need to be made are going to 
be highly paid for is not true because that is how much waste there is 
in the Federal Government--at least $350 billion a year, and that 
doesn't count the $100 billion in Medicare that is defrauded and wasted 
and wrongly paid. Their improper payment rate, which is 97 percent 
overpayments, is in excess of $10 billion a year. So if you have $100 
billion worth of fraud, and then an improper payment rate that is 
around 10 percent, we could easily solve our budget problems by 
eliminating duplication and eliminating fraud, but it requires a lot of 
hard work to do the oversight. It requires a lot of legislative work to 
eliminate duplication. It requires us to stand and do what is necessary 
for our country. We don't have a problem, in general, with revenues. 
What we have a problem with is the Federal Government is taking 26 
percent of our GDP to operate itself and 40 percent of that is 
borrowed.
  As a physician, what my training would tell me to do is go directly 
to the disease. Don't treat the symptoms of the disease, go directly to 
where the disease is, and the disease is we have a magnitude, orders of 
magnitude, of duplication, all well meaning, all well intentioned, that 
we won't sit down and work on eliminating.
  I thought I would spend a few minutes going through by department. 
The Department of Agriculture has 130 duplicative programs--130. I will 
submit for the record a few of these because I don't want the record to 
have too many. For example, biomass programs at the Department of 
Agriculture. We have the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, the 
Biorefinery Program for Advanced Fuels Program, the Biobased Products 
and Bioenergy Program, the Biorefinery Repowering Assistance Program, 
the New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program for biomass.
  Those could all be combined into one at one-third the cost with 
exactly the same results. But we do not have the energy, the time or 
the motivation to go solve these problems. So the problem is not the 
debt and deficit, the problem is the Congress, the lack of a work ethic 
to roll up our sleeves and dig into it.
  We have 16 export assistance programs just for the Department of 
Agriculture; the Department of Commerce, 18 different duplicative 
programs; the Department of Education, 230 identical, duplicative 
programs in different branches. The only reason we know that is because 
the Department of Education is the only Department in the Federal 
Government that actually knows all their programs. There is not one 
other agency that actually knows all their programs. That is why it was 
important to get the GAO report, and we have just seen the first third 
of it. When we get the other two-thirds--the next third will come in 
February of next year, and we will have two-thirds of the Federal 
Government.
  Do you know what it is going to show? Over $400 billion worth of 
duplication. The problem is not that we do not have enough revenue, the 
problem is we are wasteful in almost everything we do because Congress 
will not do the appropriate oversight for the things that are 
legitimate roles for the Federal Government--the first person who does 
not have to have any risk of no food safety, the first person who does 
not have to have any risk of not having Medicare or not having their 
Social Security, the first person who does not have to have any risk if 
the Congress will actually do its job. Yet we refuse to do our job 
because each one of these little programs has a little political body 
in itself that is taking and sucking off the Federal Government, many 
times not a legitimate role under the enumerated powers of the 
Constitution that is a role for the Federal Government.
  I get letters all the time in my office: Please fund this. Please 
fund this. My answer back is: Show me in the enumerated powers where it 
is the role of the Federal Government to do that. If it is truly our 
role, I am for us doing it. But if, in fact, the enumerated powers--as 
originally written and as evidenced by the Federalist Papers--say it is 
not a role for the Federal Government, then the States ought to be

[[Page 10340]]

doing it. Better yet, we as citizens ought to be helping other citizens 
who have a need.
  But the fact is, we have created this monster, an out-of-control 
Federal Government. I am talking out of control because nobody is in 
control of it. Nobody has the information, which is the power to do it, 
which is why knowing all this stuff is so frustrating. We will not 
eliminate the easy things that will have no impact on 99 percent of 
Americans. The only people impacted are the people who are benefiting 
directly from administering or gaming the programs.
