[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6675-6685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to Calendar 
No. 396, H.R. 2072.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to calendar No. 396, H.R. 2072, a bill to 
     reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
Ex-Im Bank bill. We are working on an agreement to begin consideration 
of the bill. I don't know if we can reach that, but we are trying.
  At 4:30 today the Senate will proceed to executive session to 
consider two U.S. district judges from Maryland and Illinois. At 5:30 
there will be up to three rollcall votes. The first two will be on 
confirmation of George Levi Russell and John J. Tharp, and the third 
will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Ex-Im Bank bill.
  There was a time when legislation that would reduce the deficit and 
support hundreds of thousands of jobs would fly through the Senate with 
bipartisan support but not so anymore. Instead, a worthy measure that 
would support 300,000 American jobs--the Export-Import Bank--may stall 
in the Senate this evening. The holdup is more Republican 
obstructionism.
  Tonight the Senate will vote on whether to end the filibuster of 
reauthorization of this most important legislation. The bank helps 
American companies grow and sell their products overseas. Last year 
this bank financed 3,600 private companies and added almost 300,000 
jobs in more than 2,000 American communities.
  The last time the Senate considered this in legislation, it was 
offered by a Republican Senator and it passed by unanimous consent. 
What that means is it comes to the floor, sponsored by a Republican, 
and everybody agrees and we don't even have a vote here. It is done by 
unanimous consent. So it is unfortunate that I had to file cloture 
again. I have filed cloture, cloture, cloture on so many different 
things. We shouldn't have to argue over bipartisan proposals such as 
this one. It should just pass as it has in the past. But I remain 
hopeful that we can find a way to work together on it.
  The Export-Import Bank has the support of two groups that rarely see 
eye to eye--the chamber of commerce and labor unions. Today I got a 
letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, as did every 
other Senator. It says: The National Association of Manufacturers--we 
refer to it as NAM--the largest manufacturing association in the United 
States, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 
States, urges us to support the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
  The Export-Import Bank of the United States--referred to as the Ex-Im 
Bank--is one of the only tools manufacturers in the United States have 
to counter hundreds of billions of dollars of export financing foreign 
governments offer to their exporters. In 2010 Canada, France, and India 
provided 7 times and China and Brazil 10 times more export assistance 
as a share of GDP than did the United States. The Ex-Im Bank levels the 
playing field for U.S. exporters by matching credit support other 
nations provide, ensuring that our Nation's manufacturers can compete 
based upon the price and performance of their products. It also enables 
small and medium-sized manufacturers to capture new markets in emerging 
economies abroad. In 2010 the bank supported more than $41 billion in 
export sales from more than 3,600 companies, supporting approximately 
290,000 jobs here--rather than the 300,000 I said--export-related 
American jobs.
  Denying Ex-Im reauthorization will hurt manufacturers of every size 
and threaten thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Small and medium-
sized companies are particularly vulnerable and those that receive 
direct Ex-Im Bank support as well as those who supply larger companies. 
So manufacturers urge your support of H.R. 2072, which authorizes the 
bank through September 2014 and provides a modest increase in its 
lending authority and enhances congressional oversight over the bank.
  That letter was signed by one of the officers of the bank.
  This legislation has Republican cosponsors. Why do we have to go 
through this endless procedural process? Why can't we just pass it, as 
we have done in so many years past? They are saying: We want 
amendments. Amendments to kill the bill after saying they support the 
bill?
  The House passed this bill without amendment--I repeat, without 
amendment--on a 330-to-93 vote last week. But that 93 kind of says it 
all. Ninety-three is the mainstay of the tea party caucus in the House. 
They are opposed to everything, just as almost 50 percent of the Senate 
Republicans are against everything. That is what we have here.

[[Page 6676]]

Even though there is outward support for this legislation, they want to 
kill this bill. They don't want the government to have anything to do 
with our lives--period, nothing--which is unrealistic in this modern 
world and, in fact, in any world.
  This legislation is exactly the kind of smart investment Congress 
must make to keep the economy on the road to recovery, and it is the 
kind of consensus proposal that shouldn't require Democrats to have to 
try to break a filibuster.
  When Senate Democrats brought this reauthorization to the floor 
previously--in fact, in March--we assumed it would pass by a strong 
bipartisan vote. Surprise was here--the Republicans voted against it. 
Nearly unanimously they voted against it in March despite their public 
confessions of support for it. Then a day or two after they voted no, 
they sent me a letter saying: We have to get this done. So they voted 
against it in March, and now they are threatening to do it, for 
different reasons this time: They don't have enough amendments. They 
want amendments. So they are once again forcing us to run out the clock 
on this measure, which expires at the end of this month.
  Frankly, the behavior of my Republican colleagues over the last week 
has been a little baffling. They say they support our efforts to keep 
interest rates on Federal loans from doubling for 7 million college 
students. They voted the proposal down. Now, a few days later, they say 
they support the Ex-Im Bank, but they voted it down once and they are 
threatening to do it again.
  With Republicans willing to use every obstructionist tactic in the 
book--even some that are not in the book, even on bills they support--
it is a wonder the Senate gets anything done at all.
  Further delay would allow the bank's lending authority to lapse, 
putting jobs at risk. But there is still time for my colleagues on the 
other side to reverse course. There is still time to work together to 
pass this measure.
  I understand my Republican colleagues want to offer amendments to the 
bill. I have already said so. Their amendments generally would just 
eliminate the bank--not make it stronger, not lessen it a little bit, 
just gut the Export-Import Bank, and some just eliminate it altogether. 
Even if those amendments weren't egregious, changing this legislation 
now would only waste more time. And we have been told the House isn't 
going to accept any amendments. But why would we accept any amendment 
that gets rid of the bank?
  The process of reauthorizing this bank has taken months already. 
There is really no reason to waste more time. American exporters are 
counting on us to get something done this week. So I hope my Republican 
colleagues will consider the consequences of yet another filibuster and 
join Democrats to reauthorize this Export-Import Bank without delay.
  Would the Chair announce the business of the day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. At 4:30 p.m., under the previous 
order, the Senate will proceed to executive session.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask I be permitted to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


               Arrest and Detention of Nambaryn Enkhbayar

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for about the past week I have been 
very concerned and involved in a situation involving Mongolia. It is a 
small country. It has been a democratic country for the past 20 years. 
At one time it was part of the Soviet bloc but no longer.
  I have talked to many people at the State Department, the Vice 
President's office, the chairman of Brookings, the former Ambassador to 
Mongolia. I come to the floor to address the situation of Mr. Nambaryn 
Enkhbayar, the former President of Mongolia from 2005 to 2009.
  I was in Mongolia when he was President and had the opportunity to 
get to know him as a distinguished international statesman who, sadly, 
is facing so-called allegations of corruption in the country he led so 
well and so long. Mr. Enkhbayar, in addition to being President of the 
country, was previously Prime Minister and has held many other 
leadership positions in government over the years. As President, he 
designed and effectively executed Mongolia's ``third neighbor'' policy 
of diversifying its diplomatic and economic relations beyond the strong 
ties with its immediate neighbors, China and Russia.
  Specifically, Mr. Enkhbayar personally emphasized relations with the 
United States; with our Asian allies such as Japan, Korea and 
Australia; and with Europe.
  At the request of the Bush Administration, he dispatched Mongolian 
troops to fight alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, held two 
summits with President Bush and concluded Mongolia's Millennium 
Challenge pact in 2007.
  Under his leadership, the Mongolian Government strengthened its 
international peace-keeping role with the United Nations, joined and 
then took a leading role in the Community of Democracies, provided 
humanitarian transit for North Korean refugees through Mongolia, and 
developed important intelligence exchanges with American counterparts.
  Domestically, Mr. Enkhbayar contributed to Mongolia's political 
maturation with his graceful concession and cooperation after he lost 
his re-election bid in the 2009 presidential election to Mr. Elbegdorj, 
the current President of Mongolia. This smooth transition of the 
presidency from one party to another at that time did much to solidify 
the foundations of democratic politics in the country.
  Sadly, the atmosphere in Mongolia has become less conducive to such 
fair play this year, as Mongolia approaches an important parliamentary 
election in June.
  After retiring from politics with the end of his presidential term in 
2009, Mr. Enkhbayar re-entered the public arena again this year with 
the formation of a third major party and the fielding of a slate of 
candidates, including for himself, for the parliament.
  Just as the campaigning for this election was starting in earnest a 
month ago, Mr. Enkhbayar was arrested under charges brought by the 
Anti-Corruption Agency of Mongolia, an organization established while 
he was president.
  It is important to say that building practices of good governance and 
challenging corrupt practices form an important benchmark of 
achievement for any developing democracy. We should applaud vigorous 
efforts to combat corrupt practices in the country. That is needed.
  But it is equally important that those fighting corruption avoid a 
sense of involvement in such practices themselves. Certainly, to say 
the least, the bringing of charges against a political leader in the 
midst of an important election campaign is unusual.
  As extraordinary as the timing of the charges, the process of Mr. 
Enkhbayar's subsequent arrest and incarceration was of even more 
concern.
  Mr. Enkhbayar was ostensibly wanted for questioning, but on the 
evening and early morning of April 12-13, he was forcefully removed 
from his home by several hundred law enforcement officials and without 
any resistance on his part and then spirited away for confinement in a 
remote prison where all access was severely limited.

