Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I watched with great interest President Obama's speech about our spending and debt crisis. That is what I would call it. He did not use as stark terms, unfortunately, but it is a spending and debt crisis.

First of all, I am at least a little encouraged that he is finally beginning to enter the debate about this crisis. It is headed to a crisis. It is the greatest domestic threat we face as a nation. At least this speech acknowledges it is a huge threat and that his own budget submitted a few months ago was a pass on all of those big issues and he needed a redo.

This is a great threat to all of our futures and prosperity. Let me try to put it in a little bit of perspective.

Borrowing right now is at least 40 cents out of every $1 we spend. So for every $1 the Federal Government spends, 40 cents of that--over 40 cents--is borrowed money. We are spending $3.7 trillion a year, but we are only taking in $2.2 trillion. Because of that, we have recently been racking up over $4 billion of new debt every day. So every day: new debt of $4 billion a day. And a whole lot of that we owe to the Chinese, more than $1 trillion. That eventually has very serious consequences in terms of our prosperity, our future, the sort of country and vision and future we can leave for our kids.

As interest rates go up--which they inevitably will if we stay on this path--that downright costs jobs. When interest rates go up 1 percent, Federal debt goes up $140 billion because the debt is so much. When those interest rates eventually go up, it makes it harder for all of us and our families to buy cars and homes, to pay tuition, to create jobs if we are a small business.

ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said:

Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

The highest ranking person in uniform in charge of our national security says our biggest security threat is not Iran or North Korea or anyone else; it is actually this domestic debt issue. Debt at current levels--which is 94 percent of GDP--economists say that is already costing us about a million jobs because our debt level is so great.

Again, at least the President, in his speech today--which is essentially a do-over of his budget from a few months ago--at least the President is beginning to acknowledge that fundamental threat, and that is good. But we need more than a speech, we need more than a vision. We need a real action plan, a detailed plan from the President, and we did not get that today.

So my first reaction to the speech was that it was just that: It was a speech. It was a nice sounding speech. It had a lot of nice themes. But it was a speech. If the President, who is so quick to criticize Congressman Paul Ryan's budget--if he wants to enter the debate, he needs to enter it on a par with that level of detail, that level of specifics that Congressman Ryan and House Republicans gave. So the President needs to submit a new budget, a new detailed proposal, not just give a speech. Then we need to engage in a real debate and come up with a plan, an action plan, to tackle this spending and debt issue. And we need to do that before we vote on any debt limit increase.

Speaking for myself, I am not going to consider increasing the debt limit, which the President wants all of us to do, unless and until there is tied to it a real plan to deal with this spending and debt crisis. So this speech today, perhaps, was a start. But my general reaction is, we need more than a speech. We need specifics. We need a new budget submission. Then we need to engage in a bipartisan discussion and negotiation. But we shouldn't wait until May, as the President suggested. That should start immediately--tomorrow--because we need to hammer out meaningful details before any proposal comes to the floor for votes to increase the debt limit.

In terms of the general themes the President struck, I have to say I was

disappointed because, to my ears, it was the same-old same-old.

The first theme was increasing taxes. He has been at that theme over and over again, and that was absolutely the first theme he hit in his speech--increasing taxes. The problem is, if we look at the level of taxation we have, it is not extraordinarily low, it is not somehow way below normal historical averages. What is way above normal historical averages is spending. So if we just look at the data compared to history, we have a runaway spending problem; we don't have a taxation problem.

The second big theme the President hit was cutting defense spending. Again, coming from a liberal, this is just the same-old same-old--a traditional, predictable theme to cut defense. I don't think that is really a new approach or a new discussion from the President.

The third big theme was to cut tax expenditures. A lot of folks, at least in Louisiana, won't know what the heck that means, so let me translate. Cutting tax expenditures means increasing taxes. It means doing away with certain deductions and certain credits. It means your tax bill goes up. I am all for Tax Code simplification. I think we need an enormously simplified Tax Code. I do think we need to get rid of a lot of deductions and credits, but that should be used to lower the overall rate, particularly rates such as the corporate tax rate, which, in the United States, is the highest of any industrialized country in the world.

In terms of the theme of real cutting, that theme was very short on specifics but very long on general statements, including that entitlement spending--things such as Medicare--would not be covered in reform in any way.

So when we look at these broad themes--and that is all there was, broad themes, not specifics--it was, quite frankly, sorely disappointing. But perhaps at least it is a start. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I hope it is a meaningful start, but to be a meaningful start and to produce fruit, we need to go from a very broad, very general speech to a detailed submission.

The President needs to resubmit his entire budget. This is a do-over, so he needs to resubmit a detailed budget which matches Congressman Ryan's proposal in the level of detail, in the level of specifics the Budget Committee chairman in the House has provided. Then we need to immediately get to a bipartisan discussion and negotiation. We shouldn't wait until May. That should start immediately for one simple reason: I don't think there is any chance of passing any increase to the debt limit without having attached to it major reform, major structural reform that ensures we are on a new path of lowering spending and lowering debt. Of course, I can only control one vote, but speaking for myself, I will say that I won't even consider those proposals to increase the debt limit unless and until there is a proposal that passes the Congress to actually decrease the debt.

Ultimately, the problem isn't the debt limit; the problem is the debt. When an individual has a spending problem or a credit card problem, the solution isn't getting a higher limit on his credit card; the solution is to deal with the spending and the debt problem, which is the underlying, core problem. The same here.

So we need to do that as we move forward in this debt-limit discussion. I hope we will all do that. I hope we will come together in a meaningful, bipartisan way to do that--to actually attack the problem, which is spending, which leads to the second problem, which is debt, and actually propose and pass real structural reform before we even have any vote on increasing the debt limit. I urge all of my colleagues to work constructively in that regard. I hope the President's speech is a start toward that, but, of course, time will tell, and actions versus words are what ultimately matter.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, as we were debating whether to move to this bill now on the floor, I sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and I was joined by several of my colleagues. We made a real simple point. The simple point was this: We have a spending and a debt crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. So rather than continue to bring up various cats and dogs bills, various matters that aren't related to that crucial, central spending and debt question before us, we should focus on the task at hand. We should focus on our greatest challenge: meeting this spending and debt challenge.

Unfortunately, the distinguished majority leader did not heed that call. He proceeded with this bill. For the reasons I outlined, I and the other signatories of the letter voted against moving to this bill. Unfortunately, now, as we are on the eve of a potential government shutdown, I believe what has transpired has sort of made my point again. Why haven't we been focused on that crucial spending and debt challenge like a laser beam, to come together, to offer sensible solutions to avoid these eleventh or even twelfth hour negotiations? Because here we are and here we go again: Another crisis, another eleventh or twelfth hour negotiation; another potential government shutdown.

While I am sorry we didn't focus like a laser beam on this central challenge sooner, now that we are here, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to do what is reasonable and sensible and adopt what the House of Representatives is about to adopt, which is a plan to at least keep the government functioning smoothly for another week as we try to resolve the situation for the entirety of the remainder of the fiscal year.

So I strongly support this 1-week continuing resolution that I believe will very soon pass the House. We all say we are against an unnecessary government shutdown. I certainly say that and mean it. If we all say it, and if we all mean it, I believe we will support this sensible measure as we try to come to an agreement--all of us--on a plan for the remainder of the fiscal year.