  The Department of Energy. When the Department of Energy was created, 
it was to eliminate our dependence on foreign energy. Our dependence at 
that time was 30 percent. It reached a peak of 67 percent. Thankfully, 
due to horizontal drilling and environmentally sound fracking, we now 
are at 47 percent. We have gone down 16 points since the technology was 
developed to go after resources that are here.
  The Congressional Research Service says--and this is a report 
published this year--that America has energy resources greater than the 
combined energy resources of China, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. We are 
the only country in the world where the citizens own the resources and 
their own government will not let them have it. We deny our own 
resources to our own people. Consequently, we see $4 gasoline, not 
because it has to be there--and we blame speculators and we blame the 
large oil companies. The reason gas is $4 is because the Federal 
Government will not let us utilize the very resources we have.
  Mr. President, 92 percent of the 650 million acres the Federal 
Government owns is unavailable for resource production that can be done 
in a clean, environmentally friendly way, with no impact whatsoever. 
Yet supply us with valuable energy that does not make us dependent on 
countries that are not supportive of our liberties and our freedom.
  So you are going to hear a lot of speeches today talking about those 
who have actually lived the American dream, people who have made it. I 
am not saying there is not excesses. I am one of the very few people on 
my side who thinks we ought to change the Tax Code, we ought to 
eliminate all the brackets, we ought to flatten the Tax Code, that it 
will be clearer, it will create confidence, it will create certainty, 
and we will see the money--the $2 trillion that is sitting on the 
sidelines that could be creating jobs in this country--actually come in 
and create jobs.
  But our problem is not the people who have been successful. Our 
problem is we, the Members of Congress, are not successful in 
accomplishing the task we were sent to do.
  The Department of Homeland Security. More unregulated grants, 32 
duplicative programs, no followup on the grants, no checking to see if 
a grant that was given actually performed the purpose. There is a 
significant amount of fraud, a significant amount of improper payments, 
significant layers of duplication. Not even the Department of Homeland 
Security knows what is going on, let alone Congress, because we will 
not do oversight.
  There are 40 duplicative programs inside the Department of the 
Interior. Then we have all the duplicative programs across agencies. I 
did not list all of them here. There are 35 duplicative programs in the 
Department of Labor, 53 in the Department of Justice, 6 in the 
Department of State, 19 at the Department of Transportation. Who knows 
how many there are at the Defense Department because the Defense 
Department does not even know.
  The problem we need to address is our lack of aggressiveness in 
reviewing and oversighting the Federal Government and eliminating the 
duplication.
  It is frustrating to me as a physician to see us continue to treat 
the symptoms and never go after the disease. This disease will 
eventually kill us. It is bleeding us now, like it is bleeding us as we 
borrow $5 billion a day--$5 billion. That is the entire budget of the 
State of Oklahoma every day we are borrowing. Now we have political 
games being played, finger-pointing, putting our finger in the eyes of 
those across political lines rather than getting down to work and 
solving the real problems America faces.
  We do not have one problem in front of us that we cannot solve as a 
nation. We can balance our budget. We can accomplish what we are called 
upon to accomplish if, in fact, we will. But the one little thing that 
creeps in, that is nauseating, is the vast majority of the Members of 
Congress are not thinking about the problems that are in front of us 
right now. They are thinking about the next election: How do I 
advantage?
  When you see that happen, what you see and what you should question 
is, what is the motivation of the Members of Congress? Is it just to 
get reelected or is it to fix the very real and urgent problems in 
front of us? I think too often it is about us and not our country, it 
is about us secure in the next election rather than our children and 
grandchildren secure in the next generation.
  I would put forward, as you hear the debate over the class warfare 
and the unfairness that is propagated--that somebody has become 
successful and that 20 percent of Americans now pay 74 percent of all 
the taxes paid, that we want to tax those people more--I believe 
everybody in this country ought to pay taxes. I do not care who you 
are. I do not care what program you are on, if you get a benefit from 
the Federal Government that is rightly under the enumerated powers, 
something the Federal Government should be doing, you ought to pay a 
tax on it. Then you are participating. Then we would not have 55 
percent of the eligible population voting; we would have 75 or 85 
percent because they would have an involvement.