[[Page 6677]]

  In incarceration, Mr. Enkhbayar suffered further indignities and 
irregularities of due process.
  He had inadequate access to family and counsel. He reportedly 
received abusive verbal treatment. After initiating a ``dry hunger 
strike'' without liquids to protest these circumstances--which is his 
right under international law as a prisoner--he was denied adequate 
medical treatment and endured attempts to force feed him.
  Only after his health was at risk, Mr. Enkhbayar was released on bail 
this morning so he could receive the medical treatment he so 
desperately needs.
  It is my hope he will be well enough to continue with his campaign 
for parliament.
  Yet I am deeply concerned that he still may be charged with 
corruption, allegations that have been deemed by one of his attorneys 
to be ``insubstantial, stale and petty.''
  Our concern now should be, in the first instance, Mr. Enkhbayar's 
health and even his physical survival of this ordeal.
  Secondly, we need to press for due process in the adjudication of his 
case and ensure he is afforded his full rights to a speedy, transparent 
and fair hearing of the charges, with full legal assistance with his 
defense.
  We cannot be sure at this time that either of these considerations, 
the minimum that is owed any citizen or any human being under the rule 
of law in a democracy, can be secured. So I call upon the authorities 
of Mongolia to announce that the procedures and schedule for 
adjudication of his case will proceed and that President Enkhbayar will 
be accorded full due process rights to which he is entitled. To do less 
would be to reinforce fears the process employed here is politically 
driven and meant exclusively to remove Mr. Enkhbayar from participation 
in the parliamentary election now underway.
  Finally, this brings me to a larger issue concerning fears for the 
fate of Mongolian democracy and for the now strong relationship between 
Mongolia and the United States. Mongolia has been rightly acclaimed for 
the extraordinary progress it has made in building democratic practices 
and institutions since the collapse of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. 
Indeed, Mongolia is the only successful, functioning democracy from the 
Pacific Ocean to Eastern Europe through the entire expanse of inner 
Asia. A small country, due to its achievement, has become a country of 
large significance on the world stage--the best argument that a free 
and brave people can move their country from authoritarianism to 
democracy in a relatively short period of time. Having done so, 
Mongolians have enjoyed an extraordinary degree of support and 
attention from the outside world, led by our country, the United 
States.
  The Mongolian-American relationship now encompasses Mongolia's 
impressive economic potential as it develops its rich mineral resources 
with the help of foreign partners, many of them American companies with 
a strong interest in investment there. However, all this promise could 
be negatively impacted by the emergence of the practices we have seen 
in the case of Mr. Enkhbayar.
  The chill of intimidation is felt by every Mongolian citizen, for if 
such treatment can be applied to a former President and still popular 
leader, no one is safe. And then such harsh treatment tends to bring 
reciprocity, and the country is in danger of falling into a vicious 
cycle of political score settling. For the sake of Mongolia and the 
future of its people, the country's leaders must step away from this 
risk immediately.
  It is equally true that once having lost one's good reputation, it is 
almost impossible to restore it. There is still time for Mongolia's 
authorities to correct a dangerous turn of events probably no one 
expected or wanted. There are many friends abroad, including this 
Senator, who pray they will do so. Should the troubling circumstance of 
Mr. Enkhbayar's case continue, it would thereafter be impossible for 
Mongolia's friends in America and around the world in other democracies 
to continue speaking with the hope, promise, and optimism for the 
country's future with which we have for the last two decades. Much is 
at stake in Mongolia now. Its political leaders and people have been 
wise and skillful in choosing the right course in many times of 
challenges and crises in the past.
  I call upon our friends there to help their country, their 
supporters, and themselves by taking the humane and lawful actions that 
are needed now to reclaim their reputation at the forefront of the 
communities of democracies. I hope it has been obvious that I speak as 
a friend--a concerned friend--but one who wishes Mongolia well.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Before I give my remarks, let me compliment the Senator from 
California not only on what she just said but on the remarks she made 
on television yesterday concerning the danger to our country when 
people leak information relating to our effort to defeat terrorists, 
which makes it all the more difficult for us to accomplish our job, and 
it undercuts the mission of the many men and women in the military, our 
intelligence services, and the civilian forces of government and, 
frankly, in the governments of allies that are working very hard to 
identify and prevent terrorism from occurring. When leaks such as this 
occur, it undercuts that effort tremendously. I thought the Senator 
from California did a very good job of pointing out how that is so and 
why we have to go after the people who are responsible.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I can't thank the Senator enough. I am very worried 
about this leak. I was reading the London news clips, and as the 
Senator knows, I chair the Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe I 
can speak for the leadership of both committees in saying we have not 
been briefed. This has been very closely held because of the 
seriousness of the operation. And to see what is now in the papers, 
which essentially endangers the asset, puts him in fear of his life, 
tells our allies we cannot be trusted to carry out a mission without 
leaking that mission and also thereby alerting al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula that they need to increase their security to prevent 
penetration--it is, I think, the most serious leak certainly in the 
time I have been chairman of the committee.
  I thank the Senator for raising it and for the Senator's solidarity 
in that belief.
  Mr. KYL. I compliment the chair of the committee for her very wise 
remarks. I know the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, is in full 
accord. This is a very bipartisan effort. I hope we can succeed in 
getting to the bottom of it.


                              Unemployment

  Mr. President, I wanted to talk today a little bit about unemployment 
and the economy. There have been a lot of news stories--some very 
serious, as the one we just discussed, and some a little bit more 
frivolous--that I think are distracting from what I believe is the top 
domestic problem in the United States today, the lagging unemployment. 
I wish to focus on that today and what we could do about it versus what 
we are or are not doing about it. There are troubling economic trends, 
and I think maybe we can make some recommendations to the President 
about how we can help to get out of the ditch we are in.
  Unfortunately, the administration has been claiming that the economy 
is continuing to heal and touting the latest jobs report, and I think 
that misleads the American people, and here is why: It is true that by 
their measure the unemployment rate has declined from 8.2 percent to 
8.1 percent, but that doesn't represent progress if you look behind the 
numbers. If you look behind the numbers and the actual employment data, 
employers added only 115,000 jobs last month. That is less than the 
180,000 Wall Street was expecting and, more importantly, it is less 
than the 150,000 jobs that have to be created each month to keep up 
with the new entrants into the workforce, for example, the kids 
graduating from college and high school who are entering the workforce. 
In order to keep up with that number, about 150,000 per