This 1-week CR would keep the government functioning smoothly. It would avoid those disruptions and threats that are concerning to many Americans. That sensible, commonsense plan would also offer significant cuts to the current level of spending, $12 billion of cuts.

What is important is those cuts are not very controversial. They come out of proposals mostly from the Democratic side. They mostly come out of the President's own budget proposal or the Senate Democratic plan for cuts or a series of nonpartisan suggestions made by the Congressional Budget Office. So I think it is reasonable to look to those sources of proposed cuts and work from those lists, and that is what this proposal does.

The only other matter included in the proposal is two relatively noncontroversial so-called riders: one about Guantanamo Bay, which is pretty much current law right now because of language in the Defense authorization bill, and a second regarding abortions performed in the District of Columbia.

With regard to that second rider, again, this should be relatively noncontroversial, particularly since this very language was in full force and effect from 1996 until 2009. It was the law for that extended period of time. President Bill Clinton signed that ban into law six times. President Barack Obama signed that very language into law in 2009. Vice President Joe Biden voted for the legislation, including this DC abortion funding ban language, seven times since 1995. Even minority leader Nancy Pelosi on the House side voted for legislation including this language 14 times. Here, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, voted for legislation including this language 10 times since 1995.

So, again, this is not extremely controversial, and it is certainly no reason to shut down the government. So, in summary, I am sorry we haven't been focused on this central challenge and this central issue for the last 2 weeks as I had urged along with my colleagues. I think we should focus like a laser beam on spending and debt, and I think we should have been doing that for the last several weeks rather than bringing the bill before us onto the floor. But we are where we are.

Given that, I hope we will do the reasonable, commonsense thing and continue negotiations for the rest of the fiscal year, but, in the meantime, pass the 1-week measure about to be passed by the House of Representatives. It continues the operations of the government. It also funds the Department of Defense for the entire fiscal year. It takes what should be beyond politics off the table. It protects our military. It gives full funding for our military men and women. It gives them certainty. We should all be for that. It cuts $12 billion from current funding levels but takes the vast majority of those cuts, again, from the President's own list, from Senate Democrats' own list, and from a nonpartisan list from the Congressional Budget Office.

It only includes two so-called riders which have been granted wide acceptance in the past, including being passed, voted on, and supported by Senator Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and others multiple times since 1996. That is a reasonable path forward. That is a responsible way to prevent a government shutdown as we continue to negotiate for an overall resolution of this matter for the remainder of the fiscal year.

I hope all of us, Democrats and Republicans, will listen to the American people and do the reasonable, commonsense thing and move forward in a reasonable way as we negotiate on broader issues in good faith. I hope we will pass this 1-week measure at a minimum right now as we continue to look for an overall resolution for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. President, with that I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, America's illegal immigration problem is clearly way out of control. We can all agree that we desperately need to better protect our borders, ensure that only citizens and legal residents can be hired for jobs in this country, and reverse misguided policies that serve as a magnet for further illegal immigration.

Today, I am introducing a bill that falls into that third category, to get rid of these magnets that encourage further illegal activity. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationalization Act in order to change our current practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on American soil. When it comes to U.S. citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters, at least it should not be. The circumstances of the person's birth and the nationality of his or her parents are of at least equal importance. I simply do not believe our Constitution confers citizenship on children who happen to be born on U.S. soil when both of their parents are foreign tourists or illegal aliens. The Constitution does not mandate or require that. Yet that is our policy.

Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born in the United States to at least one parent who is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist. A significant subset of that number includes children born to two parents who are not U.S. citizens--the category my bill attacks. Despite the illegal status and foreign citizenship of the parent, the executive branch of our government now automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. This practice is not mandated by Federal law or the Constitution. It is based on what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. As such, this policy is incompatible with both the text and legislative history of the citizenship clause. I don't think the 14th amendment grants this birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. In fact, all we have to do is look at history and the actual text of the Constitution as our guide.

The 14th amendment does not say all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, end of story. It states that citizenship extends to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

This latter phrase is important. It is conveniently ignored or misconstrued by advocates of birthright citizenship. But, of course, a fundamental rule in terms of constitutional interpretation is that words are assumed to be there for a purpose. If those words had no meaning, had no impact, then the Founders would not have written them into that part of the Constitution.

Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction a foreign government has over that person. That is why American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress actually passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

I am introducing today's legislation because it is apparent that Congress must reassert its plenary authority over naturalization and make clear that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' does not include children born in this country to illegal aliens or foreign tourists. Those parents are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of foreign governments.

My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States to at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green card holder, or an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress clearly has the power to determine that children born in the United States to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction.

As Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held in a 2003 case: ``Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to this nonsense.'' That is exactly what my bill would do, put an end to this nonsense.

Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen. Instead, it will ensure that he or she has to go through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national parents who wants to become a U.S. citizen.

Our practice of birthright citizenship is clearly an incentive to illegal immigration. It does a disservice to every would-be citizen who is actually following the rules, applying to be naturalized, standing in line, often for a very long time.

This misguided policy of birthright citizenship not only undermines the stability of our immigration system, but it has severe fiscal consequences as well as serious national security implications. Recent news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of what is known as birth tourism.

Web sites actually advertise birth packages for foreign visitors so pregnant women can give birth in the United States and ensure automatic citizenship, under current practice, for their newborn children. Of course, with that automatic citizenship comes the full benefits thereof, including unlimited travel to the United States, educational benefits, and the ability to settle here as an adult and eventually, down the line, the ability to grab back the parents and get them into U.S. citizenship.

One such agency that appeals to foreign mothers to be by describing the benefits of American-born children, pointing out that a one-time investment in a birth package will result in a lifetime of benefits for their family was in the news recently. Specifically, it says: Your children will be able to attend U.S. public elementary schools and they may apply for scholarships designated for U.S. citizens and they are entitled to welfare benefits--all of this explicitly spelled out in the advertising for this agency.

Just last month, authorities in California shut down a makeshift maternity clinic after discovering 10 newborns and one dozen Chinese women who paid as much as $35,000 to travel to this country to give birth to children who would automatically be recognized as U.S. citizens.

Birth tourism, as amazing as this is, is not a new phenomenon, as women from other countries have long traveled to the United States legally, on tourist or student visas, and given birth while here. However, recent reports indicate that the practice is escalating. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every year 200,000 children are born to women who were lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis.

Each of these children receive U.S. citizenship, despite their mother's allegiance to a different country and even if the father is not a U.S. citizen. Birth tourism is certainly a reprehensible practice, but it is not an illegal one. It is astounding that the U.S. Government allows individuals to exploit the loopholes of our immigration system in this manner. It is obvious that Congress has the authority and the obligation to put an end to it.

In addition to this birth tourism--and by that I refer to focusing on tourists here legally under a tourist visa. Of course, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of children born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents, and those children, under the same practice, automatically become U.S. citizens.

This, too, is a very dangerous practice, a magnet to attract more and more illegal activity across the border, when we say we want to do everything to stop that. Certainly, if we truly want to do everything we can to stop that, we need to unplug those magnets, stop that policy from attracting more and more illegal crossings across the border.