  We have an earned-income tax credit program which we pay people who 
are working. We actually pay them every year. But fully 25 percent of 
that is fraud. That is $17 billion a year paid out to people who are 
not working who are defrauding the IRS. We have not done anything about 
it. Mr. President, $17 billion over 10 years is $170 billion. That goes 
a long way toward reducing our structural deficit and debt. But we will 
not do that. The same thing on the child tax credit. That is a 
fraudulent program. Fully 20 percent of it is fraud. Yet we have not 
done anything about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used more than his 10 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue, since 
nobody is on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I am sorry. I will finish in just a short period of time.
  The question then comes over why we would not allow the States to 
decide whether they think we ought to have a balanced budget. It is 
true, it will take 5 to 7 years for it to be fully effectuated. But the 
sooner we start down that road and give the States the option of 
saying: We think you ought to live under the same rules we live under--
we have all sorts of reasons why we should not have a balanced budget 
amendment but not one of them makes sense, not one of them fits with 
common sense, not one of them does anything except continue down the 
road we are on today.
  Again I would say, as you hear the debate, think about the real 
disease we have rather than listening to the symptoms. The disease is 
we are outside the enumerated powers of the Congress. We have $350 
billion worth of waste and duplication every year that Congress will 
not address. We have a Tax Code that costs one-quarter of a trillion 
dollars a year just to comply with and then still is not fair. Yet we 
will not address the real disease.
  The way you address the real disease is identify the real disease and 
then give it the treatment it needs. The treatment it needs is 
discipline forced on Congress by a balanced budget amendment. I 
guarantee you, if we were to pass it out of here, the States would pass 
it and send it back to us and our children and grandchildren would be 
much better off with it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

[[Page 10341]]


  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, on August 2, the United States will face the 
debt ceiling. I am one who thinks we should be debating it every day, 
every week until we find a solution. But in order to find a solution, 
we have to first admit we have a problem. We have a significant 
problem. Raising the debt ceiling is sort of like not paying your 
credit card bill and then saying to the credit card company: I want to 
increase my limit. We have been doing that year after year, decade 
after decade. Both parties have done it. This is not just one party's 
problem. It is both parties' problem, and it is the country's problem.
  How big is the problem? We are spending $10 billion a day. Of that 
$10 billion, we are borrowing $4 billion a day. We are spending 
$100,000 a second, and we are borrowing $45,000 a second.
  Senator DeMint, the other day, said it was akin to a drug addiction. 
You know that to get better from a drug addiction, the first thing you 
have to admit is: I am addicted. You have to admit you have a problem. 
That is what is going on. We have to admit as a country we have a 
problem. But then we get into this debate, and each side seems to have 
a different position. Is the problem that we are spending too much or 
is the problem that we are taxing too little?
  You can look at the numbers and you can actually come up with an 
objective answer. The answer is we are spending too much. You can look 
at it in terms of what is spending as a percentage of our gross 
domestic product? What is spending as a percentage of our economy?
  Spending under Clinton and under Bush, for about 16 years, was 
between 19 and 20 percent of our GDP. What is it now? It is about 25 
percent of our GDP. So under any objective standard, we are spending 
more than we were previously.
  Some would argue--they say: Well, the Bush tax cuts caused this. If 
we could just get rid of the Bush tax cuts. We are not taxing people 
enough. But if you look at the numbers, the numbers do not bear out. 
The numbers are that basically, in 1987, revenue was about 18 percent 
of GDP.