[[Page 6678]]

month, the private sector has to create that many jobs to stay at zero, 
and if it doesn't, then we are actually getting behind.
  The fact that we have had several straight months where there has 
been an actual increase in the number of jobs created doesn't measure 
the success properly. We have to measure those months where job 
creation was above 150,000, and in that case less than half of the 
months since the President has been in office have met that criteria. 
So we are actually sliding backward, not moving forward.
  Here is another way to look at the unemployment picture: There are so 
many people who have given up looking for work under the Obama economy 
now that they don't show up in the unemployment statistics. That is why 
this number, 8.2 percent, actually goes down to 8.1 percent, not 
because there are a lot more people finding work but, rather, a whole 
lot more people have stopped looking for work so they are not counted 
in the unemployed looking for work.
  In March, for example, there were about three people dropping out of 
the system for every one job created. Think of that. In April the rate 
was 4.5 dropouts per new job. So each month we are finding more and 
more people are simply not looking for work. They are dropping out of 
that group of people who wish to be employed and who are looking for 
work. They have stopped so they don't show in the unemployment numbers.
  In fact, in the month of April, 522,000 people dropped out of the 
labor force. Remember, last month 115,000 jobs were created and some 
people thought that was great. Well, it is nice that it was 115,000 and 
not none, but the reality is if 522,000 people dropped out of the labor 
force that same month, it shows there is not much to cheer about. What 
that meant in terms of overall statistics was that a number that the 
Labor Department calls the labor force participation rate, which is how 
many of the people who could be working here are actually working, 
dropped to 63.6 percent, which is the lowest level since 1981 when we 
were headed into a big recession at that time. In other words, we have 
fewer people actually working in this country as a percentage of those 
who could than at any time since 1981.
  James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute said:

       If the size of the labor force as a share of the total 
     population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took 
     office--65.7 then versus 63.6 today--the unemployment rate 
     would be 11.1 percent.

  That is why you hear people say the real unemployment rate is not 8.1 
percent, it is 11.1 percent. What that means is the more people who 
give up looking for work, the better the official unemployment number 
gets, but it doesn't tell the real story. Pethokoukis also noted--and I 
am quoting:

       If the participation rate just stayed where it was last 
     month, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4 percent!

  So the unemployment rate is primarily a factor of how many people are 
still looking for work. And if they have given up, then they don't show 
in these statistics anymore. This is very troubling because it also 
shows that Americans do not see their situation bettering; they don't 
have a sense of optimism that things are getting better. There is a 
resignation beginning to be created here that things are not going to 
get better and there is no point in trying to look for work, and of 
course that has ramifications up and down the economy, a couple of 
which I will mention here.
  Because there is this view that the economy is not continuing to 
heal, as the President said, we have got very sluggish economic growth. 
Back at the very same point in the Reagan recovery, the very same point 
that President Obama is at right now, at that time economic growth was 
6.1 percent. Today it is 2.4 percent under the Obama economy.
  Social Security disability claims are rising, and they are rising 
dramatically. What it shows is that instead of people continuing to 
look for work, they are filing for disability, and a lot of them are 
getting on disability. We have had a tremendous increase in disability 
claims and determinations of disability in this country. More Americans 
are using food stamps than at any other point in our history. One out 
of two recent college graduates cannot find a job or is underemployed 
for their skill.
  I gave a commencement address on Saturday and talked to some of the 
students about what they were going to be doing. Most of them had 
something to do, but a lot of kids do not have a job even though they 
have spent 4, 5, or 6 years and untold thousands of dollars getting a 
college education.
  Senator Thune recently noted that the poverty rate among women has 
reached a 17-year high, and that there are nearly 700,000 fewer women 
working today than when President Obama took office. I don't mean to 
divide this into gender or any other kind of group, but the reality is 
that groups in this country suffer when we have poor economic growth 
and are not creating enough jobs. If you want to get it right down to 
what kind of people are having a problem, here is a situation: 700,000 
fewer women working today than when President Obama took office. There 
are 22.8 million Americans who remain unemployed or underemployed or 
who are only marginally attached to the workforce. These are 22.8 
million Americans who could be working productively, and if they were, 
our economy would be doing much better. Guess what would also be 
happening. People would be earning income and paying income taxes, the 
government would have more revenue, and we would be better able to 
afford all of the things the American people expect of the government.
  The number of long-term unemployed has increased by 89 percent under 
the Obama administration. These are the people who have been out of 
work for a long period of time--at least 6 months and many of them more 
than a year. And all of this as the cost of living for middle-income 
Americans soars. For example, worker health insurance has gone up 23 
percent, even after ObamaCare. Gas prices are now about $4 a gallon. 
They have doubled since President Obama took office. Home values 
nationwide have plunged by 14 percent in my State of Arizona, and in 
many places it is by 50 percent.
  So instead of creating a to-do list for the Senate, as the President 
has done just 6 months before the election--asking us to vote on what a 
lot of people call show votes and dividing the country by pitting one 
group against another--I urge the President to make some real steps to 
steady the economy and reassure the job creators.
  Let me give four specific examples of what the President could do to 
lead and what I think Congress would be willing to do to follow.
  First of all--and a couple of these things are to stop doing 
something that is bad. A lot of people say government can usually do 
best by just getting out of the way because we have a very robust 
private sector if it is not too tied down with government regulation 
and taxation. So the first suggestion I have is let's stop the largest 
tax increase that will automatically occur--it is the largest tax 
increase in the history of our country--on January 1.
  Someone may say: What? I didn't hear about that.
  I am speaking about the so-called Bush tax cuts. Ten years ago 
Congress passed these tax cuts, but they had a limit of 10 years. 
Actually, it was a shorter period than that. They were extended 2 years 
ago because the President said it would be bad for the economy if these 
tax rates were allowed to go up, and he was right. He was right then, 
and he is right today. It would be bad for the economy. It would be bad 
for businesses, especially small businesses. It would be bad for the 
American family. Yet, automatically, if Congress does not act and the 
President does not act, every one of the marginal income tax rates will 
go up. Things such as the marriage tax penalty, the child tax credit, 
the capital gains rate, dividends tax rate, the death tax rate--all of 
these combined will go up, resulting in the largest increase in the 
country.
  When we consider economic growth, when we talk about a wet blanket or

[[Page 6679]]