So I introduce this important legislation today, and I thank Senators Paul and Lee and Moran for joining me in addressing this critical issue. I invite all the Members of the Senate to join me in doing this.

Mr. President, America's illegal immigration problem is clearly way out of control. We can all agree that we desperately need to better protect our borders, ensure that only citizens and legal residents can be hired for jobs in this country, and reverse misguided policies that serve as a magnet for further illegal immigration.

Today, I am introducing a bill that falls into that third category, to get rid of these magnets that encourage further illegal activity. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationalization Act in order to change our current practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on American soil. When it comes to U.S. citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters, at least it should not be. The circumstances of the person's birth and the nationality of his or her parents are of at least equal importance. I simply do not believe our Constitution confers citizenship on children who happen to be born on U.S. soil when both of their parents are foreign tourists or illegal aliens. The Constitution does not mandate or require that. Yet that is our policy.

Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born in the United States to at least one parent who is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist. A significant subset of that number includes children born to two parents who are not U.S. citizens--the category my bill attacks. Despite the illegal status and foreign citizenship of the parent, the executive branch of our government now automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. This practice is not mandated by Federal law or the Constitution. It is based on what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. As such, this policy is incompatible with both the text and legislative history of the citizenship clause. I don't think the 14th amendment grants this birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. In fact, all we have to do is look at history and the actual text of the Constitution as our guide.

The 14th amendment does not say all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, end of story. It states that citizenship extends to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

This latter phrase is important. It is conveniently ignored or misconstrued by advocates of birthright citizenship. But, of course, a fundamental rule in terms of constitutional interpretation is that words are assumed to be there for a purpose. If those words had no meaning, had no impact, then the Founders would not have written them into that part of the Constitution.

Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction a foreign government has over that person. That is why American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress actually passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

I am introducing today's legislation because it is apparent that Congress must reassert its plenary authority over naturalization and make clear that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' does not include children born in this country to illegal aliens or foreign tourists. Those parents are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of foreign governments.

My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States to at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green card holder, or an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress clearly has the power to determine that children born in the United States to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction.

As Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held in a 2003 case: ``Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to this nonsense.'' That is exactly what my bill would do, put an end to this nonsense.

Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen. Instead, it will ensure that he or she has to go through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national parents who wants to become a U.S. citizen.

Our practice of birthright citizenship is clearly an incentive to illegal immigration. It does a disservice to every would-be citizen who is actually following the rules, applying to be naturalized, standing in line, often for a very long time.

This misguided policy of birthright citizenship not only undermines the stability of our immigration system, but it has severe fiscal consequences as well as serious national security implications. Recent news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of what is known as birth tourism.

Web sites actually advertise birth packages for foreign visitors so pregnant women can give birth in the United States and ensure automatic citizenship, under current practice, for their newborn children. Of course, with that automatic citizenship comes the full benefits thereof, including unlimited travel to the United States, educational benefits, and the ability to settle here as an adult and eventually, down the line, the ability to grab back the parents and get them into U.S. citizenship.

One such agency that appeals to foreign mothers to be by describing the benefits of American-born children, pointing out that a one-time investment in a birth package will result in a lifetime of benefits for their family was in the news recently. Specifically, it says: Your children will be able to attend U.S. public elementary schools and they may apply for scholarships designated for U.S. citizens and they are entitled to welfare benefits--all of this explicitly spelled out in the advertising for this agency.

Just last month, authorities in California shut down a makeshift maternity clinic after discovering 10 newborns and one dozen Chinese women who paid as much as $35,000 to travel to this country to give birth to children who would automatically be recognized as U.S. citizens.

Birth tourism, as amazing as this is, is not a new phenomenon, as women from other countries have long traveled to the United States legally, on tourist or student visas, and given birth while here. However, recent reports indicate that the practice is escalating. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every year 200,000 children are born to women who were lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis.

Each of these children receive U.S. citizenship, despite their mother's allegiance to a different country and even if the father is not a U.S. citizen. Birth tourism is certainly a reprehensible practice, but it is not an illegal one. It is astounding that the U.S. Government allows individuals to exploit the loopholes of our immigration system in this manner. It is obvious that Congress has the authority and the obligation to put an end to it.

In addition to this birth tourism--and by that I refer to focusing on tourists here legally under a tourist visa. Of course, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of children born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents, and those children, under the same practice, automatically become U.S. citizens.

This, too, is a very dangerous practice, a magnet to attract more and more illegal activity across the border, when we say we want to do everything to stop that. Certainly, if we truly want to do everything we can to stop that, we need to unplug those magnets, stop that policy from attracting more and more illegal crossings across the border.

So I introduce this important legislation today, and I thank Senators Paul and Lee and Moran for joining me in addressing this critical issue. I invite all the Members of the Senate to join me in doing this.

Mr. President, since President Obama took office, the price

of a gallon of gasoline at the pump has risen 96 percent--96 percent, from $1.83 to now $3.60, with absolutely no end in sight. Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, the President has virtually shut down the Gulf of Mexico, he has canceled numerous energy lease sales, he has refused to act on stalled onshore permits, he has dramatically increased environmental regulations, and he has begun regulating CO2 by administrative fiat. All of that has helped get us to where we are.

Today, President Obama went to Georgetown University, and at least he has begun focusing on and addressing the energy situation. I guess I give him points for that. He went to Georgetown today and delivered a speech which he called a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. But, like a lot of Presidential speeches, this is great-sounding rah-rah, nice title but pretty disappointing, from my point of view, on substance.

First of all, let's talk about the whole premise of the speech, a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. I was hopeful, on hearing about the plan for this speech, that we would be seeing an unveiling of a real energy policy, including moving in the right direction in terms of domestic production, utilizing our domestic energy resources. Unfortunately, this is more of the same. In fact, the President admits freely that this is absolutely more of the same. He says:

Today, my administration is releasing a Blueprint for a

Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national

energy policy we have pushed since the day I took office.

So this is simply a restatement of the last years of policy, in my opinion, clearly failed, clearly counterproductive policy that has helped get us to $3.60 at the pump and climbing.

When you look even more at the substance of the speech, it is more disappointing. The whole speech is about 51 paragraphs. Of those 51 paragraphs, I looked to see how many are about tapping our domestic traditional energy resources. Well, 6 paragraphs of 51--just a little over 10 percent. Four paragraphs were about domestic oil production, and two were about domestic natural gas production. And even those two were mostly about possibly increasing regulation on the production of natural gas from shale, making it more difficult, not accessing more of our domestic energy resources.

What is the picture on domestic oil production, those four paragraphs? Well, the President says:

To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my

administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and

production.

Really? That is a news headline to my constituents in the gulf coast because every day we live a far different reality. We live the reality of an administration that has moved in the opposite direction, making domestic oil and gas production far more difficult, not easier.

Since the tragedy of the BP disaster, we have only had 7 deepwater exploratory permits issued--7 issued--compared to a comparable period before the disaster of 68, so about 10 percent. That is encouraging offshore oil and gas exploration and production? I don't think so. Since that disaster, the working rotary rigs in the gulf have fallen dramatically, from about 55 to 25. It has been cut by more than half. That is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production? I don't think so.

