[Page: H3096] GPO's PDF---
(Ms. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House
[Page: H3096] GPO's PDF
Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the Holocaust Days of Remembrance. In 1938, there was a family that lived in Vienna, Austria. The father was a successful tea merchant. The boys were both talented and bright. And when the Anschluss came and the Nazis arrived, the younger son watched as his mother signed away all of their possessions.
The mother made her way to the United States, because she had relatives here. The older of the two boys was smuggled out of Austria in the trunk of a car. The younger boy was taken to an orphanage, a boy's orphanage in Belgium.
The father, Sigmund, was not able to obtain passage, as the boys eventually did to the United States, and he ended up in the free city of Shanghai, where he reestablished his tea business. He kept writing to his wife, Rose, over the ensuing 2 years, and then she stopped hearing from him. It turned out that Sigmund Haimovitz had died in Shanghai of malaria.
His younger son, Henry, was my father-in-law, and I want to remember Sigmund Haimovitz and his brave family and all those who perished as a result of the terrible events of the Holocaust.
[Page: H3095] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. DOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, when the President sought to take out America's most wanted and dangerous enemy, he called on an elite team of the United States Navy to execute the mission.
The 10th District of Illinois is home to an important Navy base. The Naval Station Great Lakes is the first stop of every single Navy recruit. It is likely that those who executed the mission in Pakistan on Sunday started their training at this base. Today, I want to recognize those who got the job done and the outstanding training provided at Naval Station Great Lakes.
I applaud the continued heroic efforts of our Armed Forces and intelligence personnel, and particularly those who under the cover of a dark Pakistan night dropped into a fortified compound to give justice to millions of people around the world.
Mr. Speaker, our fight against those who want to destroy democracies around the world continues, but today we can press ahead as confident as ever in our Nation's ability to confront and triumph over evil.
[Page: H3095] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring everyone's attention to the extraordinarily destructive storms that have raged throughout the South and particularly in my home State of Arkansas. In my home State, we have seen flooding and tornado damage wreak havoc on local communities. We have seen the lives of our loved ones tragically taken before their time.
Last week, I personally surveyed the damage in central Arkansas in my district. In the little town of Vilonia, a town north of Little Rock, 70 homes were destroyed and an additional 50 were damaged. I toured Little Rock Air Force Base and saw the damage to structures there and the damage to our C-130s that are so important to our national security. In Hot Springs Village, I saw the damage left in the wake of the latest round of the storms that claimed the life of an 8-month-old boy there. He is one of the 22 Arkansans killed by the storms in April.
I ask my colleagues and all Americans listening today to keep the families affected by this tragedy in their thoughts and prayers.
[Page: H3095] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. CANSECO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, Texas is burning. Since November, Texas has experienced over 9,000 wildfires that have burned over 2 million acres and destroyed more than 400 homes and several thousand structures. These fires continue to rage, threatening the lives and property of Texans.
The State of Texas and local governments, along with our firefighters and our other first responders, have done a magnificent job of responding to the threats of these wildfires. However, the resources of the State and the local government have been stretched responding to fires we have already had; and the threat of wildfires continues. Without additional assistance, the capacity to respond to future wildfires will be greatly diminished. That is why Governor Perry requested a major disaster declaration and Federal disaster assistance. Unfortunately, President Obama denied this request.
Mr. Speaker, many in Texas and in my district can't seem to understand the President's decision. Governor Perry intends to appeal the President's decision, and I hope the President will reconsider.
[Page: H3094] GPO's PDF---
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation from the House of Representatives:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2011.
Hon. JOHN BOEHNER,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
DEAR SPEAKER BOEHNER, I hereby give notice of my resignation from the United States House of Representatives, effective Monday, May 9, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Included is a copy of the letter I submitted to Governor Brian Sandoval.
Serving Nevada's Second Congressional District has been one of the greatest honors of my life. No state has been harder hit by the recession than Nevada. My state has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcy. There is no question that our nation needs to change the way we do business if we are going to get our economy back on track. It has been a privilege to join my House colleagues in the fight to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington and work towards a more prosperous future for our great nation.
I look forward to continuing our important work in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Dean Heller,
Member of Congress.
[Page: H3095] GPO's PDF
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2011.
Hon. BRIAN SANDOVAL,
Governor, State of Nevada, State Capitol, Carson City, NV.
DEAR GOVERNOR SANDOVAL, I hereby submit my resignation as United States Representative of Nevada's Second Congressional District, effective Monday, May 9, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Serving Nevada's Second Congressional District has been one of the greatest honors of my life. As you know all too well, no state has been harder hit by the recession than Nevada. There is a a lot of hard work ahead to get our state and nation moving in the right direction. Nevadans across our state have been struggling with job loss, high gas prices, and foreclosures. There is no question that our nation needs to change the way we do business if we are going to get our economy back on track and get Nevadans working again. These issues will remain my top priorities in the United States Senate.
I look forward to our continued work together to promote policies that strengthen our economy and improve Nevadans' quality of life.
Sincerely,
Dean Heller,
Member of Congress.
[Page: H3066] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. STUTZMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the State of Indiana, Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels, and Indiana State Legislature's accomplishments this past session that just ended.
I believe it is important to reflect momentarily on the achievements made in Indiana to give promise and hope that the same can be done here in Washington. Something I'm particularly proud of is the fact that Governor Daniels and the legislature have passed the fourth straight gimmick-free balanced budget for the State of Indiana which will give Indiana a budget in the black 8 years running. We can do the same here in Congress.
[Page: H3067] GPO's PDF
This legislative session in Indiana has also produced real education reform that was passed to usher in real choice for students and parents. Governor Daniels led the charge for full funding for kindergarten, the Nation's most expansive voucher program, more charter schools, and rewarding our teachers based on their effectiveness. We can do the same here in Congress.
As we discuss tax reform and how to do it here in Washington, Indiana's already done it. They have done it by lowering corporate tax rates, lowering property taxes to give a great place for businesses to do work. We can do the same here in Congress.
As a former State legislator in Indiana under the Daniels administration, I rise today because, in the midst of despair and partisan bickering, I know we can do the same here in Congress. We must do better.
[Page: H3066] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. BUTTERFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express appreciation for the good work on the part of local emergency responders, FEMA, the Division of Emergency Management, the American Red Cross, and the many other agencies that have been helping survivors in my congressional district recover from the devastating tornados that hit North Carolina on April 16.
I represent, Mr. Speaker, one of the hardest hit communities, Bertie County, where 12 people lost their lives, 50 were injured, and dozens are now homeless. I am grateful that President Barack Obama was very quick to announce that 19 counties were eligible for Federal disaster assistance, and the hard work toward recovery is now under way. More than 4,700 people in North Carolina have applied for State and Federal disaster assistance. We are a generous and resilient people, and I know we will recover.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding the recovery efforts and in expressing deep sorrow for the victims and their families.
[Page: H3066] GPO's PDF---
(Mrs. HARTZLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise today to express the frustration of the good people of Missouri's Fourth District with our Nation's gas prices. As I traveled around the Fourth District last week speaking at eight town hall meetings, the one comment I heard everywhere I went was that gas prices are crippling our families and our businesses.
One over-the-road trucker that I visited with from El Dorado Springs told me that just a couple of years ago he would bring $1,000 in cash on the road with him for a week's worth of diesel, but now he has to come up with $2,500 in cash before climbing in the cab. This is extremely hard for someone just trying to make ends meet, and carrying so much cash is dangerous, too.