when we talk about something that will kill economic recovery, that 
kind of a tax increase, which means taking money out of the private 
sector and giving it to government, is about the worst medicine one 
could think of. So my hope is that the President will lead and Congress 
will provide the support necessary to extend our current Tax Code and 
to ensure we don't have the biggest tax increase in the history of the 
country.
  I mentioned taxation and regulation. Well, regulation is No. 2. Over 
28,000 pages of new Federal regulations have been added to the books in 
just this calendar year. Think about that--28,000 pages. We think of 
going to the store and buying a book of 200 pages, or 300 pages if it 
is a really big one. How about 28,000 pages of new Federal regulations 
just this year.
  Bureaucracies such as the National Labor Relations Board and the 
Environmental Protection Agency continue to churn out rules and 
regulations that confuse job creators and hamper their ability to 
expand and hire. One example: Because of a public outcry, it was 
finally decided that the Department of Labor won't issue regulations 
basically saying that kids couldn't work on the family farm. Many of us 
worked on family farms. Maybe we didn't like it at the time, but we all 
agree it did us a lot of good. The reality is that it is not something 
the Federal Government ought to be poking its nose into. So there was 
finally enough political push-back from the FFA and the 4 H Clubs and 
the Farm Bureau and really everybody who was sensible about looking at 
it that they pulled it back. But unless the American people apply 
pressure and push back against this stuff, bureaucrats and the Federal 
Government are going to continue to figure that they can run our lives 
better than we can do it ourselves.
  One of the biggest burdens in terms of regulations is ObamaCare. It 
has made the regulatory state much bigger and much more expansive. It 
has resulted in an estimated 58.5 million annual paperwork hours, 
according to the American Action Forum--58.5 million annual paperwork 
hours. I have talked to businessmen and I have talked to medical 
offices and so on, and they are going nuts trying to figure out how to 
deal with all of these new regulations.
  The House of Representatives has passed numerous bills that would 
reduce the regulatory burden Washington imposes on the economy, but the 
President and the Senate Democratic leadership have refused to bring 
those to the Senate floor. So that is the second thing we could do.
  It all boils down to this: We should rely more on the power of 
freedom than on the power of government. If we do, the American people 
will do the rest. So let's stop this biggest tax increase in the 
history of the country. Let's stop issuing these burdensome 
regulations.
  How about the third thing: American energy. We could be one the most 
energy-wealthy countries in the world--if not the most--just taking 
advantage of our own resources. We would no longer have to be dependent 
on the Middle East for our sources of energy. But unfortunately, here, 
too, the President and Senate Democrats have repeatedly pursued tax 
increases on the oil and gas industries, raised the cost of gasoline, 
and increased our dependence on foreign oil, according to the 
Congressional Research Service--the nonpartisan entity that looks into 
these things when we ask them.
  Instead of basing an energy strategy on punitive tax hikes, we think 
it would be better if the President would just work with us and work 
with the House of Representatives to expand the development of domestic 
resources offshore, on our Federal lands, in Alaska. We have plenty of 
oil and gas and we have plenty of other kinds of reserves of energy 
that could make this country not just no longer dependent on the Middle 
East but much wealthier than we are today. Part of that is just simply 
approving the Keystone Pipeline. This isn't even American resources; it 
is in Canada. They meet all of their environmental requirements. It 
doesn't damage the environment here in the United States. They have 
already done the environmental reviews for the pipeline. There are 
thousands of pipelines crisscrossing our country. This pipeline is not 
going to create an environmental problem. The President has said that 
the part that goes from Oklahoma down to Texas is fine with him but not 
the part that requires EPA's go-ahead.
  So that is the third thing. Let's have an energy policy that takes 
advantage of what we have, including approving the Keystone Pipeline.
  Finally, what the President and our Democratic friends here in the 
Senate could do is to join the House of Representatives and clear the 
deck of all of the legislation that has been piling up here on the 
Senate floor that isn't getting done that we all know has to get done 
before the end of the year. These are not optional. This is our 
homework. This is stuff we have to do, and it is all being put aside 
for the lameduck session.
  The lameduck session is the time in between the election when new 
Members of Congress have been elected and the time they are sworn in--
essentially at the end of the first week in November to the first week 
in January. I will be a lame duck; I am not running for reelection. I 
would rather the new Senator from my State make the decisions about the 
future of the country, but because all of these things are piling up, I 
will be one of the people here making these decisions for the future of 
our country. I don't mind being here, but it will be very bad for the 
country to pile up all of these things and expect to get them done 
smartly in the 5 or 6 weeks that surround Thanksgiving and Christmas.
  What are some of these things? First of all, just funding the 
government--the appropriations bills. Nobody expects we are going to 
complete work on all of the appropriations bills to run the government, 
as a result of which we will have to, at the end of the year, pile a 
whole bunch of bills into what have been called Omnibus appropriations 
bills--``omnibus'' meaning we throw everything into the same pot. The 
problem with that, coupled with the fact that the Senate hasn't 
approved a budget in 3 years and won't approve a budget this year, 
presumably, is that nothing is prioritized; it is just basically a 
continuation of the spending from years past. So we are not making the 
critical decisions about dropping this and adding this that would 
provide more sensible funding of our Federal Government. So that is the 
first thing we ought to be doing, and that leads me to the second 
thing.
  We have been borrowing so much money that it is very clear we are 
going to once again run up against the debt ceiling. We have borrowed 
so much that we have to increase the debt ceiling in order to pay the 
money we have borrowed. Nobody likes to do it. Nobody likes to say they 
voted to increase the debt ceiling. Well, then, why vote to incur the 
debt in the first place? Oh, we have no trouble doing that--at least 
some Members in this body and in the House don't--but the reality is 
that when those people have incurred that much spending, we have to pay 
the debt, and that means the debt ceiling has to be raised. When will 
this come to pass? Right after the election. We wouldn't want to take 
it up before the election. It might remind the American people about 
how much--too much--we are spending. Forty cents on every dollar we 
spend in this country we had to borrow. So the debt ceiling is 
something we are going to have to deal with.
  Here is one of the biggest of all: sequestration. We agreed in the 
Budget Control Act last year that we would save about $1 trillion over 
10 years on discretionary spending and we would try to save another 
$1.5 trillion in mandatory spending--the so-called entitlement programs 
that are really costing us big bucks, including Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security, and there is a whole variety of other programs that 
are included in entitlement spending. Nobody is talking about ending 
these programs as we know them. What politician is going to call for an 
end to Social Security or Medicare? That is not what we are talking 
about. We are talking about effectuating savings. There is a huge 
amount of waste and

[[Page 6680]]

fraud and abuse that everybody acknowledges. We could save billions of 
dollars in all of these programs, and we need to do that.
  We need to save $1.2 trillion, which is the actual amount required by 
law, over 10 years. When we subtract interest, that comes out to about 
$908 billion or $918 billion--I have forgotten which--each year. So 
some of us have introduced legislation to pay for this $900-plus 
billion for next year, to offset with spending reductions the cost of 
this sequestration. ``Sequestration'' is a fancy word for across-the-
board spending cuts. Half of them go directly to the Department of 
Defense, and the other half are spread all across the other programs in 
our budget, from education, housing, you name it. Well, does it make 
sense to just take a meat ax and lop off the top 10 percent or top 12 
percent or whatever it might be of the spending in all of these 
different programs? Would we want to buy four-fifths of an airplane in 
the military? Does that make sense or does it make more sense to save 
$10 here so we can spend $10 over here? Obviously, it makes more sense 
to do that.
  Everybody assumes that somehow we are going to avoid sequestration in 
the lameduck session of Congress. Who is doing anything about it? Well, 
some of us have introduced legislation. Also, we hope that this week in 
the House of Representatives they will be able to amend the Defense 
authorization bill by adding a provision that says the numbers in that 
bill assume we have resolved this sequestration problem as a way to 
begin negotiations so we can find a solution that both Houses will 
agree to and both political parties will agree to. This shouldn't be 
partisan. Everybody loses if sequestration occurs. So let's solve that 
problem, and let's solve it before we get to the lameduck session. That 
is the third thing we can do.
  Everybody familiar with our Tax Code knows there is a fourth thing. 
We have something that happens each year. There are 60 provisions in 
the Tax Code that expire every year. We have to renew them, and we do, 
so let's get about it. They have already expired. These are the so-
called tax extenders--extending certain provisions of the Tax Code that 
everybody wants to see extended. They have already expired. We need to 
do it retroactively the first of the year. Everybody knows we are going 
to extend most of them; maybe we won't do all of them. We need to do 
that, so why not? Let's get that done.
  We know there are other things that are occurring. There is something 
called the doc fix. Each year we have to figure out how to pay the 
doctors who take care of Medicare patients. It costs a lot of money. If 
we don't pay them, we are not going to have any doctors who will take 
care of Medicare patients. So it is always a dance: Well, we have to 
figure out how to pay the doctors. The reality is that if we don't pay 
them, then we only have ourselves to blame when our senior citizens 
can't find a doctor to take care of them when they need that care.
  There are others as well. The payroll tax holiday expires, and there 
are many others we need to do as part of our business as 
Representatives and Senators. This isn't optional. These have to be 
done to keep the government running, the things we promised our 
constituents in legislation that we would do.
  So another suggestion is let's start working on these big problems. 
Many of us who will be in a lameduck position are putting a letter 
together to our leadership asking them to please tackle these big 
problems. We should not be voting on a lot of these things. We should 
be done as of the end of the year. But if we have to, we will. It is 
not that we are not ready for the work. It is that these things should 
be done before the election.
  This is my last point. You ask, why, if these are things we are 
supposed to do--the appropriations; dealing with the Tax Code, because 
it will automatically have a big tax increase if we do not; the 
sequestration; the debt ceiling; paying the doctors--if we have to do 
all of these things, why are we putting them off?
  Well, here is the dirty little secret. Because if we actually tackled 
them, we would have to make some tough decisions. If we made tough 
decisions, we would have to take votes. If we take votes, those votes 
are going to be on the record. And if those votes are on the record 
before the election, our constituents will know what we think and how 
we act, and some of them may not like it.
  So we do not want to be on the record, some of my colleagues say. 
Again, it does not bother me; I am not running for reelection. We do 
not want to be on the record before the election. It is a little bit 
like when the President leaned over to then-President of Russia Dmitry 
Medvedev and he said: Look, after my last election, I will have a lot 
more flexibility to deal with these issues. You tell Vladimir.
  Well, after the election it is too late. The people have cast their 
ballots. Shouldn't the politicians be willing to say before the 
election what they stand for? And instead of making campaign promises, 
how about taking votes on real issues so the American people know where 
they stand? Then they can make an informed judgment: I like this person 
over that person because I like the way this person voted or I do not 
like the way that person voted.
  That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. You make the 
tough decisions. You stand for election. The people either say yes or 
no. Then, by the way, they hold you in account. After you are elected, 
they continue to watch how you vote to decide whether they want to vote 
for you again. But in this day and age, we are playing hide the ball 
from the American people: Let's do not bring anything up until after 
the election. That way the American people will not see how we feel 
about these things.
  Some of these are tough votes, I acknowledge. It is hard to figure 
out how to effectuate savings. If you have to come up with $100 billion 
in savings over 10 years, something has to go. So you cannot promise 
everything to everybody. You actually have to find $100 billion in 
savings somewhere.
  Senator McCain and I and Senators Cornyn and Ayotte and Rubio and 
Graham and some others have introduced legislation to say: Here is how 
we would do it. If somebody has a different way of looking at it, tell 
us.
  I will tell you the way we would do it. You can save $100 billion by 
doing two things. When people leave government employment, instead of 
hiring somebody to replace them, we would hire two people for every 
three who leave. The Bowles-Simpson Commission says only hire one for 
every three who leave. So we are being a lot more liberal than Bowles-
Simpson. We say, every time three people leave the government, let's 
only hire two back. I bet we could get by as a country doing that. The 
other thing is, the President froze increases in Federal salaries, and 
we would simply extend that freeze through the middle of 2014.
  There are other ways to do it. There are hundreds of billions of 
dollars to be saved. If you have a better idea, we are all for it, but 
at least come up with something and do not be afraid to vote. The 
American people are pretty smart. They get this stuff, and they know 
there is no free lunch. They know that government costs money, and they 
know you cannot save money by continuing to promise everything to 
everybody.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the leadership in 
both the House and the Senate, let's get serious about this. First of 
all, let's not raise taxes. Let's reduce regulations. Let's have a real 
energy policy. Let's get our work done--the work we know has to be 
done. And let's get it done as soon as we can. That would give families 
and businesses the knowledge of how to plan for the future. That would 
help them understand what they have to deal with and not have to incur 
this huge uncertainty, which is so much of a drag on our economy today.
  These are four constructive suggestions. There is a lot more we could 
do. But when our economy is in as bad a shape as it is right now--and 
it is not getting much better; we have this many people not even 
looking for work anymore--we need to do something