We need to change the policy that is virtually shutting down the gulf and stopping domestic energy production. Seven deepwater exploratory permits is not adequate. Seven, as I said, is roughly 10 percent of the rate that existed before. Of course we need to make changes, and we have. Of course we need to learn the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and we have. But, again, seven is roughly 10 percent of the previous rate.

We need to do far better, and if we are going to really encourage that domestic production, what about production in Alaska's Beaufort Sea? EPA is sitting on those permits, not issuing those permits. As a result, Shell Oil announced that it is abandoning efforts to produce anything there. Is that what the President is talking about, encouraging oil exploration and production?

What about the lease sales he canceled? President Obama canceled the western lease sale that was scheduled. He canceled that in May of 2010. If you are serious, are you going to reverse that decision? Also, in May of 2010, the President canceled the planned Virginia lease sale. Unfortunately, in this speech, he did not reverse that policy. He is continuing that cancellation.

What about the cancellation of offshore tracts in Alaska's Cook Inlet? The President canceled that in March of this year, this month. Unfortunately, in this speech, he did not reverse that policy.

Withdrawn leases. The President's Department of the Interior has withdrawn 77 lease sales in Utah that were planned. They withdrew those in 2009. No reversal on that policy. Is that encouraging oil exploration and production?

So time and again the President has actually worked in the opposite direction--shutting down domestic production, making it more difficult, not, as he said in his speech today, ``encouraging oil exploration and production.''

We need a new energy policy, not a restated policy, not the same-old same-old from the last 2 years. We need a policy that does many things, including harnessing and accessing our enormous abundance of energy resources in this country.

You know, we Americans are not used to thinking of ourselves as energy-rich, but we are. And nonpartisan, nonbiased sources such as the Congressional Research Service say we are the most energy-rich country in the world bar none. The only country coming close to us is Russia in terms of our vast array and amount of domestic energy resources. We are out of the habit of thinking of ourselves that way for a simple reason: The Congress and this President in particular have taken 95 percent of those abundant resources and put them off limits under Federal law. No other energy-rich country does anything like that. We continue to do it even with the price at the pump rising so dramatically.

We need to stop that. We need to access our own richness, our own resources to take care of ourselves. And that is a big part of the energy plan we need, which, unfortunately, was not part of the President's Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future unveiled today, restated today, at Georgetown.

Many colleagues will join me tomorrow in introducing a bill that lays out that new energy vision to unlock the enormous potential we have here at home. The bill is called 3-D: The Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy and Deficit Reduction Act of 2011. I am honored to be joined by between 20 and 30 colleagues--the list is still growing--who will formally introduce that act tomorrow. This is legislation aimed at our domestic energy resources, unshackling that potential, letting us get access to that enormous potential for domestic energy and, with it, great U.S. jobs, jobs right here in this country, and deficit reduction. So many of the primary challenges we face find their nexus in energy. Again, energy independence, self-reliance we need now more than ever, particularly with the unrest in the Middle East.

Secondly, jobs. We say we are trying to do everything we can to come out of this tough recession, but we are not, because the U.S. energy sector has the potential for enormous job growth. Again, we have taken a large percentage of those resources, 95 percent, and put it off limits.

With deficit reduction, along with producing more domestic energy, would come tremendous revenue to the Federal Government. After the personal income tax, this is the top source of Federal revenue-- royalties on domestic energy production--second only to the personal income tax. Again, why don't we solve all of these problems--energy independence, U.S. jobs, and deficit reduction--by fully and aggressively developing our U.S. domestic energy sector?

Specifically, the 3-D bill would do six primary things. First, it mandates Outer Continental Shelf lease sales, directing the Interior Department to conduct a lease sale in each Outer Continental Shelf planning area for which there is a commercial interest. It would also consider the 2010-2015 planning area complete.

Secondly, it would open ANWR to energy production. This is a vast source of potential energy production, job creation, and deficit reduction, again, that we have put off limits through congressional and Presidential action.

Third, it would require action on stalled onshore permits, things such as

the leases that Interior withdrew in 2009 in Utah, things such as EPA inaction, actually withdrawing a CWA permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine in West Virginia, the State Department sitting on the permit issue in terms of the Keystone XL pipeline project, the EPA not issuing permits for Shell Oil operations in offshore Alaska. It would direct action in all of those areas.

Fourth, it would properly limit timeframes for environmental and judicial review. It would not change any of those review standards. It would only change the law so that those reviews could not go on ad infinitum. It would streamline the process and properly and reasonably limit those timeframes.

Fifth, it would block regulation of CO2 by administrative fiat. We will have a vote soon on that issue. I am hopeful it will be a majority vote in favor of this opinion to block that regulation by administrative fiat that I espouse. This is also included in the 3-D bill.

Sixth, we would actually create an alternative energy trust fund from 25 percent of the new revenue produced from ANWR. It would capture 25 percent of that brandnew revenue for alternative energy development, research, and production. That would be positive as well.

This is the sort of domestic energy focus we need. This is the movement toward real energy security as well as job creation and deficit reduction that I would have hoped the President would have at least hinted at at Georgetown today. But he did not. His speech was the same old same old, explicitly restating what he has been doing for the last 2 years.

I urge all colleagues to join in this effort and to join in similar efforts. Americans face tough times. It is not being made any easier by the price at the pump going up. Again, since President Obama took office, that price has risen 96 percent, from $1.83 per gallon to $3.60 per gallon, and there is no end in sight. We need to access our own resources. We need to put Americans to work. We need to reduce our deficit with that extra new revenue. We can do it all by accessing U.S. domestic energy resources more fully, not putting 95 percent of those resources off limits, off the table by either Presidential fiat or congressional action.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort, to join similar efforts to give Americans real relief at the pump, to increase our energy independence, to lower the deficit, and to produce good American jobs.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to briefly preview an amendment, Vitter amendment No. 178, which I will formally call up this afternoon about 2:45. This is a spending amendment to get back to what I believe is the central challenge we face as a country right now, this unsustainable path we are on with regard to Federal spending and debt. This is a very simple, straightforward amendment which I think deserves and will hopefully get strong bipartisan support. It requires the Federal Government to get rid of its billions of dollars of inventory-- literally billions and billions of dollars of unutilized or underutilized real property.

The Federal Real Property Council reports that the Federal Government owned or operated more than 1.1 million assets worldwide in 2007. It was worth an estimated $1.5 trillion. But a lot of those assets, real property buildings, land, are unused or underused. According to OMB, there are about 47,000 underutilized properties, almost 19,000 completely unutilized properties. That is over 65,000 properties with an estimated value of $83 billion that would better be diminished, sold, or demolished.

This is a commonsense way to save money in the Federal budget, to move us forward in terms of a more sustainable path on spending and debt. Obviously we need many more larger steps, but this is brought in that spirit.

I look forward to returning to the floor around 2:45 to make it formally pending and to offer some brief additional comments.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks to my colleagues for their courtesies and cooperation.

At this point, I move to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and to call up Vitter amendment No. 178.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, right before lunch, I laid the groundwork for this amendment, so let me quickly summarize.

This is one of a series of amendments that conservatives are bringing to the floor that go to our central challenge of reining in uncontrolled spending and debt. Clearly, we face a monumental challenge in this country from the fact that we are on an unsustainable path right now of Federal spending and debt. Clearly, this endangers our future. We are used to talking about it as a threat to our kids and grandkids--something that will come home to roost years from now.