Every extra dollar in gas prices means one less dollar for a family's food, clothes, or spending time together at a ball game. For the average driver, the increased cost of gas since the President took office is nearly $1,100 a year.
We must stop the government from standing between its citizens and reasonable gas prices. This country has been blessed with some of the most abundant resources on the face of the Earth, but this administration has stood in the way of exploring and utilizing them at every turn. It's time for the President to get out of the way and let us get to work developing our own sources of energy.
[Page: H3066] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. PALAZZO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PALAZZO. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of H.R. 1230.
As the Congressman from Mississippi's gulf coast, I have seen firsthand the damaging effect of the administration's decision to delay lease sales for offshore oil exploration. I also have worked offshore myself as a rigger, a roustabout, and a materials manager. I understand the positive economic impact offshore jobs have on the local and regional economies. By the administration's own admission, we have already seen 12,000 jobs lost with a direct salary impact of $500 million. To prevent these jobs from permanently being sent to other countries, we need firm timelines for considering permits to provide certainty to investors and employers.
I not only support the passage of the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, but I urge the administration to undo their record of blocking and delaying energy production and to proceed with scheduled lease sales promptly. We must not continue to unnecessarily sideline a vibrant industry that is critical to our economic and national security.
[Page: H3065] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this week's historic election in Canada brought to power a conservative majority for Parliament. By winning a full majority of the 167 conservative seats, Prime Minister Stephen
[Page: H3066] GPO's PDF
The relationship of Canada and South Carolina has been strong for many years. This year marks the 50th annual Canadian-American Days Festival at Myrtle Beach, which celebrates the partnership between our citizens. We welcome Canadian vacationers. We are grateful that former South Carolina Speaker of the House, David Wilkins of Greenville, served as the United States Ambassador to Canada from 2005 to 2009. Canada is our leading trade partner, which I know firsthand and appreciate, with the Michelin Tire Corporation of Lexington producing earthmover tires for recovery of oil sands resources in Alberta.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
[Page: H3065] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. American families and small businesses are being crushed by $4 a gallon gas at the pump.
Now, the Republicans tell us, oh, it's plain old supply and demand; drill here now and fast in the future and that will solve the problem.
Well, actually supply is up--U.S. crude inventories are 12.6 million barrels over the 5-year average--and demand is down. So what's really going on?
Well, it's Big Oil and it's Wall Street. Goldman Sachs--no one less than Goldman Sachs--said that the culprit for inflating oil prices $20 higher than what supply and demand dictate is excess speculation. Now, we wouldn't want to rein in the speculators because that's Wall Street and they're very generous to Republicans. And we wouldn't want to take on Big Oil, who's manipulating the market prices, because they contribute big-time to Republicans.
So let's just play pretend. Let's pretend we're doing something for consumers while hiding the culprits in plain sight. Speculation on Wall Street. They traded 189,000 contracts--that's 189 million barrels--by computer in 1 day last week, driving up the price for all Americans. Useless speculation.
Rein in the speculation. And take on Big Oil.
[Page: H3065] GPO's PDF---
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, wildfires have raged in Texas because of a long drought this year. The town of Possum Kingdom, Texas, population 5,500, has burned up. This is one of the many photographs showing the raging fires throughout the State.
Statewide, two firefighters have been killed; 400 homes have been destroyed. The 9,000 fires have covered over 2,200,000 acres--this is the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut put together--and the costs of the devastating destruction are enormous.
The Governor has asked FEMA for a Federal disaster declaration because of the extensive fires, but the Governor has been turned down by the White House--no more additional help for Texas.
Too bad Texas isn't a foreign country like Pakistan. The Federal Government has shelled out over $500 million for disaster aid to Pakistan citizens for the flooding in their country.
When Washington considers aid, if any, for disaster relief, it should at least consider Americans in Texas just as important as Pakistanis, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Meanwhile, the fires continue to burn in Texas.
And that's just the way it is.
[Page: S2725] GPO's PDF---
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor as a physician who practiced medicine in Caspar, WY, for about a quarter of a century, and I will talk about the concerns I have about the President's health care law, part of which has taken over $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare and taken that money not to help Medicare or to help save Medicare or to strengthen Medicare but to put a whole new government program in place.
They want to put about 16 million or so people on Medicaid. It is a program that is not functioning well now. Many doctors don't want to take care of patients on Medicaid. Yet as part of this health care law, there is something called the Medicaid maintenance of effort, and 33 Governors have written to the President saying they don't want this to apply to them.
I am delighted to be a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called the State Flexibility Act. I do that and come to the floor with that as a physician who practiced medicine, and I have been coming to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion.
Today, my second opinion is that this State Flexibility Act is a good idea. It gives States the flexibility they need to give the Governors the flexibility they have requested. It is a bipartisan effort in the sense that Governors, whether they be Republican or Democrat, are looking for more flexibility with this Medicaid Program, and specifically the Medicaid maintenance of effort.
I ask my colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, if he could perhaps tell us a little bit about this effort that he has now introduced, which I have cosponsored, the State Flexibility Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I appreciate his perspective on this important issue because he is a physician. The Senator has cared for Medicaid patients, and he understands the Medicaid Program better than anyone in this body. The Senator has also served in the State legislature, so he has that experience. He understands that, unlike Washington, States must balance their budgets every year.
I want to talk about the rollback of the Medicaid maintenance of effort or MOE requirement threatening both Medicare beneficiaries and the financial health of many States throughout the country. I think it is important to go through a little history on this subject.
When Medicaid was first established as a limited State-Federal partnership, less than 5 million Americans used this program. Today, nearly one in four is enrolled in this government program. Medicaid spending now absorbs nearly one-quarter of all State government budgets, often forcing severe cuts to other critical State programs.
Unfortunately, this situation is getting even worse with the Medicaid mandate first imposed in the stimulus bill and again in the partisan health care law. As a result of these Washington mandates, States are being forced to make drastic cuts to important priorities, such as education and law enforcement.
Unlike Washington, which too often just prints money to pay for out-of-control spending, States actually have to make tough budget decisions every year. States are facing the worst budget crisis since the Great Depression, with a collective $175 billion shortfall. Washington's micromanagement of State Medicaid programs makes it incredibly difficult for the States to balance their budgets and provide for those who are most in need. Because of the overly generous benefit programs that Washington forces on the States, they are unable to target health services to those most in need of assistance. Governors are unable to undertake commonsense reforms that root out program waste, fraud, and abuse.
The result of these MOE requirements is nothing short of a Washington-induced State fiscal crisis.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask my colleague this: We are from neighboring States, Wyoming and Utah. I ask if the Senator could perhaps explain exactly how these Medicaid maintenance of effort mandates--and I believe they are onerous Washington mandates--directly impact Utah.
Mr. HATCH. In my home State of Utah, the fiscal year 2012 budget shortfall will be approximately $390 million. That is a lot of money. My State has said:
MOE requirements imposed by the Federal Government will cost the State $3.2 million annually.
This might not sound like a lot to the people in Washington, DC, who don't bat an eye at trillion-dollar deficits, but in Utah that is a lot of money in the State budget. My close friend in Utah, Governor Gary Herbert, said:
Not a State in this Nation is immune to tough budget decisions, and sometimes Washington makes it even harder. Utah must seriously weigh the real cost of Medicaid, one of the largest and most expensive programs we have. Unfortunately, Federal mandates tie our hands. Utah has zero flexibility to respond to economic conditions, or the option to scale the program back in a way that reflects local values and priorities.