[[Page 6681]]

more than be out on the campaign hustings talking small ball and trying 
to blame it on the other side.
  Let's get to work, follow these four ideas, and I think we could make 
tremendous progress to get our country moving again. Frankly, if we 
did, I think the American people would reward us. They would say: Thank 
you. Thanks for finally doing something. That is what we sent you there 
for, and we will reward you for it. So ironically, good policy turns 
out to be good politics. I think we need a little bit more good policy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, by now, it should come as no 
surprise that the Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years. I 
believe it has been 1,111 days. When I go to back to Wisconsin--and I 
think it is probably true of my colleagues--the people of Wisconsin, 
and I think the people all over America, want us to work together and 
solve our debt and deficit issue. Since I have been here, the 
Republicans have fulfilled the responsibility to show what the plan is 
for stabilizing our debt and deficit. The House passed a budget in the 
last 2 years, but the Democrats in the Senate have not. It is because 
they simply refuse to be held accountable. That is a real shame.
  I realize the American public wants us to work with each other, but 
my suggestion is that the first individuals who need to work with each 
other, the first compromise that needs to be done is with our 
Democratic colleagues in this Chamber. They have 53 percent, and they 
only need 51 to pass a budget. They need to get together and work 
together, and they need to hammer out a compromise and pass a budget. 
The way that we get together and compromise in the entire process is 
the House budget would be presented with the Senate budget, we would do 
a conference, and we would have a process for being able to compromise. 
That is the basic minimum of what I think needs to be done in the 
Senate.
  One point I want to make is that President Obama has made a number of 
promises during his administration, and one I will talk about now is on 
February 23, 2009. In his opening remarks to the fiscal responsibility 
summit, the President stated:

       Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half 
     by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. 
     It will require us to make difficult decisions and face 
     challenges we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our 
     children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means 
     taking responsibility right now in this administration for 
     getting our spending under control.

  I point out that when he made those remarks, the most recent estimate 
for what the deficit would be in fiscal year 2009 was put forward by 
CBO on January 7, 2009. They were estimating that the deficit for that 
year would be $1.186 trillion or 1.2 rounded up. Half of that amount 
would be $593 billion. That is the promise President Obama made to this 
Nation in terms of the work he would put in and what he would deliver 
to our Nation in terms of deficit control.
  The facts are far different. In 2009, largely because of the very 
partisan stimulus package the President passed, the deficit wasn't $1.2 
trillion, it was $1.4 trillion. That was followed in 2010 by $1.29 
trillion. Then in fiscal 2011, it was $1.3 trillion. The latest CBO 
estimate for deficit for this year will be $1.253 trillion, almost $1.3 
trillion. That is double what the President promised he would be 
delivering to the American people in terms of deficit control.
  Moving forward, this President in his budget is projecting increasing 
our debt from $15 trillion to over $25 trillion. I am not sure that is 
believable. The other quote of his was on September 26, 2011, in 
remarks at a DNC fundraiser in San Diego when he was trying to sell his 
Americans Job Act. He said the following:

       What I have said is that this is a very simple principle 
     that everybody should understand. Warren Buffett's secretary 
     should not pay a lower tax rate than Warren Buffett. A 
     teacher making $50,000 a year, or a firefighter making 
     $50,000 a year, or $60,000, should not be paying a higher tax 
     rate than somebody making $50 million a year. And that basic 
     principle of fairness, if applied to our Tax Code, could 
     raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs 
     bill--

  And here is the key quote:

     --we would also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next 
     decade.

  Mr. President, I don't know what you call that last statement, but I 
think it could be called a doozy. I think the President has a very 
serious responsibility not to mislead the American public. I think that 
statement was a gross violation of that duty.
  I have one chart here, a simple one. It shows the 4-year deficit 
figures for the last 3 administrations. Here's Bush's first 4-year 
administration, which is a $.8 trillion total deficit in 4 years. In 
the second 4 years, it is $1.2 trillion in deficit spending. This 
President will accumulate $5.3 trillion in deficit spending in his 4 
years. Four years of the Buffett rule--that tax President Obama said 
would stabilize the debt and deficit--would be $20 billion. I realize 
the people in the gallery probably cannot see that line on the chart, 
but it is obviously not enough to stabilize the debt and deficit.
  I think the President has the obligation and duty not to mislead the 
American public. That is what he did in this case.
  Senator Corker has been a real leader on this issue in terms of being 
a real hawk in trying to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. I 
wonder if he has any comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments, and I 
see the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wyoming here also.
  Look, I think the No. 1 responsibility we have in the U.S. Senate is 
to pass a budget and to lay out for the American people how we are 
going to spend the resources that come in. The last time we passed a 
budget was 1,111 days ago, and we spent over $10 trillion of the U.S. 
taxpayer money during that time.
  To be honest, I have quit voting for any spending bills--any spending 
bills--until we come to a point in time where we at least lay out for 
the American people how much of their money we are going to spend and 
what we are going to spend it on.
  Again, each year we have $3.5 trillion to $3.6 trillion being spent 
by the Federal Government with no plan. I am embarrassed for this body, 
candidly, that we have not even tried to take up a budget. I know that 
the committee itself began to take one up a few weeks ago, and the 
chairman was asked not to do it because it made no sense to do a budget 
at this time. Thankfully, the Parliamentarian ruled in this body that 
it was appropriate for us to take up a budget. Again, I cannot imagine 
a greater shirking of our responsibility than to not lay out to the 
American people exactly where their dollars are going.
  What worries me most is that this is the greatest transference of 
wealth from these pages--from their generation to my generation--that 
has existed in modern history in this country. There is a tremendous 
transference of wealth as we do not deal with the issues of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. What we are doing is actually piling up 
tremendous amounts of indebtedness so that the people of America will 
like us more as politicians, as we don't make difficult decisions and 
don't have to wrestle with the fiscal issues that we have as a Nation.
  This is the thing that is ailing Western democracies around the 
world. We are seeing this play out, obviously, in Europe right now, as 
citizens are rising