Sadly, in the last several years, it has grown to much more than that. It is such an unsustainable path that it yields the possibility of a crisis within weeks or months or a couple of years. So we cannot kick the can down the road. We cannot fail to act now. We must change the fiscal path we are on to protect not just future generations but our country as we know it right now. In that spirit, a number of fiscal conservatives are coming to the floor to offer spending and debt amendments, and I am honored to be associated with that group. We will see other Senators come down, including Senator Cornyn and Senator Rubio, Senator DeMint, Senator Paul, and others, with other spending and debt amendments.

Amendment No. 178 is a very simple, straightforward idea. It would mandate that the Federal Government, in an orderly way, begin to get rid of billions of dollars worth of unused or underused Federal property. There have been many studies on this topic. They all come to the same bottom line, which is that the Federal Government owns many tens of billions of dollars worth of unused or underused Federal property that not only represents assets that could be liquidated to yield money to the Federal Treasury, but as long as we hold on to it as a Federal Government, it represents enormous ongoing

costs to simply maintain and deal with this unused Federal property.

The Office of Management and Budget says there are over 46,000 underutilized properties but almost 19,000 completely unused properties, with an estimated value between the two categories of $83 billion. Those properties could be liquidated and that money brought to the Treasury. Also, in the meantime, if we don't do this, that is actually costing us money in terms of upkeep--mowing the grass, if you will, and a lot more other and expensive upkeep.

This amendment is very simple and straightforward to require the Federal Government to sell off or demolish this property and help contribute, in a limited way but an important way, to get us on a different, more sustainable fiscal path.

Again, I commend this amendment to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans. As I said, it is part of a broader effort on this bill--as well as on other bills, I am sure, in the future--to get us on a different fiscal path.

Today and over the next few days, we will be seeing Senators Cornyn, DeMint, Rubio, and others coming to the floor with this set of fiscal amendments to nudge, push, pull--anything we can do--this body and the Congress in this important direction before it is too late.

Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I too take the floor of the Senate to urge all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to focus on the single biggest domestic threat to our country, our single greatest challenge in the eyes of every Louisianan and every American I know, and that is to stop this runaway spending and debt.

Americans all around the country, certainly Louisianans all around my State, understand this is a grave threat to our economic future. It is not some vague threat to generations two and three away from us. This is an immediate threat because the path of spending and debt we are on is completely unsustainable.

For example, we must come together in a bipartisan way. We must act. We must solve this real and pressing problem before it is an immediate crisis. We should clearly do that well before any need for an increase in the debt limit arises, well before this Congress reaches a crisis atmosphere over the need for an increase in the debt limit.

For all of these reasons, I have joined with many of my colleagues. I sent the majority leader a letter today. First, let me thank my colleagues who joined me on the letter: Senators Sessions, Rubio, DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, and Ensign. The letter is very simple and straightforward. It says this is the greatest challenge we face. It says because of that, we need to face it. We need to debate and talk about it and act. We need to start doing that now, well before any significant deadline like when the debt limit may have to be increased.

The letter says: Mr. Leader, we are going to oppose moving to any other bill that doesn't directly address this crisis when we need to act on this grave threat.

Let me read relevant portions that go right to the point:

Dear Leader Reid:

Yesterday, the Senate voted on two proposals to fund the

government for the rest of the fiscal year. This debate gave

only a limited (three hours) opportunity to debate what many

Americans believe is the issue of our time--cutting

government spending and dramatically reducing our national

debt. Additionally, no member of the Senate was permitted to

offer amendments under the structured process, which in our

opinion prevents a full, open, and robust debate.

With our national debt poised to reach its $14.3 trillion

limit in the very near future, taxpayers expect Congress to

work together to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending and

be more vigilant about how we spend public funds. The

American people want Congress to deal with the tough issues

of cutting spending, and almost every member of the Senate

has agreed that we must address our fiscal situation

immediately.

While there are certainly many issues that warrant the

Senate's consideration, we feel that the Senate must not

debate and consider bills at this time that do not

affirmatively cut spending, directly address structural

budget reforms, reduce government's role in the economy so

businesses can create jobs, or directly address this current

financial crisis.

The American people resoundingly rejected the way the

Senate waited until Christmas Eve as a mechanism to force

hurried debate on President Obama's massive health care

legislation. Voting to proceed to another legislative measure

effectively runs away from the central issues of spending and

debt and repeats that flawed process.

We, therefore, are notifying you of our intention to object

to the consideration of any legislation that fails to

directly address this crisis in a meaningful way. Our

objections would be withheld if the Senate agrees to dedicate

significant floor time to debate this issue well in advance

of the federal government reaching our statutorily mandated

debt limit.

It is signed ``Sincerely'' from both myself and Senators Sessions, Rubio, DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, and Ensign, to the majority leader.

The statement is clear. This is a crisis. We need to act before we reach the statutory debt limit. So what are we waiting for? Let's act now. Let's not move to other cats and dogs bills that may be positive legislation but can certainly wait. Let's move to the people's business. Let's move to the absolute top challenge we face domestically. Let's come together and debate, vote on, and hopefully begin to solve this problem of unsustainable spending and debt.

To do that we also need leadership, ideas, suggestions. I believe we have provided that on this side of the aisle, and we would welcome ideas, suggestions, and concrete proposals from all Members.

Let me list the more than two dozen pieces of legislation that go directly to this issue:

S. 14, by Senator Ensign, establishes a commission on congressional budgetary accountability and review of Federal agencies.

S. 81 is an Isakson bill to direct unused appropriations for Senate official personnel and office expenses to be deposited in the Treasury and actually used to reduce the Federal debt.

S. 102 is a McCain bill which requires OMB to transmit to Congress a message with specified information requesting any recession the President proposes under the procedures instituted under that act.

S. 162 is a Paul bill to cut $500 billion in Federal spending from fiscal year 2011.

S. 163, by Senator Toomey, is the Full Faith and Credit Act to prioritize principle and interest payments when and if the debt limit is reached.

S. 178, by Senator DeMint, reduces Federal spending by $2.5 trillion through fiscal year 2021.

S. 245 is a Corker bill, the CAP Act, to create a discretionary spending cap for Congress.

S. 259 is my bill to prioritize Social Security payments if and when the debt limit is reached.

S. 360, by Senator Inhofe, creates a point of order to exceed nonsecurity discretionary limits and to create spending limits for fiscal years 2017 to 2021.

S. 389, by Senator Kirk--and Senator Hatch has a similar bill-- establishes a commission to review cost control.

S. 391, by Senator Moran, rescinds all unobligated balances of President Obama's stimulus bill.

S.J. Res. 3, by Senator Hatch, is a balanced budget amendment.

S.J. Res. 4, by Senator Shelby, is on the same topic.

And S.J. Res. 5, by Senator Lee, is on the same topic.

This is a long list, but it is certainly not exhaustive. I have read a partial list to make the point. We are coming up with ideas, proposals, and solutions. We encourage every Senator of both parties to come up with ideas, proposals, and solutions. Let's actually talk about the greatest threat we face. Let's talk about it now. Let's debate it now. Let's exchange ideas in a positive atmosphere now, well before we reach any crisis atmosphere over the debt limit.