Governor Herbert and many others across the Nation have repeatedly
[Page: S2726] GPO's PDF
The State Flexibility Act fully repeals these burdensome Medicaid MOE regulations. It starts to put States back in control to balance their budgets while simultaneously lowering Federal entitlement spending. Our legislation will save taxpayers $2.8 billion over just the first 5 years. That is a lot of money.
Regardless of political affiliation, I am confident this bill has the potential to garner strong, bipartisan support in Congress, and it represents a strong first step toward achieving comprehensive Medicaid reform. Any Senator who has talked to his or her State's Governor knows we need to pass this legislation to enable States to survive the current fiscal crisis and to better care for the most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries in their respective States.
It is time for Congress to roll back these unreasonable MOE mandates and put the States, not Washington, back in charge.
I personally thank the Senator, my colleague from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, for working with us on this legislation. Without him here, I don't think we would be able to do anywhere near as much as we are doing. The Senator, in particular, brings a unique perspective to the debate over MOE requirements, and I don't know of any Senator who is serving his State any better than he.
I would appreciate hearing more of the Senator's thoughts on this matter because he has the experience, and he has operated on countless people, and he has done it whether they have been Medicaid beneficiaries, people who have insurance, or people who have nothing. I know that. I have great admiration for the Senator from Wyoming. These States have been heavily burdened with MOE requirements, which are bureaucratic unnecessaries. I would like to hear from the Senator how important that is.
Mr. BARRASSO. I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I have taken care of Medicaid patients over the years, and I know this is a program that is burdensome. I also served in the State legislature, and I know the mandates coming out of Washington make it harder for the people back home to take care of patients and harder for our State legislatures to deal with helping people on Medicaid, making it more difficult for physicians to take care of those patients, and making it more expensive. There is a lot of waste in the mandate.
When Senator Hatch talked about the comments from his Governor, I have comments from ours as well, Governor Matt Mead, who has been in office only just since January. He wrote and was one of the 33 Governors who signed a letter to President Obama saying that the costs of maintaining their Medicaid Programs are fast becoming a serious threat to the State's general funds.
We live in a State where we have to balance the budget every year. He went on to say that Wyoming needs to have flexibility, which is the key word and the title of the bill introduced by Senator Hatch, S. 868, the State Flexibility Act.
That is what Governors are asking for, flexibility, because with that flexibility they can do better for the patients, and they can do it cheaper. Wyoming needs the flexibility at the State level to ensure that the Medicaid Program is operated efficiently and effectively.
People do not believe they are getting efficiency and effectiveness out of Washington these days. They do not think they are getting value for their money. I agree with the American people. I have heard them loudly and clearly. I said it when I was practicing medicine and I say it as a Member of the Senate.
Our Governor goes on: Wyoming strongly supports the removal of these maintenance of effort requirements. This is why I come to the Senate floor every week to talk about this health care law, the implications of it, the impact on the people of this great country, and why I think this health care law is one that is ultimately bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and also bad for the American taxpayers. At a time when we are borrowing 41 cents for every $1 we spend in this country, we cannot afford to continue to waste money.
Our problem in this country is not that we are taxed too little, it is that we spend too much and do not spend it well. We have to begin focusing differently, and one of the ways we can do it--my understanding from looking at this is actually the Congressional Budget Office, which does the scoring on legislation, scored Senator Hatch's State Flexibility Act as actually saving, I think, $2.8 billion total over 5 years.
Mr. HATCH. Right.
Mr. BARRASSO. Isn't that what we are trying to do: save money, help people, do it more efficiently, more effectively? That is why I am proud to cosponsor with my friend, Senator Hatch, the State Flexibility Act.
Mr. HATCH. And give the States flexibility to do what they can do better than the Federal Government. As a former medical liability defense lawyer back in my early days, I represented doctors, health care providers, nurses, and hospitals in defending them from what were, in most cases, frivolous suits that run up the cost of medicine.
I cannot tell you what it means to me to have Senator Barrasso in the Senate with all the medical experience he has had. Frankly, the States can do the job, but they cannot do it within budget if we keep piling regulation and onerous burdens on them, such as the partisan health care bill does.
Frankly, I want the Senator from Wyoming to know I feel it is an honor to serve with him and an honor to have a couple of medical doctors on our side. Dr. Barrasso and Dr. Coburn are both excellent doctors. They have lived through these problems. They know what they are like. They do not have to have anybody tell them what is wrong with the approaches we are taking. They know what is wrong.
Frankly, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for being willing to serve here.
Mr. BARRASSO. I appreciate the kindness and I appreciate the fact that Senator Hatch is allowing me to work with him. He has a long and illustrious career of leadership in the Senate, and he has been a champion over the years of the fact that States are better than Washington to make decisions because what works in one State may not work in another State. If we give States the flexibility, ultimately they will do it better. They are the laboratories of democracy. That is why we believe in limited government and making decisions at the local level as close to home as possible, which is why I know so many Governors across the country support the State Flexibility Act. I am hoping we get a successful vote in the Senate on it because whenever Washington makes a one-size-fits-all decision, it hardly ever works for most folks back home.
Mr. HATCH. That is right. I believe this will have great bipartisan support among the Governors and hopefully in this body. I thank Senator Barrasso for bringing this to our attention.
Mr. BARRASSO. I thank Senator Hatch.
Madam President, I will tell you, I still believe this is a law that is bad for patients, it is bad for health care providers of this country, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, bad for taxpayers. I will be back at home in Wyoming over the weekend visiting with patients, as well as providers, as well as taxpayers, listening to what they have to say. I know the people of Wyoming have great concerns about this health care law and would like the kind of flexibility that is described in S. 868, the State Flexibility Act.
I yield the floor.
[Page: S2723] GPO's PDF---
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak specifically about the alarming situation in Syria, where the regime of Bashar al Asad is pursuing a barbaric campaign of indiscriminate repression against the Syrian people.
Over the past 2 weeks, the crackdown pursued by Asad has markedly escalated. There can no longer be any doubt about his intentions. As a report by a respected nongovernmental organization, the International Crisis Group, warned this week:
The regime's hope appears to be that a massive crackdown can bring the protestors to heel. ..... Such a course of action would entail loss of life on a massive scale and it could usher in a period of sectarian fighting with devastating consequences for Syria. It could destabilize its neighbors. And, ultimately, it is highly unlikely to work.
Madam President, in the city of Deraa, the Asad regime has deployed tanks against the civilian population. It has cut off phone lines, water, food, and electricity, and deployed snipers--according to human rights groups--who have been firing at anyone who ventures outdoors. That includes young people who are sent outdoors by their families to try to buy food.
In short, what we see in Deraa is a broad-based, indiscriminate assault by Asad's military forces against the people of his own country. The evidence is growing that international crimes are being perpetrated by Bashar Asad himself in the city of Deraa in Syria.
The attack on Deraa is just one part of a course of a broader crackdown by Syrian security forces across the country--a crackdown that has left several hundred people dead. Tanks and military forces have been reported being deployed in other cities in Syria. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of arbitrary detentions of civilians and enforced disappearances around the country has skyrocketed in recent days as the Asad regime has swept up not only demonstrators but women, minors, and family members of activists. Another Syrian human rights group has documented more than 500 arrests in Deraa alone since last week, and thousands more nationwide have also been detained or disappeared arbitrarily.