  In 1995, revenue was about 18 percent of GDP. In 2003, Bush passed 
the tax cuts--Congress passed these tax cuts. In 2006, revenue was 
still at about 18 percent of GDP. Right now, revenue is under 15 
percent. So revenue has gone down in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
  But what happened in 2008? A severe recession, the worst recession 
since the Great Depression. When we have fewer people working, we have 
fewer people paying taxes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 
Bush tax cuts. They happened in 2003. Revenue stayed steady at 18 
percent, which it has historically for 60 years until 2007, 2008. The 
recession hits, revenue goes down. So we have a lack of revenue. But if 
you raise rates, you will not get more revenue. If you want more 
revenue to try to balance our books, you need an economy that employs 
more people, you need a growing economy. It is all about getting out of 
the recession. But that is why some of us fear raising rates now, 
because we think that will harm us and make it more difficult to come 
out of a recession.
  Many on the other side say: Well, the rich just need to pay more. 
They think the rich are not paying enough. They want to somehow say: If 
the rich would pay more, we could get out of this. But you have to once 
again look at the facts.
  There is a resolution on the floor now that the Democrats are 
promoting. It says that the rich--the people who make more than $1 
million a year--that they earn or bring in 20 percent of the Nation's 
economy. Well, that is true, but they pay 38 percent of the income tax. 
So the question is, Are the rich paying enough? Well, they bring in 20 
percent of the income, and they are paying 38 percent of the revenue. I 
do not know.
  The other question is, If you just stick it to the rich and say, 
well, let's make the rich pay more, what will that do to the rest of 
us? Do you think we will have more jobs or less jobs if we tax people 
more?
  The question also is, Will you get more or less revenue if you do 
this? Historically, no matter what the rates have been, we bring in 
about 18 percent of GDP. For example, back in the 1950s, we had tax 
rates as high as 70 percent on the wealthy. When we did, we brought in 
18 percent of GDP. When Reagan came in, he lowered tax rates to 28 
percent for the upper limit. We still brought in 18 percent of GDP. The 
difference was when we brought in lower rates, we brought in a booming 
economy, more jobs, and we expanded the number of people paying taxes. 
You expand the tax base.
  Now we get back to the impasse. There is an impasse up here. The 
other side says: The rich must share more of the burden. There is a way 
to do it without raising taxes. There is ultimately a compromise that I 
think brings both sides together, gets beyond the debt ceiling. If they 
would talk about it, if we would have a debate down here or an informal 
discussion, we could fix this tomorrow.
  If you want the rich to share more of the burden, ask them to pay for 
their Medicare. I see no reason why the wealthy should not pay the full 
cost of Medicare. Ask the rich to take less in Social Security 
benefits. If you means test Social Security benefits--if you say: If 
you are a wealthy person, guess what, we don't have enough money to 
give you what we said we were going to give you and you will have to 
take less--I am perfectly willing to accept that. So there are ways you 
can do it without damaging the economy.
  I think raising taxes damages the economy and damages jobs for the 
working class. We tried this before. About 10 years ago we said let's 
get those rich people. They put a special tax on yachts. Guess who it 
hurt. The guy making $40,000 a year building the yachts lost his job; 
the rich went to the Caribbean and bought their yachts somewhere else. 
It does not work. It is not good for the economy. It hurts the working 
class to raise taxes.
  But if you want to say the rich need to absorb more of the burden, 
simply have the rich pay more for their benefits or get fewer benefits. 
I am willing to accept that. Many Republicans are. It is the 
compromise. Republicans aren't willing to raise taxes. Democrats want 
to raise taxes. Where do we compromise? Come together and say that the 
rich can absorb more of the burden by paying more for their benefits or 
getting fewer benefits. This is a compromise that would work. We could 
actually get together and raise the debt ceiling.
  I have said I will vote to raise the debt ceiling if and only if we 
decide to do something different in this Congress. Congress really has 
done a poor job. Do you wonder why Congress has a 14-percent approval 
rating? Because they have been a poor steward with your money--a poor 
steward. The Congress has not done a good job watching over your money. 
They have been profligate spenders.
  So I think that in order for the American people to believe we are 
going to do a better job, we need a new rule. We need a balanced budget 
amendment. So I will propose, along with other Senators, to raise the 
debt ceiling contingent upon a balanced budget amendment so that we 
balance our budget by law.