I respectfully urge the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, to heed our call to arms, to read our letter and react by creating an identified time on the Senate floor, well before we reach the statutory debt limit, to debate and pass solutions on this crucial topic.

I don't believe there is debate that this isn't the greatest challenge we face, that this isn't the greatest economic threat we face. Quite simply, what are we waiting for? We need time to bring forth these ideas and exchange them and debate them and act. We need time to do this well before the statutory debt limit is reached. We need to do the people's business in a reasonable way, in a sober atmosphere, not in an atmosphere of hysteria or threats when the debt limit would be reached in a matter of days.

I urge all colleagues to join us in this effort, to come to the floor with their ideas, their proposals. Let's do the people's business.

I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of Republican solutions and proposals be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. As Congress tries to get serious about cutting wasteful and reckless spending, I believe taxpayer subsidy of abortion providers should be among the first things to go. I personally believe it is morally wrong to end an innocent human life through abortion. I also believe it is morally reprehensible to take the dollars of millions of pro-life Americans in order to fund organizations that do that. That is a view held by the great majority of Americans. Americans should not be forced to subsidize abortion, much less fund our Nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

When the House passed its continuing resolution before us today, it adopted a provision that cuts funding to this abortion giant, and it did it with significant bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that language was stripped by Senate leadership behind closed doors. But I believe Senators should have a chance to vote directly on that measure following a full and open debate.

Again, I do not personally believe abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I believe that it is morally wrong. But this issue is even beyond that. This is not about abortion on demand in this country. This debate is about whether taxpayer dollars, including those billions of taxpayer dollars from pro-life Americans, should be sent to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which performs millions of abortions in this country.

According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood boasted more than $363 million in taxpayer funding, $363 million. By the way, that is the same year it performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. Every year since 2000 the government has increased taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, on average over a $22 million-a-year increase. And guess what. The number of abortions Planned Parenthood has performed has also steadily increased, even though the overall abortion rate in the United States has declined since 2008.

Planned Parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces its adoption referrals. In 2008, a woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic was 134 times more likely to have an abortion than to be referred for an adoption.

Planned Parenthood has also made a profit every year since 1987, including over a $63 million return profit in 2009. There is no justification for subsidizing Planned Parenthood's profit-making venture with taxpayer dollars.

There has been a recent onslaught of ads that claim Planned Parenthood is simply a leading provider of women's health services. But abortions, not other health services, not true health services-- abortions account for roughly one-third of the $1 billion income generated by its affiliated clinics.

Let me be clear. This provision would not cut all title X funding for health services such as breast cancer screenings, HIV testing, counseling, valuable family planning services. It would simply block funds, taxpayer dollars, from subsidizing America's largest abortion provider. That has the support of the American people, even well beyond America's prolife numbers. I believe the sanctity of human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity. Again, this goes even beyond that.

The time has come to respect the wishes of the great majority of Americans, pro-life and many pro-choice, who say using taxpayer dollars to fund huge abortion providers--Planned Parenthood is the biggest-- simply is not right. We have to cut. We have to get responsible. This is certainly a key place to start.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to focus on another grave threat to our economic recovery and jobs: skyrocketing energy prices, and particularly the price of gasoline at the pump.

Madam President, I don't have to point out to Americans all over the country, and Louisianans all over my State, because they see it in front of them every time they go get a new tank of gas, the ever- increasing energy prices, the ever-increasing prices at the pump. Right now, on average, nationwide, the price at the pump is $3.51 a gallon. That is about 80 cents higher than the average price a year ago. Most Americans know it is not stopping there. They see $4 gasoline coming sooner rather than later, and who knows how far it will go beyond $4 at the pump?

This is a real threat. We are trying to come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression and this is an immediate threat to put the brakes on any recovery we may be mounting, and it is surely a real threat and a real hit to Louisiana and American families. It is a direct hit to their pocketbooks.

Louisianans, like all Americans, hear talking heads on TV, national economists, saying we don't have any real inflation. Listen, they are hit every time they go to the pump. They know there is inflation in key prices such as gasoline, and that is a big hit to their family budget.

This has sparked somewhat of a breakthrough in thinking among the ranks of the Obama administration. Let me explain what I mean by that. Recently President Obama's Energy Secretary, Secretary Chu, focused on supply and he said we need to increase supply to temper prices and mitigate the increasing price at the pump. He said we need to do this by convincing the Saudi Arabians to increase their supply of oil on the world market: ``That's going to mitigate the price increase.'' He said further, ``We're hoping market forces will take care of this.'' I at least give Secretary Chu and the Obama administration marks for this breakthrough understanding that supply is a big part of the equation. In fact, it is half of the supply and demand equation that yields price.

Recently the White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley made a comment that also went to supply. He said this weekend, on some of the weekend talk shows, that we need to consider opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more product on the market, to increase supply--also to temper prices, to stop these ever-increasing prices. Again, I at least give Mr. Daley and the Obama administration credit for finally realizing, and it is a bit of a breakthrough, that supply is a big part of the issue.

Where I disagree, where I want a further breakthrough, is that they need to focus on domestic supply we can create and that we can control in America. Unfortunately, they are not doing that yet.

I have come to the floor many times to talk about the virtual shutdown of the Gulf of Mexico to energy production since the BP disaster. I will mention that again because that is at the heart of this issue. The administration understands we need to increase supply. What about domestic supply? What about the Gulf of Mexico? What about all of our other vast energy resources that we are taking off the table and shutting down? What about that supply? That is the first place we should turn, that is the first action we should take. That is what can help us control our own destiny.

Instead, there has been a virtual shutdown of the Gulf of Mexico to energy production. That has reduced direct and indirect employment in the oil and gas and service industries. It threatens 93,000 jobs for every year until 2035 unless we reverse it. It could

reduce an additional 82,000 jobs every year through 2035 in non-oil and gas-related industries that are still impacted indirectly by this shutdown.

It reduces annual GDP by over $20 billion a year, a cumulative impact of $500 billion in the next 25 years, unless we immediately reverse course. It reduces long-term U.S. oil production by 27 percent. Long- term U.S. foreign oil imports are increased by 19 percent. Groppe, Long & Littell estimates--that is a consulting firm--show that over 23 wells per month are needed to maintain current production levels in the shallow water of the Gulf of Mexico. Since the moratorium was lifted on shallow water drilling, the formal moratorium, the administration has only approved permits for new wells at a pace of 1.8 per month--so 23 versus 1.8.

In deep water it is even worse. There has been one deepwater exploratory permit issued since the BP disaster and only one, in 9 months. As a result, six deepwater rigs have departed the gulf: Discovery America's Transocean has been moved to the Black Sea/ Mediterranean. Ocean Baroness of Diamond Offshore, a semisubmersible rig, has been moved to Brazil. Ocean Confidence, also with Diamond, has been moved to West Africa. Ocean Endeavor, also with Diamond, has moved to the Black Sea area. Stena Drilling has moved major equipment to Eastern Canada. Transocean has moved some of their equipment to West Africa. According to ODS, another five major rigs are scheduled to leave the U.S. Gulf of Mexico by April 1. So that will put that 6 number up to 11. New well drilling has fallen from 20 in the first quarter of 2009 to 1 in the first quarter of 2010.