As the report by the International Crisis Group argued--the report I referenced before that came out earlier this week:
The regime is also fanning the flames of sectarianism, spreading rumors of impending acts targeting specific groups. Sectarian tendencies no doubt exist in parts of the country, but the authorities' tactics betray a determined and cynical attempt to exploit and exacerbate them.
What is most remarkable of all is that in the face of and despite these outrageous inhumane actions by the Asad regime, the people of Syria refuse to be silenced. They refuse to be intimidated. In the face of tanks and snipers, the people of Syria have continued to cry out and demonstrate for their fundamental human rights, and they have continued to do so peacefully. Moreover, despite the sectarian provocations by President Asad, the message of the protesters has remained steadfastly one of Syrian national unity.
Tomorrow, Friday, it is expected that thousands of brave Syrians will once again take to the streets of their cities and towns in protest of the totalitarian dictatorship that currently controls their country. As they do so, I want them to know that the United States and the rest of the civilized world stands unequivocally on the side of the people of Syria in solidarity with them in their courageous struggle for their human rights. They should know also that we are increasingly confident that the people of Syria can and will prevail over the Asad regime.
There is much we in the United States can and must do to help the Syrian people in their fight for freedom. Last week, the Obama administration issued an Executive order authorizing targeted sanctions against individuals and organizations responsible for the human rights abuses in Syria. The administration used this newest authority to sanction three Syrian officials, including Maher al Asad, the brother of Bashar al Asad. This was a very important action, and I thank and commend the Obama administration for taking it.
There is, however, more that now can and must be done. To begin with, it is clear there are many more individuals in the Syrian Government than the three named so far who are responsible for the human rights abuses and worse that are taking place throughout Syria. It is urgent and essential that the Obama administration expand the sanctions to cover these additional Syrian officials.
Members of the Syrian security forces and government must understand they face a choice in the days ahead. If they stick with the Asad regime and participate in the barbaric crackdown against their fellow Syrians, their names are going to be made famous around the world, and they will be held accountable.
It is also critical that the United States impose sanctions on Bashar al Asad himself, for he is the head of the regime that is systematically carrying out large-scale human rights abuses. It is he who is directing his military forces to fire on his own people. Surely, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think the order to use military force against the Syrian people did not originate with the President of Syria himself--Bashar al Asad. He must be held accountable.
I respectfully urge President Obama to speak out as soon as possible, directly and personally, about what is happening in Syria. The moral authority of the President of the United States matters enormously at historic moments such as the one in Syria now. Unfortunately, there are still many in Syria and throughout the Middle East who believe the United States is hedging its bets in Syria. It is time to put those doubts to rest.
I have met over the last few weeks, as recently as yesterday, with Syrian
[Page: S2724] GPO's PDF
I say: The administration has made statements.
They say: We need to hear and see the President and hear his voice--President Obama--making clear his disdain and refusal to accept what is happening in Syria today.
So I respectfully urge the President to answer these appeals by Syrian freedom fighters for support of their cause. I hope the President can make clear once again, as he did so effectively in the cases of Egypt and Libya, that Bashar al Asad has lost the legitimacy to lead Syria, and it is time for Bashar to go.
The United States can also work with our allies and partners to increase international pressure on the Asad regime. Press reports indicate, I am pleased to note, that the European Union is preparing to put in place an arms embargo against Syria, and it is also considering targeted human rights sanctions against top Syrian officials. I fervently hope our European friends and allies take these and further steps to increase the pressure on the Asad regime.
I am especially encouraged that the French Foreign Minister this week correctly called for Bashar al-Asad to be sanctioned directly himself, to tie up his economic assets, to limit his mobility. In addition to our EU partners, I wish to say I believe Turkey can also play a unique leadership role in the days and weeks ahead to support a successful democratic transition in Syria.
No one has worked harder than Prime Minister Erdogan to encourage Bashar al-Asad to reform, to accept the legitimate demands of the Syrian people, and embrace democracy. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, Asad has ignored the wise counsel of the Turkish leader and refused to respond with action. I, therefore, hope President Obama will find a way to partner directly with Prime Minister Erdogan on developing a new strategy toward Syria, one that recognizes that despite our hopes and efforts, there will be no real progress as long as Bashar al-Asad remains in power in Damascus, a policy that aligns our two democracies--America and Turkey--unequivocally with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people.
We should also work with our allies on the U.N. Human Rights Council to ensure that the investigative mission to Syria, which was agreed upon by the Council last week, is undertaken immediately. Every day matters. We should work to refer Asad's regime to the International Criminal Court--again, as we did in the case of Libya.
What the Asad regime is doing to the people of Syria looks every day more the mirror image of what the Qadhafi regime has done to the people of Libya. For its actions in the city of Deraa and throughout the country, the Asad regime deserves to be investigated by the International Criminal Court.
I respectfully urge our own administration to use the diplomatic clout that we have at the United Nations to put what is happening in Syria on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council.
I have no illusions about the challenges and obstacles that exist at the Security Council at this time to taking action with regard to what is happening in Syria, but we must try. If the Security Council fails to take up what is happening in Syria, perhaps because of the opposition of the Russians and the Chinese, it does so at the expense of its own international credibility and legitimacy.
Finally, I hope President Obama will work together with our international allies to provide the Syrian people with the humanitarian assistance that they urgently need--food, water, and medical supplies--and to restore communications linkages that the Asad regime has cut among the freedom fighters in various communities in Syria. Asad has cut them in an effort to prevent news and information about what is happening in Syria also from reaching the outside world.
The situation in Syria is fast approaching the point of no return. The fact is, several hundred Syrians have been killed by Asad's security forces. This is a regime that I conclude is beyond self-correction. Bashar al-Asad is not a reformer. He is a corrupt dictator and an inhumane thug and his regime has long been one of the worst in the Middle East. It is time for him to go.
Let me conclude by adding that nearly a decade after the attacks of September 11, Americans and people throughout the world awoke Monday morning to a safer, better world with Osama bin Laden gone. It is fitting that Osama bin Laden has been killed just as Arab democracies across the Middle East and North Africa are being born, are coming to life. The peaceful, youth-driven democratic revolutions now taking place in Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are the true repudiation of the extreme ideology that I will call bin Ladenism. To rid our world not only of bin Laden but of bin Ladenism, it is critical that we now do everything in our power to help the democratic forces in Syria and across the Middle East succeed, for it will ultimately be quite correctly and powerfully at the hands of his fellow Arabs and Muslims that the hateful and violent ideology of bin Laden and its manifestations of a different sort in dictatorships across the Middle East are finally discredited and abandoned on the ash heap of history where they belong.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
[Page: S2722] GPO's PDF---
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, tomorrow, May 6, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the formal moratorium placed on Gulf of Mexico energy production by President Obama and Secretary Salazar. I wish to speak on the eve of that occasion, particularly as our constituents continue to see the price at the pump go up and up, with really no end in sight. I think those two facts are deeply related because I think this moratorium, which continues as a de facto moratorium--a ``permatorium'' or a permit logjam to this day--is really one of the most poorly thought out, mismanaged, and ill-conceived energy decisions in terms of domestic energy production in our history.