[[Page 6682]]

up in protest over having to deal with the tough issues of the day. 
There has been this grand bargain in Western democracies--ours being 
one--where politicians have given citizens what they wish without 
asking them to pay for it.
  I think we all understand that this is up now. We have a dilemma in 
this Nation. We have a dilemma around the world right now because of 
our inability to deal with this issue. So in the process, what we are 
doing is basically transferring wealth from that generation to my 
generation. It is absolute generational theft. I think it speaks to the 
greatest vulnerability we have as a Nation.
  If you speak to all of our national security analysts or you speak to 
anybody in this body, we know our greatest threat is not what is 
happening in China, it is not what is happening in Iran, it is not what 
is happening in Syria, but the greatest threat to this Nation is us, 
ourselves. For some reason, this body has chosen to totally shirk our 
responsibilities as they relate to dealing with this issue.
  I know over the next couple of weeks we are going to have the 
opportunity to vote on some budget resolutions. I agree with the 
Senator from Wisconsin. I hope there will be at least some way this 
body can come together and present a budget for debate. If not, I know 
there will be alternatives put forward. Again, this is the greatest 
threat to our Nation; that is, our inability to show the kind of 
discipline we need to show as a Nation. Our country's greatness is 
dissipating as we continue to shovel this under the rug and not deal 
with it. I do hope the Senate at some point soon will rise and deal 
with the major responsibilities we have in this Nation, and that is 
putting our country on sound footing.
  I will close with this. I don't think there is anything we can do 
that would cause our economy to lift off more quickly than for people 
in this Nation and around the world to know that we actually have dealt 
with progrowth tax reform and entitlement reform, and passing longer 
term budgets and discretionary caps that would put this Nation on sound 
footing. I believe the economy would take off. I hope that is what we 
rise to do before the end of this year.
  I yield the floor for my colleague and great friend from Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. It 
is interesting, because there are four of us on the floor right now--
the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator 
from Wyoming, and myself. We have one thing in common. Every one of us 
has run a business. Every one of us was in business before we came to 
the Senate. So we know when we are talking about new taxes--which is 
all we hear from the administration--that is not going to help this 
economy grow, because our small businesses are scared to death out 
there.
  I know because I have heard the Senator from Tennessee and the 
Senator from Wisconsin, who came straight out of a business and who ran 
for the Senate because he was so frustrated in business--we know that 
small business people out there today are looking at the increased 
taxes that are already in place with the Obamacare added taxes and 
surtaxes that have already been passed by the Democrats in Congress, 
without one single Republican vote. Those taxes are already on board to 
increase, plus you have the fines they are facing if they don't have 
the government-prescribed plan for the Obama health care plan. They are 
going to have to pay fines on top of the surtaxes to pay for the bill 
they are not going to be able to use. Then they are looking at the 
regulations that are coming out of this administration and saying: And 
Congress wants to spend another trillion dollars this year?
  Every one of us knows we are looking at hitting the debt ceiling 
again--over $16 trillion--this fall, because this administration will 
not even consider lower taxes and lower spending levels. So I look at 
all of us on the Senate floor right now who have been in business, who 
have run a business, who have met that payroll, who have met the 
regulatory environment, and I think: Why on Earth don't we listen to 
the small businesspeople of this country and in this body and do what 
they do every year--pass a budget?
  The Senator from Wyoming is here, and I would just ask if he has an 
idea of when was the last time the Senate passed a budget resolution.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I would tell my colleague from Texas, who has 
been a leader in this fight asking for a budget, demanding a budget, as 
of today it has been 1,111 days since the Senate passed a budget, in 
spite of the law that says they must do so by April 15 of each year. So 
April 15 came and went this year, as it did last year and the year 
before, and yet there is no budget.
  So I look to the leadership of the Senator from Texas, who knows how 
the hard-working families in her State and the hard-working families of 
my State resent the fact that Washington refuses to be accountable. The 
Democrats in this body refuse to be accountable to the American people.
  All the American people are asking for, in my view, is value for 
their money. They want to make sure the money they send to Washington 
is being spent effectively and efficiently, and they are actually 
getting value for their money.
  I assume that is what my colleague is hearing from Texas as well.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Well, of course. And the spending issue is very 
interesting. I look to my colleague from Tennessee, who is really one 
of the deficit hawks in the Senate, and when I look at the statistics 
that are being put out about the entitlement spending, the entitlement 
spending today is over 50 percent of our spending every year--mandatory 
spending. In 10 years it is going to be 75 percent of the spending in 
this country.
  So I would ask my friend from Tennessee--because he has been pure on 
this issue, being the deficit hawk he is--how would we be able to solve 
the spending problem of this country without addressing Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid--mandatory spending--which will be at 
75 percent of the budget in 10 years if we continue at this rate?
  Mr. CORKER. I know the Senator from Texas spends a tremendous amount 
of time on appropriations issues and knows a great deal about this, and 
she knows more than me if we wiped out all discretionary spending--
which this year will be capped at $1.47 trillion--we still wouldn't 
wipe out the budget deficit.
  So the Senator is absolutely correct. We could do away with all 
defense spending, all educational spending, all research and 
development, and we could still not cause our budget not to have a 
deficit. Let me give a stat--and I talk about this a lot back home, and 
I am so glad the Senator has given me this opportunity.
  The average American worker earns $43,500 today. So in a two-wage-
earner family, that is $87,000. Over their lifetime, in today's 
dollars, that family will pay into the Medicare Program $119,000, and 
that includes the part the employer pays on their behalf. So between 
what they pay in and the employer--and the Senator from Texas has been 
an employer before and knows about paying the Medicare taxes into the 
system--that combined amount of money for the average American family 
is $119,000 in today's dollars. That same family, if they retired, 
would take out of the system, over their lifetime, $357,000. Now think 
about that. That is in today's dollars. Again, $119,000 going into 
Medicare on their behalf and $357,000 coming out of Medicare.
  I think most people in this body--even people who haven't been in 
business--realize we cannot make that up with volume. Yet volume is on 
the way. There are 20 million more Americans over this next decade who 
are going to be part of that same formula--$119,000 in and $357,000 
out.
  I have been quoting these stats every year, and the numbers get 
further and further apart every quarter.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to ask the Senator from Tennessee, because he 
brought this up, not only is it so clear there is more going out than 
coming back in, what would he say to the fact