Again, I applaud the administration's realization that supply is a big part of the issue; that we need to increase supply in order to stop these skyrocketing prices which are hurting Louisianans and Americans every day. But let's focus on domestic supply. Let's focus on the Gulf of Mexico. Let's focus on things we can directly control--not just begging the Saudi Arabians to increase their production. I want to create jobs here, not just in Saudi Arabia. I want our children to be independent, to control their own future, not to have to beg some Saudi Arabian prince.

With regard to Mr. Daley's suggestion of opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you know the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is just that. It is supposed to be strategic--for crises, for our security, our national security as a country. It is not the Salazar petroleum reserve to open, to cover up the complete ineptitude and foot dragging at the Interior Department in terms of issuing permits for our own drilling. So let's not play politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, let's not treat it as the Salazar petroleum reserve, to cover up the mistakes and ineptitude and foot dragging of the Interior Department.

Let's increase domestic production, let's address the supply side of the equation that way, aggressively, and create American jobs in the process. Louisianans are depending on that. Americans are depending on that--for jobs and to mitigate prices at the pump so we do not have these ever-increasing prices that could kill a recovery that we are hoping to mount and that could hurt every American's pocketbook, every American family's budget.

I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together on this point and urge the administration to act. Yes, they are right, supply is key. Let's start with domestic action, domestic supply, and mitigate price increases that way.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment, which is a sense of the Senate that this body and the House should pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Clearly, I think in the mind of every American, our top domestic challenge is to get hold of our fiscal situation to move us to a sustainable path, to tighten the belt of the Federal Government just like every American family has been doing for many years in this recession.

We are making a start, a real but modest start, in terms of this year's budget. I was happy the Senate followed the lead of the House and passed a 2-week CR today that has substantial cuts, the exact level of cuts as the House passed for the rest of the fiscal year. I support that important start in terms of this year's budget. Of course, we need to finish the job by passing a spending bill for the entire rest of the fiscal year with that level of cuts or more.

That is a start, but it is only a start. The other thing I think we need to do is create reform, a structure that demands that Congress stay on that path to a balanced budget until we get there. I believe the most important thing we can create to demand that is a straitjacket for Congress, if you will, a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, I think Congress, time and time again over years and decades, has proved we need to put Congress in that straitjacket if we are ever going to get to a sustainable fiscal situation, a balanced budget.

This is not some academic debate. This is about the future of our kids, our grandkids, and our immediate future because we could be put into economic chaos at any time because of our untenable fiscal situation. Forty cents of every $1 the Federal Government is spending is borrowed money--so much of that money borrowed from the Chinese. This is about whether we are going to remain the most free, most prosperous country in human history. This is about if we are going to remain our own masters or if we are going to have to look to the folks who are lending us all this money, including the Chinese, for consent in terms of how we map our future.

Is that the future we want to hand to our kids? It is certainly not the future I want to hand to my kids. That is what it is all about. Again, it is not far off in the distance. This is an immediate challenge.

This could lead to an immediate economic crisis unless we get ourselves on the path to a balanced budget quickly. Again, step 1 is cuts this year, a budget that is going back to 2008 levels, prestimulus, pre-Obama budget, this year. That is step 1.

But step 2 is some sort of important structural reform such as a balanced budget constitutional amendment that puts a straitjacket on Congress, that demands that we get there in a reasonable period of time.

The huge majority of States operate under exactly this type of constitutional amendment. The huge majority of municipalities, towns, cities, other jurisdictions, operate under this sort of constraint. It is hard sometimes. It demands tough choices. In times such as these, in a recession, it demands real cuts.

But guess what. Just like a family does sitting around their kitchen table making their family budget fit reality, States do that, cities do that, towns do that, and Congress should have to do that for the Federal Government. Congress should have to tighten its belt, like families do reacting to their budget reality sitting around the kitchen table.

I think it is perfectly clear we are not going to get there, unless and until we are made to through some sort of mechanism such as the balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Even beyond the deadline imposed by the expiration of the current or any other CR spending bill, we have another looming deadline, which is, whenever the United States Federal Government hits up on the current debt ceiling. That is going to happen sometime between late March and May is the projection.

I firmly believe it would be enormously irresponsible to address that issue until and unless we put ourselves on this road to reform, until and unless we pass something like a meaningful balanced budget constitutional amendment. So this sense of the Senate is meant as a first step. I applaud Senator Lee for putting it before us as that first step. Let's say yes. Let's say we are going to do it.

Then, of course, most important, let's do it. Let's do it now. The clock is ticking. Let's do it now, well before we reach any crisis point such as coming up on the debt limit I spoke about.

Let's act responsibly, which means acting now. Let's take up the Nation's important business, which is spending and debt. Let's avoid the economic calamity that is threatened if we stay on the current path, which is completely, utterly unsustainable. It is not just me saying that, it is everybody knowing it, including Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He testified before us at the Banking Committee yesterday and said exactly the same thing.

Ben Bernanke is not some ideologue. He is not some tea party conservative. But he said yesterday, very clearly, three important things. First of all, the greatest medium and long-term challenge we face as a country is our fiscal posture. Secondly, the fiscal path we are on is completely and utterly unsustainable. Third, while that is a long-term challenge, it poses short-term, immediate consequences.

If we do not get on a sustainable path now, immediately in the short term, we could have immediate short-term consequences, even economic crisis. Let's avoid that. Let's do right by our children. Let's tighten our belt, as American families have been for several years in this recession, and let's demand that we keep on that path with a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from Vermont.

Madam President, I ask for regular order on the Vitter amendment.

Madam President, I now send a modification to the desk.

Madam President, I will be happy to explain the context to the chairman of the committee.

This modification simply merges what was previously a separate Toomey amendment and a separate Vitter amendment. We had hoped to have votes on those as a first-degree and second-degree amendment. That wasn't possible, so this is a merged amendment. Let me explain what this amendment does.

The basis of this amendment is Senator Toomey's Full Faith and Credit Act. It is very important. It simply says if we ever as a country reach our debt ceiling, then even if we go beyond the debt ceiling, we will use all the tools available to the Treasury Secretary to continue for as long as possible to pay to make good on U.S. debt, we are not going to immediately default on U.S. debt.

There have been a lot of scare tactics, in my opinion, suggesting that if we ever reach that day of bumping up against our statutory debt ceiling, the very next day, the very next hour, the United States would default on its debt--not make good on our obligations of the U.S. Treasury. That isn't true. It doesn't have to be true. This important reform will ensure that it is not true. We get far more revenue into the U.S. Treasury than has to be spent simply to service the debt. So the underlying Toomey bill, which is the heart of this amendment, says we will make good on those obligations. They will be the top priority.

The original Vitter amendment, which is now merged together with the Toomey amendment, says the exact same thing with regard to Social Security payments. I am sure we would all agree that seniors on fixed incomes depend on their Social Security checks. So the Vitter part of this now merged Toomey-Vitter amendment says we will honor Social Security payments in the same status as debt payments and we will use Federal revenues first for those purposes before we do anything else. What that means is, if we ever do bump up on the debt ceiling, we would not stop Social Security checks the next day. We would not stop Social Security checks the next month. We could have many weeks--probably a few months--honoring all of those commitments in the areas of Social Security and debt on U.S. Treasury notes.