The first of these moratoriums in the gulf--there are actually three different formal moratoriums--was announced on behalf of President Obama by Secretary Salazar 1 year ago tomorrow, May 6, 2010. It was done, in retrospect, we find out, very hastily and without scientific backing and justification. I say that because after that first moratorium was put down on May 6, 2010, on June 22 a Federal judge, Martin Feldman, of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against this job-crushing moratorium. It banned drilling below 500 feet of water for 6 months. But Judge Feldman put it on hold because he found that under Federal law it had failed to properly weigh a number of factors, including the economic impact it would have on the industry and surrounding communities.
I might add, in a hearing we had in the Senate about the administration's decision to place the moratorium in effect, it was shocking to hear administration officials say very directly--no holds barred--that they never considered any economic impact in the decision whatsoever. Again, failing to properly weigh the economic impact of the decision has been a chronic problem in some agencies, such as the EPA.
Unfortunately, this administration seems to have brought that same knee-jerk reaction to the Interior Department with the same economic illiteracy. In the Interior Department's infinite wisdom, on July 12, Secretary Salazar issued a backup second moratorium. The court struck down the first moratorium on the basis of existing Federal law, so he just came and issued a second moratorium on deepwater drilling. The second moratorium would soon be met with resistance and disappointment as coastal Louisiana communities would realize there was nothing they could do to stop Interior, which seemed hell-bent on adversely impacting their jobs.
On October 12, Secretary Salazar celebrated an illusory victory by lifting that moratorium, and at the time, he claimed that ``the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business.'' That is what Secretary Ken Salazar said on October 12. Unfortunately, those of us who live in Louisiana and along the gulf coast know that is not true. What he should have said is, the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business as long as you don't need a permit from the Interior Department, because that second formal moratorium was lifted, but that brought us to the initiation of the third moratorium--not a formal moratorium but a de facto one, a permatorium, a complete permit logjam in this administration and at the Department of the Interior. Again, this has been commonly and accurately referred to as a de facto moratorium, sometimes a permatorium, an absolute permit logjam. Secretary Salazar has perpetuated that, and Director Bromwich has perpetuated that. They repeatedly stated it doesn't exist, but the facts, the statistics, the numbers make bare that lie.
It would not be for 4 more months--until February 28 of this year--that the Interior Department would issue the very first permit to drill in deep water an exploratory well. So, again, big celebration, big announcements that the formal moratorium was lifted, but for 4 months zero permits and only 4 months later the first deepwater exploratory permit.
To date, even since February 28 of this year, there have only been 12 deepwater permits issued in the gulf. That pace is well below the pace before the BP disaster--about 60 percent slower than the prespill pace.
This is for shallow and deep water combined. The pace of only deepwater new well permits--permits that would increase domestic supplies and our reserves--is forthcoming at the average pace of one per month--just a trickle, just a tiny percentage of the predisaster pace.
Tomorrow will be 1 year since the Obama administration implemented this moratorium policy, the first of three crushing moratoriums, two formal moratoriums, the ongoing de facto moratorium. The Energy Information Administration--and that is a nonpartisan division of the Department of Energy--is now estimating that the falloff in domestic production this year alone will be about 200,000 barrels per day--that is a lot of oil, 200,000 barrels per day--and an additional 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. To put this falloff in production that is expected from the Obama administration's policy in perspective, as a result of the permitting logjam, by 2012 we would lose as much production in the Gulf of Mexico as we currently import from Brazil and Colombia combined. These are the two countries, by the way, that are supported with taxpayer-funded guaranteed projects related to their energy production. This falloff in production in the gulf by 2012 is roughly equivalent also to what we imported in January from Iraq.
There are several points I would like to highlight for tomorrow's anniversary of the initiation of this moratorium policy.
First, the price of gasoline at the pump is now $3.98 a gallon. It has more than doubled since President Obama took office. There is perhaps not a greater antistimulus for our economy than the doubling of the price at the pump.
Second, seven deepwater rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. They are gone,
[Page: S2723] GPO's PDF
Third, what minor credit I should give the Interior Department for this abysmal pace of permitting will be noted when I release my hold on the nomination of Dan Ashe. I am currently holding that nomination of a top-level Interior Department official. I said I would hold it until we got at least 15 deepwater exploratory permits. At the time I initiated that, there were zero. As I said, that is now finally up to 12. I said I would lift the hold when we got to 15. We are just three away. We will get there. I will lift the hold. But that is merely a trickle of what our pace needs to be.
Fourth, today I will be introducing an important piece of legislation. It is called the Agency Overreach Moratorium Act. We need a moratorium. We need a moratorium on regulatory overreach, agency overreach, as we see in the Interior Department, in EPA, in many other agencies. This legislation is intended to prevent Federal action that would unilaterally destroy jobs on Federal lands on the OCS. That is happening every day at the Interior Department. Instead of issuing permits to find American energy, they are issuing regulations, the most recent on a whole new category of contractors--completely unnecessary because they were already regulating the drillers. That is regulatory overreach, and that is job-killing action. My Agency Overreach Moratorium Act will lay out the real moratorium we need on job-killing action out of Washington, out of this administration, not on domestic energy production.
I thank all of my colleagues, and I hope we will all come together soon around a commonsense, proactive domestic energy policy. It needs to include a lot. I am a fervent believer in all of the above, but it certainly needs to start lifting the continuing de facto moratorium on U.S. energy production, on U.S. jobs, on good additional Federal revenue to the U.S. Treasury to lower our deficit if we are going to get on the right energy path.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[Page: S2721] GPO's PDF---
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on several occasions I have risen to address my colleagues on the topic of Russia and the continuing sad state of the rule of law in the Russian Federation. Today, I rise once again to address the latest information regarding the absence of a rule-of-law framework in Russia's approach to businesses and investors. Specifically, this situation negatively impacts the United States and the entire international community.
There have been a number of poor decisions around the world related to the Yukos Oil issue that highlight Russia's hostility toward investment and business. As my colleagues may be aware, GML, the majority shareholder of the former Yukos Oil, previously headed by businessman and now political prisoner Mikhail Hoarders, has a $100 billion arbitration claim against the Russian Federation to obtain compensation for the Yukos assets which were summarily taken between 2003 and 2005.
Several recent developments demonstrate yet again that international courts do not recognize Russia's 2003 expropriation of Yukos Oil Company as legitimate and that former stakeholders of the company may pursue compensation for their assets that were seized improperly and, in essence, nationalized by the Russian State.
Court victories handed to shareholders involved in the dispute indicate that the international legal system
[Page: S2722] GPO's PDF
The most recent victory occurred in December of last year and involved a second international arbitration tribunal in Stockholm, which awarded RosInvestCo UK, a minority shareholder of Yukos, $3.5 million for the damages resulting from the Russian Government's actions. This was the first case in which anyone seriously examined the claims of an individual Yukos shareholder. The panel independently and unanimously concluded that the Russian Federation was liable for expropriating RosInvestCo's assets. I stress to you that this was a unanimous decision even though the tribunal included a Russian arbitrator.
I bring these developments to the attention of my Senate colleagues because I believe they demonstrate a growing movement in the international community that holds Russia accountable for its actions toward investors, and it is a movement the United States should support.
Minority shareholders, such as RosInvestCo, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shareholders who lost billions that were rightfully theirs as a result of the seizure of Yukos assets. In the United States alone, shareholders were stripped of $6 billion to $12 billion.
Russia's actions toward Yukos remind us that investment in Russia is extremely risky. The international community is taking note. Americans are taking note. American legislators should take note.
Recent court decisions indicate that the legitimacy of the Russian Government's claims over Yukos assets are suspect at best.