[[Page 6683]]

we also--not we, because he, along with myself and the Senator from 
Wyoming--voted against the Obama health care bill, but interestingly, 
with those numbers the Senator just quoted, that bill cuts $500 billion 
more out of Medicare to pay for that overdraft the Senator is talking 
about. He was talking about a generational change as well. Oh, my 
goodness.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, $529 billion, to be exact. The Senator 
from Wyoming has brought out over and over the unsustainable growth 
problem we have, meaning every year we come to this cliff with 
physicians--and he is a physician and used to practice on a daily 
basis--and instead of dealing with that issue over a decade, which 
would have cost about $300 billion, instead, we swept that issue under 
the rug and took the full $529 billion to help create this entitlement.
  I think most people in this body know there is no way this bill is 
going to work the way it is laid out; that the costs are going to be 
substantially more because in a free enterprise system, people act on 
their own behalf, in their own self-interest. The subsidies are so high 
for families up to $88,000 a year, the penalty is so low, what is going 
to happen is we are going to have millions and millions of people out 
on this program far beyond the projections that have been laid out.
  So anyway, because we are talking about Social Security and Medicare, 
all of us want it to be solvent. That is what we want to see. We want 
to make sure Medicare and Social Security are here for generations down 
the road. But we all know--the Medicare trustee has said so--it is 
going to be insolvent by the year 2024.
  One way to do deal with it is to put our heads in the sand and just 
let it happen in the years after we are gone, let it happen to the good 
citizens of this country. Another solution is to recognize: Hey, this 
is a big ship, and we need to turn it a little in another direction so 
these young people sitting in front of us don't have to carry the tab.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am so pleased the Senator from Tennessee brought 
that up because there is a way for us to at least fix one of the 
entitlements in a relatively painless way, and that is Social Security. 
It is going to have a few changes that some people will not like, but 
it could be so gradual if we do it now. We could simply raise the age 3 
months a year.
  In the bill I have proposed--and there are others that are equally as 
good, although none of them have been taken up--it would say: If you 
are 59 years old, you wouldn't have any change at all. If you are 58, 
you would retire 3 months later. So it would be very gradual. If we do 
that, and adjust the cost-of-living increase, we would not have to 
raise any social security taxes, we would not cut the core benefits at 
all, and we could gradually ease into a system that would be solvent 
for 75 years. Then our elderly, who need Social Security, will have it 
there.
  That is a proposal on the table now. But what is happening in 
Congress? And where is the leadership from the White House? Nothing. 
Nothing.
  I am going to turn to the Senator from Wyoming because he is one of 
the two actual physicians in the Senate, and he knows more about the 
Obama health care system. When we look at what the Obama health care 
system is doing to Medicare--cutting it $\1/2\ trillion--and then this 
Social Security issue we have discussed, the overall Medicare issue the 
Senator from Tennessee addressed, and what the Senator from Wisconsin 
has brought out in his charts--and he has been the real hands-on, most 
recently experienced small businessperson--I would ask the real doctor 
in this body: What is going to happen if the Supreme Court doesn't save 
America by throwing out the individual mandate on constitutional 
grounds and we actually have the implementation of ObamaCare, with the 
taxes and fines that are going to come in on January 1 of next year if 
we don't act? Where are we going to be in health care in this country?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I would tell my colleague and friend from Texas, who is 
a wonderful student of this as well, this health care law is bad for 
patients, it is bad for providers--the doctors and nurses who take care 
of those patients--and it is terrible for taxpayers, who are going do 
get stuck footing the bill. So it is not a surprise this administration 
doesn't want to come to the Senate, is embarrassed to come to the 
Senate with a budget, because they know the American people would be so 
offended by the irresponsibility and the nature of such a budget.
  That is the situation we find ourselves in now. As both my colleagues 
have said, they took $500 billion from Medicare--and not to save 
Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare--to start a whole new government 
program for someone else. That is why when I travel the State of 
Wyoming and I talk to seniors, they say they don't like this health 
care law. It is why the health care law is even more unpopular today 
than it was the day it was passed.
  But I do notice our colleague from Wisconsin has a new chart I am 
trying to read from here, and so I will ask if he could share with us 
what is on that chart so that everyone gets a chance to see it and hear 
the explanation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I came 
prepared with charts, and a number of things that have already been 
mentioned by my colleagues I am ready for.
  We are talking about the true cost of the health care law. When this 
was passed--and I actually grossed up these figures because they 
actually netted out--the savings of Medicare with new spending in 
Medicare, the way ObamaCare was originally going to be paid for was 
about $1.3 trillion to cover about $1.1 trillion in outlays. That was 
split up in basically two ways: about $590 billion in taxes, fees, and 
penalties, and then $665 billion in reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Medicare Advantage.
  Now, we have not imposed the $208 billion of the doc fix, the 
sustainable growth rate formulas, because even Washington realized if 
we reduce payments to providers, there will be less access for seniors. 
So I guess I don't have any reason to believe those cuts in Medicare 
will actually occur.
  If we move the budgetary window forward to the timeframe when 
ObamaCare truly kicks in--because, initially, by the way, we had 10 
years of revenue and only 6 years of outlays. But really we only had 4 
years of full outlays. If we move the budget window forward, the true 
cost of ObamaCare over a 10-year window is $2.4 trillion, and that is a 
very minimal estimate. That is very conservative. If we don't impose 
Medicare cuts, and we only grow the taxes, fees, and penalties--about 
$816 billion--that leaves a $1.6 trillion deficit risk over 10 years.
  We are talking about these deficits now that for 4 years have been 
$1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion. We are 
trying to close a $1.3 trillion deficit with about $1 trillion worth of 
discretionary spending. The other graph I had--and this plays into what 
the earlier part of the conversation was--reflects the 1960s, when 68 
percent of our expenditures were appropriated. They were under some 
control in Congress. And 32 percent were the mandatory programs and 
interest. Currently, about 36 percent of government expenditures are 
appropriated and 64 percent are basically off-budget, on automatic 
pilot.
  As the Senator from Texas pointed out, 10 years forward, only about 
25 percent of our Federal budget will be appropriated--will be 
discretionary spending. Everything else is on automatic pilot. That is 
simply not sustainable.
  The last graph I want to put up--and we haven't talked about this 
yet--reflects what I really fear. If we take a look at the average 
borrowing costs for the United States from 1970 through 1999, when we 
were a far more creditworthy nation, our debt's GDP ratio ranged from 
about 40 percent to 67 percent. Our average borrowing cost as a nation 
was 5.3 percent. Over the last 3 years, from 2010 to 2012, our average 
borrowing cost has been 1.5 percent because we have held rates 
artificially low.
  If we just revert to that mean, that would actually be a 3.8-percent 
differential. Applied to our debt, that

[[Page 6684]]