  Some have said: Well, let's just promise to cut spending over the 
next 10 years. Let's raise the debt ceiling $2 trillion, and then we 
will promise to cut spending $2 trillion.
  The problem is that we are not very believable because we have not 
kept our word in the past and we cannot bind the next Congress. The 
next Congress will be elected by a new set of people. They will come up 
here, and they do not have to go by what we are promising. If we amend 
the Constitution, though, the next Congress will be bound by this, and 
the next Congress would have to live within its means.
  I believe this is very important. There is becoming a consensus in 
our country that says the debt is a real problem. I think the two sides 
could come together--Republican and Democrat--and say: This is how we 
would work it out. But I think it means significant cuts in Federal 
spending. It means statutory caps, meaning government should have to 
live within its

[[Page 10342]]

means each year. And I believe we need to amend the Constitution. But 
if the Democrats say they have to have it that the rich pay more 
somehow, let's have the rich pay more for their benefits. That is 
ultimately the compromise. I think you can get the vast majority of 
Republicans to agree to that, Democrats could agree to that, and we 
could fix the problem. The American people would be amazed that we got 
together and we fixed the problem and we moved on. That is what needs 
to happen. It is not happening in this body.
  This body needs to debate the debt ceiling, we need to come up with a 
solution, and we need to move on. We have not had one committee hearing 
about the debt ceiling. We have not passed a budget in 2 years. We have 
not passed an appropriations bill in 2 years. We are not doing what we 
are supposed to be doing. The American people say they want results. 
They want us to at least have a debate. We do not have to agree on 
everything, but let's debate and admit what the problem is and move 
forward. But instead we get obfuscation, and we talk about something 
that is not really pertinent to what our problems are. We have to, like 
the drug addict, admit we have a problem. Our problem is spending. It 
is not a taxation problem. It is not a revenue problem. We have less 
revenue because we are in a recession. We have a spending problem. The 
numbers are clear as day.
  I would say to this body and to the American people, let's balance 
our budget. Raise the debt ceiling, but let's go ahead and have a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  I hope we will recognize those problems and move forward.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was back in 
my State for the Fourth of July celebrations, and what struck me about 
those visits I made and visiting and interacting with people--and I 
remember riding my bike around my neighborhood on the Fourth, and there 
were lots of families, lots of lawn parties and pit fires and get-
togethers, family get-togethers, people shooting off fireworks, and all 
of that sort of thing. It occurred to me as I was riding around that a 
lot of the people who live in those neighborhoods probably are not 
thinking about what is going to happen if we do not do something to 
address this spending and debt problem we have in this country. And we 
are very near a debt crisis.
  We have seen what has happened in other countries around the world. 
When you start looking at the increase in interest rates that occurs 
when you get into a debt crisis--and Greece is perhaps a good example 
of that because now they are facing, on 2-year debt, 24-percent 
interest rates.
  As we all know, Treasury interest rates, Federal borrowing, Treasury 
notes, bonds, bills--those sorts of things are sort of what drive 
interest rates in other areas of our economy. So if you are one of 
those homeowners in South Dakota and you are looking at perhaps 
refinancing your home or buying a new home or being a first-time home 
buyer, if you are looking at an auto loan, if you are looking at a loan 
for your child's education, you could very well, if we do not get 
things turned around here, be looking at much higher interest rates. 
That would put an even bigger crimp on the budgets of most families 
across this country.
  It was interesting because last week there was an op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal in which Larry Lindsey, who was a former Federal Reserve 
Board Governor and also served in the Bush administration as an 
economic adviser, pointed out that if you had interest rates return to 
their 20-year average--in other words, if you went back to a more 
normalized type interest rate environment--it would actually increase 
the borrowing costs of the Federal Government over the next 10 years by 
$4.9 trillion. So think about how much money, how much we are spending 
every single year now to pay for our borrowing, and compound that by 
increased interest rates. It would make the fiscal situation we are 
facing much worse and even more dramatic than it already is.