With these thoughts in mind, I urge my colleagues to continue working to ensure protection and adequate mechanisms for U.S. shareholders and businesses doing business in Russia.
I yield the floor.
[Page: S2709]---
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, at some time in the not too distant future--there is some speculation about exactly when--our country will be dealing with the issue of exceeding our borrowing authority. In other words, we have maxed out our credit card. That would be the equivalent for the average family when they can't borrow any more money.
So what happens in that event is that Congress has to take action. Congress essentially has to raise the country's borrowing authority. It is called raising the debt limit. We are coming up on that point in time. It could happen sometime in the July-August timeframe. There is some uncertainty as to exactly when that happens, but the point is it will happen.
The reason it will happen is because we have now accumulated $14.3 trillion in debt, and we have hit the limit, the cap, that exists today on our borrowing authority.
Now, $14.3 trillion in the abstract is hard for most people to wrap their heads around because it is such a massive number. If we translate it into individual terms, it amounts to about $46,000 for every single person in the United States, which in and of itself is an astonishing amount.
Our projected deficit this year is $1.425 trillion, which is the largest ever, in nominal terms. According to CBO, it is the second largest as a share of the economy, literally, since World War II. That is as much debt as we ran up from our Nation's founding, going back to the origin of this country up until 1984 or the equivalent, just in this one single year that we are going to rack up in terms of the deficit. The interest on that amounts to about $213 billion every single year or nearly $700 for every person in the United States. That is assuming interest rates stay at these historically low levels.
While the deficit spending is, in fact, something that will merely delay taxes in the future that somebody is going to have to pay, at some point this is going to have to be paid off, and that burden, in all likelihood, is going to fall on our children and grandchildren.
But it is not just something we will have to deal with down the road because the implications today, the real-time implications of this level of spending and debt, are very real for the economy.
There is a great body of research that has been done. A study done by economists Reinhart and Rogoff found that countries with a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 90 percent grew at 1 percentage point less than they would have otherwise. That is a body of research that looks at nations over the last half century. It even goes back further than that but particularly in the last half century and particularly developed nations that have gotten up to that level of debt that exceeds 90 percent of GDP. That is where we are today, 93 percent government debt-to-GDP ratio here in the United States.
If you take that assumption that anytime you reach that debt level and you sustain it over a long period of time, it costs you a single percentage point of economic growth every single year, according to the President's own economic team, that results in the loss of about 1 million jobs. If you think about the real-time implications of this level of spending and debt, it means we are losing about 1 million jobs every single year in the economy.
You cannot say this is something down the road, that we can continue to kick the can down the road. The fact is we are running out of road. We keep kicking the can, but we are at the end of the road. If we do not take steps now, not only is it going to put a crushing burden of debt on future generations and jeopardize the very foundation of our economy, it is going to have real-time implications today, not just in the future.
I suggest that as we look at this issue of the debt limit coming up, it presents a unique opportunity. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, can come together. If we do not bring this debt-to-GDP ratio back down, we are going to continue to suffer from these job losses, and the impact of that is really very clear.
When the government is out there borrowing more money, it crowds out private investment, so there is less money for private companies and individuals to invest in companies, equipment, plants, housing, training, all those sorts of things, and it spends money on government, on things that are probably less efficient, less necessary, more duplicative, oftentimes downright wasteful when it comes to the programs and the projects that end up being funded. It means instead of investing, having funding for new factories for people to work in, we have more bureaucrats in places such as the EPA or the National Labor Relations Board who are coming up with all kinds of new regulations that are making it more difficult for our small businesses to create jobs. We have more unnecessary Federal property being underutilized that the private sector could use more efficiently.
Unfortunately, the risk to our economy that comes from this out-of-control spending is more than just that, it is more than just the crowding out of private sector investment and the stifling effects of government regulation. We are beginning to face the very real possibility that our country could face a fiscal crisis. Former Chairman Greenspan has suggested that the risk of this occurring in the next few years is nearly 50-50--an alarming thought. Likewise, Standard & Poor's recently warned of a possible downgrade to the U.S. credit rating in the next 2 to 3 years, when they came out with their assessment of U.S. credit, and said they have attached a negative assessment to it. In most cases--at least in a majority of the cases--within a year's time, that leads to a downgrade of credit rating. That would be disastrous for a country such as ours which has always taken great pride and has been the rock out there when it comes to an AAA credit rating.
It is notoriously difficult to predict ultimately when a debt crisis might occur, but it would be inexcusable for us to continue to spend at these elevated levels without assuming there is even the slightest hint of a risk that this could be very devastating to our country, let alone that risk could be very high. But if it were to occur, we would need drastic spending cuts to drag ourselves out of this fiscal crisis, spending cuts that by today's standards would probably be unimaginable.
But the worst effect of this would be the deep recession it would throw our economy into. Think about that. If we did have a debt crisis in this country, what would that mean? For most people, it is going to mean higher interest rates, it is going to lead to countless job losses, pay cuts for a lot of people if you have job losses, and probably significant loss of savings, which would take a terrible toll on the American people. Those are many of the implications of a debt crisis and the implications it would have on the economy--starting, as I said earlier, with higher interest rates. It would make it more difficult for people to borrow money for a home, for a car, for their business. All those sorts of things would be impacted.
But that does not have to be the case. The reason it does not is because most experts have suggested--and it is really true--that this is the most predictable economic crisis we have ever had. It is not as though we don't see it coming. You see all the warning signs out there. You see all the red flags out
[Page: S2710]
Next week, we are going to have an opportunity in the Budget Committee to mark up the 2012 budget, which, incidentally--the budget year starts in a mere 5 months from now. I hope this budget will focus primarily on cutting spending because I think that is the primary driver of our deficits. I am concerned that, instead, it will merely continue to spend too much, borrow too much, and tax too much.
Of course, last year, even though there was a markup in the Budget Committee, there was never a budget brought to the floor of the Senate. The Congress never passed a budget. Nor was there one brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. There was not even a vote on a budget in the House or the Senate last year. We have a $3.8 trillion enterprise called the Federal Government that did not even pass a budget.
I believe the most fundamental responsibility we have to the taxpayers of this country is to come up with a plan about how we are going to responsibly use their tax dollars, to indicate to them that they can expect a good return from those tax dollars by the way we do our budget. Frankly, that did not happen last year. I certainly hope it does this year, but it is going to take some leadership here in the Congress. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans have the majority. They did pass a budget out of the House. I hope the Senate Democrats here will also put a budget on the floor that we will be able to vote on and amend and have a meaningful discussion about spending and debt and what we are going to do to get this country back on a path of fiscal sustainability.
The President, I think you could argue, punted when it comes to the issue of spending and debt, first by saying: I am going to appoint a commission to look at this issue. The economists studied it for several months and came out with some findings and ultimately a report in which they put forward a series of recommendations for dealing with the fiscal crisis. The President sort of distanced himself from those recommendations, chose not to take those or to really engage with that commission and its recommendations, and then subsequent to that submitted a budget this year which, ironically, did not do anything to address the long-term issues of spending and debt but, rather, increased spending over the next decade, massively increased the debt, and increased a lot of taxes on small businesses in this country that are job creators. So you did have this issue: borrowing, spending, and debt continually being advanced and put forward by this President and by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in the Congress.