would be $600 billion to $700 billion per year in additional interest 
expense. Compare that to $1 trillion worth of discretionary spending, 
and that would totally wipe out the defense budget, for example, or if 
we maintain the defense budget, it would wipe out all discretionary 
spending.
  That is what we need to be concerned about. That is the day of 
reckoning I am concerned about: when creditors from around the world 
take a look at the United States and say: You know what. I am not going 
to loan you any more money. What is more likely to occur is they will 
say: I will loan you more money but at a far higher interest rate.
  I know the Senator from Tennessee is fully aware of these types of 
figures.
  Mr. CORKER. I would say to the Senator from Wisconsin and everyone, 
that is an outstanding chart, and I like the one before it even better. 
But the fact is that it is so easily known, the illumination is so 
bright that we have a major fiscal issue in this country, and we are 
watching how that can play out and be so destructive to people's lives 
right now in Europe as they try to deal with these issues.
  Our Nation is so large and the economy is so big that there will not 
be anyone to come to our rescue such as we are seeing play out in some 
of these other countries. And for us to see what is happening and to 
know we are participating in this--we are participating in this because 
spending here in America is on auto pilot. We are going to spend $45 to 
$47 trillion of the American people's money over the next decade. We 
have not a single document in place to lay out how that is going to 
take place. I think it is incredibly irresponsible.
  It would be an embarrassment to me if I had some ability to run this 
place and to know that we had no budget and yet we know the calamity 
that is going to occur if we do not deal with this issue. We understand 
it full well, and we are doing nothing about it. Instead, we are 
dealing with all kinds of issues that are all about elections and 
whether one side can make the other side look bad and is this going to 
make a tough vote for somebody else, instead of dealing with our No. 1 
responsibility.
  I am hoping that somehow at least 60 folks in this body will be 
willing to pass a budget to then create a conference between the House 
and Senate so we can take a major step toward living up to our 
financial obligations as a country.
  I thank the Senator so much for organizing this today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. The Senator from Wyoming looks as though he 
might have another concluding comment.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I just want to thank my colleagues who are here today 
sharing their time and their insight. They have a lot of insight 
because they have run businesses, they have worked to actually meet a 
budget and live within a budget, have dealt with government 
regulations. And the Senator from Texas was talking about these 
regulations. They are burdensome, they are expensive, and they are 
time-consuming. It is hard to budget when you don't know what to 
expect. That is what the American people who create jobs and who work 
jobs need--some predictability and some certainty so they can make wise 
decisions. And when you have a Congress led by the Democrats in the 
Senate who do not pass a budget, the predictability isn't there, the 
certainty isn't there. There is so much confusion and uncertainty that 
people have a hard time making the longer term decisions.
  To my colleague from Wisconsin, I know that is what I saw in my 
medical office, and as I talk to my colleague, I know they have the 
same situation in Wisconsin.
  I thank my colleague from Wisconsin as well as my colleagues from 
Texas and Tennessee for their leadership and their continued efforts to 
try to get the Democrats in this body and this administration to pass a 
budget, which by law they are mandated to do. Yet, even today, now we 
are at 1,111 days without a budget. To me, that is inexcusable.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I appreciate those comments.
  I will conclude.
  There really are two plans on the table right now. One is from the 
House Republicans. It actually passed the Chamber. Republicans were 
willing to put their votes to a budget. Republicans are willing to be 
held accountable. Of course, the other plan would be the President's 
budget, which last year lost in this body 0 to 97, and his current 
budget lost in the House 0 to 414. So I guess you can say that is a 
plan that doesn't sound like a particularly serious plan.
  So I join my colleagues, and I thank the Senators from Texas and 
Wyoming and Tennessee for joining me. I would join them in asking this 
body to please exercise your responsibility, own up to your duty, and 
let's pass a budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Congratulating John Paul Hammerschmidt

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, my colleague and I would like to extend a 
special birthday greetings to former Congressman John Paul 
Hammerschmidt. So with the President's approval, I will turn it over to 
Senator Boozman and let him lead off.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be with the senior 
Senator from Arkansas discussing somebody for whom we both have a great 
deal of affection; that is, the former Congressman of the Third 
District of Arkansas, the district I used to represent. Congressman 
Hammerschmidt represented the district for 26 years, and he just 
recently celebrated his 90th birthday on May 4.
  John Paul has led a life dedicated to public service. In fact, that 
is truly an understatement. Along with that, he served as a combat 
pilot during World War II and is part of the ``greatest generation.''
  Once he returned home to Harrison, AR, he ran the family lumber 
business while spearheading efforts to create a two-party political 
system in the State of Arkansas. John Paul helped mold the political 
landscape of the State of Arkansas, and he never lost sight of the 
reason why he was doing that and why he worked so hard to provide a 
two-party system, that being the people of Arkansas.
  By the time he was elected to Congress in 1966 as the first member of 
his party to represent Arkansas in Congress since Reconstruction, John 
Paul had a reputation of working to help others. He did that for 26 
years as a Member of Congress. By the time he retired, he was the 
ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. He served in Congress with the same enthusiasm that 
propelled him into office and was well respected by his colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for his strong work ethic, approach to getting 
work done, and his responsiveness to constituent service.
  Eleven years ago, when I was a newly-elected Member of Congress who 
also represented the district John Paul used to represent, he gave me 
advice that I continue to follow; that is, the key to good governing 
and the key to good public service is that, once elected, there aren't 
any more Republicans, there aren't any more Democrats--there are just 
the people of Arkansas and the people of America, and we need to take 
care of them.
  His words ring as true today as they did 11 years ago. His efforts to 
work with his colleagues in both political parties benefitted Arkansas 
and America and show what it truly means to be bipartisan. Despite 
being in the House minority, he was able to achieve much success in 
Congress because he recognized that the key to good governing and good 
public service is that you treat everyone fairly and set aside 
political differences. This ideology allowed him to be influential in a 
variety

[[Page 6685]]

of different areas. He is credited with securing improvements for roads 
and infrastructure projects, including Interstate 540 and the Northwest 
Arkansas Regional Airport, protecting the Buffalo River under the 
designation as a national river, and setting the example of exemplary 
constituent service that we strive to continue today.
  He is showing no signs of letting his age slow him down by any means. 
He continues his service on numerous boards and for organizations with 
the same vigor he demonstrated throughout his career. John Paul played 
an important role in our State's history, and he is still continuing to 
play an important role in our State's history. He also was an important 
influence on me, as he was to so many others in Arkansas. I consider 
him a friend and a mentor.
  I recall the first time that I was in Washington being sworn in, in 
2001. He took my brother and me to the Members' dining room. It was a 
very special time, and just his hospitality to all of us throughout the 
years was so gracious. I appreciate very much his advice and 
friendship.
  John Paul is able to leave his fingerprints on projects important to 
Arkansas through his hard work, dedication, and commitment. He never 
forgot about the people he was sent to Washington to represent, and we 
are truly grateful for his tireless efforts to represent the people of 
Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, John Paul Hammerschmidt is 90. There are 
many colleagues here in this Chamber, who serve in this body today, who 
worked alongside him either during their service in the House or when 
they were in the Senate. He is one of the Arkansas greats. He served 
northwest Arkansas, which is the Third Congressional District, 26 years 
in the Congress. Looking back at his career, John Paul once said, ``The 
only reason people should be in public office is to purely serve other 
people.'' Indeed, he set the bar for constituent service--from 
delivering a Social Security check to a senior bogged down in 
bureaucracy or fighting for disability benefits for a veteran. Today, 
each of us in Arkansas congressional delegation tries to emulate his 
legendary casework management.
  One of John Paul's most significant contributions was preserving the 
Buffalo River as a free-flowing stream. According to the Pryor Center 
for Arkansas Oral and Visual History, John Paul first floated the 
Buffalo at age 12 after taking wood from his father's lumberyard to 
build himself a boat. Nearly 40 years later, he established the Buffalo 
as the first National River. This was not an easy achievement, but one 
that was built with persistence and through relationships within the 
community. Today, tens of thousands of Arkansas families, including 
mine, enjoy floating the Buffalo National River.
  John Paul also used his time in Congress to help northwest Arkansas 
expand its infrastructure to keep up with the region's fast growth. It 
is one of the fastest growing sections of the country. As a member of 
the Public Works Committee, John Paul was credited with securing 
bipartisan support on key infrastructure legislation. We could use a 
little of his magic today. You can't go far in northwest Arkansas 
without seeing his impact. We have the John Paul Hammerschmidt Highway, 
an access road to Carter Field near Rogers, an industrial park at 
Diamond City, JPH Plaza, the John Paul Hammerschmidt Business and 
Conference Center at North Arkansas College in Harrison, John Paul 
Hammerschmidt Lake at Fort Smith and the JPH Federal Building in 
Fayetteville.
  Upon John Paul's retirement, former Congressman, Commerce and 
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta spoke on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, saying:

       There is no individual in the House who is more loved and 
     respected than John Paul Hammerschmidt. His honesty, 
     gentleness, decency, and integrity are second to none. Don't 
     be swayed by his quiet manner, because underneath is a man 
     with strong convictions, a sense of purpose, and a keen 
     desire to get things done.

  It is fair to say that John Paul never actually retired. He remains 
involved in many civic organizations, including the Northwest Arkansas 
Council and March of Dimes. Higher education continues to be a 
priority. John Paul serves on not one but two boards of trustees--the 
Board of Trustees at the University of the Ozarks and he is a Trustee 
of Arkansas State University.
  John Paul Hammerschmidt has spent decades serving others and giving 
back to his community. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay 
tribute to all he has achieved so far and to wish him a happy 90th 
birthday and many more years of health and happiness.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________