  So the point I am making is that we have to get the spending and the 
debt issue addressed here in Congress. Why? Well, because we are 
saddling future generations with an enormous burden of debt. We are 
putting the country on a path to a debt crisis, which would be a huge 
mistake for this country for so many reasons, but probably most 
fundamentally is because it has a profound impact on the economy.
  I think most Americans are concerned right now about jobs and the 
economy. That is the No. 1 issue in front of most Americans. And it 
strikes me that if you look at what we can do to get people in this 
country back to work, obviously creating conditions for economic growth 
means keeping taxes low, balancing the Federal budget, having an energy 
policy that promotes American production, improving market access 
through moving some of these free-trade agreements, and clamping down 
on the overreaching regulations we are seeing coming out of a lot of 
the agencies in Washington, DC.
  There are a whole series of things that can and should be done if we 
are serious about getting people back to work. But it means we can't be 
raising taxes on the job creators. There is a big debate right now 
about how do we get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. I submit to my 
colleagues that the real issue here is spending. If you go back to the 
foundation of our country, in the year 1800, we were only spending 2 
percent of our economic output on the Federal Government. This year, we 
will spend 24 to 25 percent. The historical average over the past 40 
years is about 20.6 percent. We are now dramatically higher in terms of 
what we spend on the Federal Government as a percentage of our entire 
economy.
  To me, clearly, we have a spending issue, not a revenue issue. That 
suggests we ought to get after Federal spending--particularly spending 
that is duplicative, redundant. There is so much in the Federal 
Government we spend money on that is wasteful, and we need to cut that 
type of wasteful spending out of Washington, DC.
  We have to also focus on long-term programs, such as Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, entitlement programs that drive much of Federal 
spending--around 60 percent of the money that is spent by the Federal 
Government. So far there is no appetite among our Democratic colleagues 
to do that. We have now gone 798 days without a Federal budget. The 
only votes we have had on the budget in the Senate were on the Ryan 
plan and the Obama budget. The President's budget--the Obama budget--
that was voted on in the Senate, prescribed more taxes and spending and 
more debt. It failed by a vote of 97 to 0. Again, the budget presented 
by the President failed 97 to 0 in the Senate.
  We don't have a budget in the Budget Committee that has been shown to 
us yet. This week, we are voting on a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that doesn't even say how we should contribute to deficit 
reduction. Is it going to put higher tax on people? Are people going to 
have fewer deductions? Are people going to be ineligible for farm 
income payment programs? Should they have to contribute more to 
Medicare or receive less Social Security benefits than those who are 
less fortunate? We don't know. We don't have a budget presented to the 
Senate for consideration. All we have in front of us this week is a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is very vague and could be 
interpreted lots of different ways.
  The White House meeting is tomorrow, with leaders of both parties. I 
hope it will lead to substantive cuts and an agreement about how we are 
going to reduce spending and get this debt and year-over-year deficits 
under control. It should not lead to more taxes. The reason is that 
higher taxes

[[Page 10343]]

only hurt job creation and make our economic situation much worse.
  We were reminded of the need to do this this week when Moody's 
downgraded the status of the Portuguese debt to junk. This is despite 
the fact that their government is pushing through an austerity plan 
that cuts spending and hikes taxes. We have seen that in lots of 
European countries that are dealing with sovereign debt crises.
  That is our future if we don't get this issue under control. It has 
been 798 days since this Senate has passed a budget. That is where it 
starts--determining how we are going to set priorities, and how we are 
going to spend taxpayer dollars, and rein in runaway Federal spending 
and make a dent in this $14 trillion debt that we are saddling on 
future generations.
  I hope we can get a budget before the Senate. This sham of a 
resolution this week--the sense-of-the-Senate resolution--is certainly 
not the way to do that. I hope we can get to a meaningful discussion of 
what we are going to do about spending and debt and jobs in this 
country.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________