The House Republicans put out a proposal that has been criticized by some, but at least they have put forward a plan. They have engaged the issue of what we are going to do to rein in out-of-control spending both in the near term but also in the longer term with the entitlement programs--Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid--which represent 60 percent of all Federal spending. If we do not rein those programs in or come up with a way of reforming those programs so they are viable, when the 80 million baby boomers retire, we are headed for a train wreck. It is inevitable. You cannot, with the numbers facing us and the kinds of deficits we are already running, the amount of debt we have already accumulated, in any way assume we can get out of this crisis absent taking on these issues and coming up with meaningful reforms for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Whether or not you subscribe to or like the proposals that were put forward by the House Republicans, at least there is a plan out there.
There are a number of suggestions being bandied around here in the Senate. There is a gang of 6 that is looking at some recommendations. As I said, there is going to be a markup we think next week in the Senate Budget Committee. There is now this new commission the President has appointed to look at the issue of, as we approach the vote on the debt limit, what we can do to address spending and debt. But, frankly, we do not have at this point anything in front of us that does deal directly or meaningfully with this issue of out-of-control spending or debt. I hope some of these discussions are fruitful, that they lead to results, and that they at least put alternatives out there we can debate and discuss. But as of right now, the only proposal we have in front of us is the one put forward by the House Republicans. Again, whether or not you like it, it has created a discussion in this country about what we are going to do to fix our fiscal problems.
I believe we ought to at a minimum go back to 2008 spending levels because if we did that, it would take us back to a time before we had these massive runups or increases in discretionary spending. In the last 2 years, we have seen discretionary spending increase by well over 20 percent at a time when inflation in the overall economy was a mere 2 percent. So Federal spending was increasing literally 10 times the rate of inflation over the last 2 years. It makes sense to me that in this fiscal environment where our deficits are literally about $1.5 trillion every single year as far as the eye can see, the least we can do is restrain spending and cut it back to that level we were at in 2008, before we had this massive runup in spending. I think that is a starting point.
I believe we also ought to be looking at the entitlement programs, which, as I said, have trillions of dollars literally of unfunded liabilities. Medicare alone is a $38 trillion unfunded liability. We are currently on a path where that will bankrupt the Nation if we do not make changes.
It strikes me, at least, that you have not only some issues that deal with the near-term spending issues but also those longer term spending issues. In the near term, as I said, if we went back to 2008 levels, we would at least tighten our belts a little bit in a way that I think most Americans would find to be responsible. But the longer term issue, these entitlement programs, have to be taken up.
There are a series of proposals that would deal with that, one of which is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That, frankly, is something I support. I have supported it since I was in the House of Representatives; I have been a cosponsor of that. In fact, when I first got to Congress back in 1997, there was a vote here in the Senate on a balanced budget amendment which failed by one vote. It would take 67 votes in the Senate--two-thirds of the Senate--to approve a balanced budget amendment. It failed by one vote.
I assume, had it passed at that time in the Senate, we would have been able to pass it in the House of Representatives because we did have large majorities and we could have sent it on to the States. It takes 38 States to ratify it, but since most States already have balanced budget amendments in their constitutions, I suspect they would like to see their Federal Government operate with the same sort of fiscal discipline. But it did not pass at that time. I cannot imagine how different our world would be today had it passed 15 years ago and how different this fiscal picture would have looked because it would have put a straitjacket on Washington, DC--something we desperately need. Congress needs discipline imposed upon it. It has not demonstrated historically the capability to deal with these fiscal issues absent some sort of mechanism that puts a straitjacket on the Congress so it cannot spend money.
The balanced budget amendment is something I think we ought to have a debate about, and I hope we do. In the lead-up to the vote on this debt limit, this is one of the proposals we hope to have considered.
As I said before, there are so many States around the country that have balanced budget amendments to their constitutions. Our State of South Dakota is a good example. In the State of South Dakota, the legislature cannot go home until the budget is balanced. That is a requirement. Many States across the country have that same sort of requirement. It is an imperative that requires these States every single year to put their books in order. That is something which is desperately lacking here in Washington, DC, and I hope, again, we could enact a balanced budget amendment.
There are several that have been proposed. I am a cosponsor of a couple of
[Page: S2711]
I also believe we ought to reform our budget process because it is clearly broken. We have a dysfunctional budget process when we cannot pass a budget, when we have a $3.8 trillion enterprise such as the Federal Government and we do not even pass a budget. In most years, typically, we have--if there is a budget that passes, the appropriations bills that follow it are supposed to be completed by the end of the fiscal year, on September 30. Those deadlines routinely are missed.
Typically, what happens is we end up with a big so-called omnibus spending bill at the end of the year that wraps all the various appropriations bills into one massive spending bill, which I do not believe serves the taxpayers very well. It certainly does not allow us, as Members of Congress, to do the appropriate oversight that we should do on various individual agencies of government.
When we throw it all into one big spending bill, as so often happens around here, we lose the transparency and the accountability that is necessary to an effective functioning government. So I believe we ought to reform the budget process.
One of the ways I would do that is to go to a biennial budget. Instead of passing a budget every single year, we would do it every other year. We do it in the odd-numbered years, the years when people are not running for reelection. Because what happens in a year when people are running for reelection is they decide the best way to gain the favor of the voters is to provide more money for this particular program or this program or this constituency or that constituency. As a consequence, there is a momentum to spend more and more money. It strike me that one of the ways we could address that is to do a budget in the odd-numbered years when Members of Congress are not running for reelection. Then, in the even-numbered years, when they are, we look at ways of not how can we spend money but how can we save money. We do more oversight, which is something that is desperately lacking, because many of these Federal programs and agencies so often times sort of do their own thing, absent the appropriate level of oversight. I believe we have a responsibility, as Members of Congress, with whom the legislative responsibility, the power of the purse is entrusted by the Constitution, to do the right types of oversight.
I came across recently a good example when the Government Accountability Office came out with a report. In that report they referenced several different programs. In fact, they dealt with about one-third of all Federal spending. But in examining that one-third of Federal spending, they concluded that there are all kinds of duplications and redundancies in Federal spending.
I will just give a couple by way of example. They discovered that there are 82 programs, spread across 20 different Federal agencies, that deal with the issue of teacher training, that are designed to focus on the issue of teacher training.
Well, I suspect it is arguable about whether that is something the Federal Government ought to be doing in the first place, but it is certainly--I think any American would agree--absolutely insane to have 82 different programs in 20 different agencies doing the same thing.
Something else they discovered was that there are 56 Federal programs that are focused on the issue of teaching financial literacy. I have said this before, and I mean it sincerely, of all places, Washington, DC, should not be leading or doing instructions on financial literacy. But that being said, it is 56 programs spread across 10 different agencies. Do we need that?
That is the kind of thing that gets lost. That is the duplication and inefficiency and waste we all talk about. Yet, because we do not do the oversight we need to, many of these things just continue year after year.
Going to a biennial budget, where every other year we do a budget and then in the even-numbered years, the election years, we are doing oversight, we might actually think of ways to save money for the taxpayers as opposed to spending it.
So a biennial budget, to me, makes sense. I would make the budget resolution we pass binding because right now it is not. As a consequence, it often gets waived. I believe we need to have buy-in from the President. Right now, the budget resolution is passed by the House and the Senate, but the White House does not engage on that. So we do not have teeth in this thing that holds everybody accountable when it comes to spending. Too often that gets waived.
We need to change the way we do things around here with regard to declaring emergencies. Right now, if we want to spend money outside the parameters of the budget, everybody says: Well, it is an emergency. So declaring an emergency has become the norm rather than the exception. It has become the routine in the Congress. We have all these emergency designations which allow Congress to spend and spend. Again, there are not any constraints. It is high time we change that.
So I would make a number of changes in our budget process, which I think would lead to more transparency, more accountability, a more efficient, better-run Federal Government.
That being said, it is not the Federal Government that is going to lead us back to an economic recovery and getting people back to work. It is the hard-working entrepreneurs, it is the small businesses, it is the people in this country who roll up their sleeves every day and go to work trying to make this country stronger and more prosperous.
We are blessed because we have a nation that was founded on some core principles, one of which is economic freedom. We believe in free enterprise and free markets. It is a system that has worked extraordinarily well for this country. Look anywhere else around the world to try and find a rival to what the hard-working entrepreneurs in this country and those basic core economic principles have been able to accomplish. We cannot find one.
It is because of those four principles and the incredible ingenuity, innovation, creativity, and hard work of the American people that we have the greatest economy in the world. But that economy, as I said, is very much in jeopardy if Washington does not get its spending habits under control. Because we continue to crowd out private investment, we continue to make it harder for entrepreneurs to create jobs.
As we talk about the whole issue of spending and debt, one final point I would like to make--because there is this discussion right now about whether there ought to be tax increases. Everybody says: Well, revenues are down relative to historical averages. That is true. But one of the reasons I believe revenues are down is because there are literally trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines in this country that are not invested because of the economic uncertainty based upon policies coming out of Washington--uncertainty about tax policy, uncertainty about regulations.
We have this tax and regulatory environment that is paralyzing the American economy. So businesses out there that have funds they could deploy, capital they could put to work in this country, are not doing it because they are worried about what Washington might do next.
We have tax policy that is going to expire at the end of 2012. It is very hard to make decisions when tax policies are temporary. It is very hard to make decisions when you do not know what that regulatory agency is going to do to you next. They have consistently--these regulatory agencies--come up with more and more ideas about how to make it more costly, more expensive, more difficult to do business in this country.
I have alluded to a couple. The EPA is a good case in point. It is one that comes into play a lot in my State of South Dakota because we are primarily an ag economy and small businesses. Many of those policies are directed at production agriculture and energy development and all those sorts of things
[Page: S2712]
So I think one of the reasons tax revenues are down, people are not investing. When they are not investing, they are not turning those resources over. They are not taking realizations, and they are not paying taxes. We need to get investment capital put to work. We need to get people put back to work. The best way to do that is to provide economic certainty: tax policies, regulatory policies that are reasonable and that provide incentives, not disincentives, for investment.
Today, we have tax and regulatory policies that are doing absolutely the opposite. They are discouraging investment, and, as a consequence, I think we have a lower level of revenues. But the real problem, the real problem, is not revenues, it is spending. That is abundantly clear.
If we look at where we have been for the last 40 years in terms of what we spend as a percentage of our overall economy, that average is about 20.6 percent. That is a 40-year average, historical average, we spend on our Federal Government as a percentage of our entire economy. This year we will spend 25.3 percent of our entire economy on just the Federal Government.
That does not include spending on State and local governments. When we add that up, it is over 40 percent of every $1 we spend in this country is spent on government. So what we see is the government is growing relative to our total economy, and the private economy, those folks out there who are creating the jobs in our private economy, is shrinking relative to the size of the government. That is a trend we have to reverse. It starts with getting spending under control. This is not a revenue problem. This is not a tax problem. As much as many of my colleagues would like to make it that, we flatly cannot look the facts in the face and come to any other conclusion but that spending in Washington is out of control, it has to be reined in.
We have to attack the issue, not only of discretionary spending--the part we annually appropriate for--but these entitlement programs which if not addressed are not only going to bankrupt the country but ensure that there is not a Medicare Program and a Social Security Program available to future generations of Americans.
These are very tumultuous times. There is a lot of uncertainty. I think the jobs numbers that came out this morning again point to how fragile this economic recovery is. It is so dependent upon good, sound policies coming out of Washington. For better or worse, small businesses, entrepreneurs now, unfortunately, tend to be partners with Washington, DC, because there is so much policy coming out of here, whether it is tax policy, regulatory policy, that impacts their bottom lines every single day.
We need to get out of the way to keep those taxes low, to get Federal spending under control, to make sure the regulatory framework in which our businesses operate represents the minimum level and not the maximum level that we can do to make it more difficult for small businesses to grow and to create jobs. If we can do those types of things, address the issue of spending and debt, take it on in a meaningful way, deal with this issue of reforming our Tax Code and making sure our tax rates stay low on businesses in this country and make sure regulations and regulatory policies coming out of Washington, DC, are not the impediment they are today to investment and job creation, I think we can get this country back on track.
But that is where it starts. If we want to create jobs, if we want to grow this economy, if we want to make it more prosperous and stronger for future generations, those are the steps, in my view, we have to take. I hope we get started soon. I do not think we can afford to wait.
A lot of people around here think these are all political exercises that we will go through the hoops and the motions, and we will wait to solve this until after the next election. We cannot afford to wait. The time is now. If we do not do it, we are going to put in great peril future generations and their ability to enjoy the same standard of living, the same quality of life we have enjoyed.
That is not fair to them. That is why I believe the time to start is now and the time to get this budget process--not only the reforms of the process but the spending restraints in place--is today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I was presiding, before the senior Senator from Missouri took my place, and was listening to two of the last three speakers talk about their budget religion, if you will. I think about this. I think we have to look at a little bit of his history.
I do not think I need a lecture on balancing a budget. I was in the House of Representatives in the 1990s when, without one Republican vote, we passed President Clinton's budget. We had a huge budget deficit in those days. That budget began us on the path to a balanced budget.
I supported a balanced budget amendment in the mid-1990s. By 2000, the year President Clinton left office, we had the biggest budget surplus in American history. Then, in 2001, at the push of President Bush and his Republican colleagues in both Houses, this Congress passed a major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2001; another major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2003, both of which I voted against.
President Bush, with intelligence that was not especially sound--being gentle about it--took us into a war with Iraq, did not pay for it; took us into a war with Afghanistan, did not pay for it. I voted against the war in Iraq.
In 2003 or 2004, he pushed through Congress by one vote--I remember I was in the House of Representatives opposing that bill, when they kept the rollcall open for 2 hours or longer that night. President Bush was on the phone with recalcitrant members of his party in the House of Representatives--pushed through a Medicare bill that was a bailout to the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization, without paying for it.
President Bush leaves office then, leaving the largest budget deficit in our history--going from the largest budget surplus, written, by and large, by the Democrats, because Republicans did not play ball with us during most of the 1990s. Then, after President Bush and the Republican leadership in many of those years, House-Senate, President Bush left us with the biggest budget deficit in history.
When I hear this revisionist history on the Senate floor--I was not even going to talk about this today. But I heard two colleagues, for whom I have respect, one from Alabama, one from South Dakota, talk about this budget deficit in a way that simply is historically inaccurate--in the name of this deficit, and we have to deal with this deficit.
I know the Presiding Officer is focused on that. A lot of us are focused on that. We have to deal with this deficit.
But you don't do the same thing over again where you give big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and then privatize Medicare. That is what they are doing. They are cutting health care, saying it is not sustainable, whatever that means, and giving major tax cuts to the rich, and we are saying that is not sustainable.