So that is the purpose of this now merged Toomey-Vitter amendment. We are not suggesting that it is necessarily a good idea to bump up the debt ceiling. We are saying, Let's all take a deep breath, let's not use scare tactics, let's not use hysteria, and let's plan ahead.

What we hope will be the outcome is that we will not only deal with the debt ceiling in a responsible way, but before that, we will also deal with our underlying fiscal crisis in a responsible way. We will make real and serious budget reforms to get on a fiscally sustainable path which we are clearly not on right now.

This morning Senator Toomey and I were in the Banking Committee hearing where Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve testified. Chairman Bernanke said again, as he has numerous times over the last year and more, that the fiscal path we are on as a Federal Government is completely unsustainable. He also said that is the single biggest long-term threat to our economy, and he also said while it is a long- term problem, it could manifest itself in serious negative consequences in the short term. So this could rattle our economy and even begin to create an economic crisis--who knows when--possibly in the short term.

So the clock is ticking and we need serious budget reform, and this combined Toomey-Vitter amendment would take the hysteria out of the discussion and hopefully urge us to take concrete action on that serious budget reform before it is too late.

With that, I wish to yield to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

Yes.

Yes. We will be seeking a single vote on the amendment, as modified.

First of all, as I understand it, it has been modified, so it has become----

If I could yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I think he can help answer the question. But to clarify from my point of view, we are seeking a vote--a single vote, which I think we are very close to locking in--on the new modified amendment, which is a combination of the separate Vitter and Toomey amendments.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Again, this amendment, as modified, simply says that if we were ever to reach the statutory debt limit for the Federal Government, then revenue coming in would go first to service two things: Social Security checks and interest on the Federal debt. So that would not be put in jeopardy for months down the line.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to take, quite frankly, some of the scare tactics and some of the hysteria out of the debate and to urge us to act. None of us wants to bump up on the debt ceiling. None of us is advocating that. What we are advocating is to take action now, real serious budget reform, to put us on a more fiscally sustainable path. We need to do that now. That is why we came to the floor with these concerns on the patent bill. We need to do that now. We need to act now. We need to get on a fiscally sustainable path now. The clock is ticking, as Chairman Bernanke reminded us before the Banking Committee this morning.

With that, I look forward to locking in a vote on this matter, and in the consent that establishes that, we will be happy to withdraw the other amendment and simply have one vote on the now combined Toomey- Vitter amendment.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

On behalf of Senator Coburn, I object.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Toomey- Vitter amendment, which we will vote on in the series of two votes starting at 5 p.m. The idea behind the Toomey-Vitter amendment is very simple. It says if we ever reach the debt ceiling, the government, as a top first priority, will use revenue to pay two things: first, proper interest payments on our U.S. Government debt; and secondly, Social Security checks to seniors.

The motivation behind this amendment is simple. First, those two things should be legitimately a top priority. No one should want the U.S. Government to default on its debt and no one should want the immediate stoppage, or the stoppage at any time, of Social Security checks to seniors. So first, it is legitimate to rank those two functions as an absolute top priority.

The second motivation behind this amendment is to take some of these scare tactics and hysteria out of this debate. Too many people, in my opinion, have been saying if we ever reach the debt ceiling, the next day all Social Security checks will stop and all payments will stop on U.S. Treasury bills--on government debt. That is not true. There is no reason it has to be true. This amendment, when passed into law, will ensure it is not true. It will ensure we look at this situation with focus and calmness and not hysteria and scare tactics.

The goal, I am certain--and I know it is for Senator Toomey, my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania--is not that we not default on our debt and not that we reach the debt ceiling, but it is that we take strong, responsible action well ahead of any threatened event to put us on a fiscally sustainable path.

Just this morning, both Senator Toomey and I were in a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee and the witness--the only witness--was Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. He said very clearly several things directly pertinent to this discussion. First, he said we are on a fiscally unsustainable path. Our budget situation is absolutely unsustainable. Second, he said that is the biggest long-term threat to our economy--the biggest threat. Third, he said that although it is a long-term problem, it could create a short- term crisis. It could create a crisis that could hit immediately, at any time. So we need to act and we need to act strongly.

Madam President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Madam President, I think I control the floor and I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, pursuant to a conversation with the distinguished committee chairman, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment to call up the Toomey- Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this Toomey-Vitter amendment is the Full Faith and Credit Act--the concept that has been discussed for several weeks prior to this week. It is very timely, as we are all rightly focused on the spending and debt issue with the Thursday deadline coming up.

No one that I know of wants the government to be shut down in any way, shape, or form. No one that I know of wants any massive, significant disruption. But lots of people that I know of, including many in Louisiana, want us to change business as usual in Washington, starting with spending and debt. This full faith and credit amendment is an important step in that regard. Because of the time limitations in front of us before we move to other pending business at 4:30, I have agreed to come back at a later time to fully lay out this Toomey-Vitter amendment, as well as a second-degree Vitter amendment that I will advance with regard to Social Security.

It is very important to discuss this spending, to put it on the floor and start this debate with vigor about spending and debt, changing the fiscal policy of this country so that we can get on a more sustainable path. There is only one thing certain about this debate; that is, if we don't change the fiscal path we are on, it will lead to an economic disaster.

I urge us to debate these important proposals immediately, well before the Thursday deadline, and come to a strong, positive resolution. I will be back on the floor soon with Senator Toomey to fully explain this amendment, as well as the Vitter second-degree amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McConnell amendment No. 13 that would completely repeal President Obama's, in my view, unconstitutional health care bill. Of course, I was an active participant in the debate last Congress about ObamaCare and fought that tooth and nail. The day after it passed into law, I introduced a freestanding measure to repeal it completely. The first day of this new Congress that I could file bills, I reintroduced that measure. Of course, for all those reasons, I certainly support this amendment that accomplishes that important goal.

Let me begin by responding to the suggestions of my distinguished colleague from Vermont. Everybody who wants to repeal this law, including me--we do not want to do away with the idea that you should not be shoved off insurance because of preexisting conditions, that you should not have portability, you should not be able to meet those obligations. We do not think that at all. We are, however, for complete repeal for a very simple reason.

What is wrong with this bill, what is wrong with ObamaCare is not one detail here and one comma there, it is not at the periphery of the plan; it is at the heart of the plan, it is the essentials, it is the core of the plan. We can and should and must pass significant reforms such as protection for individuals with preexisting conditions. That is why we have introduced those measures. We have advocated those measures in a targeted way. That does not mean we can or should or must preserve the whole of ObamaCare, which has significant problems at the core of that gargantuan bill.

Let me mention four of those core problems from my point of view.

The first is--maybe most fundamental, most basic--there are important elements at the core of ObamaCare that are flatout unconstitutional. Even if they were not unconstitutional, they would be unwise because they are a dramatic expansion of the power and role and authority of the Federal Government.

The most obvious is an absolute mandate in the bill, a mandate from your Federal Government that every man, woman, and child in the United States must buy health insurance.

This is unprecedented. There has never been a mandate like that from the Federal Government or any level of government. There has never been this forced purchasing of a product in the private marketplace.

Some people bring up the comparison with car insurance, but that is not a close comparison at all because at the State level that is not a forced mandate; that is simply saying: If you want the right, the privilege of driving a car, which is not some constitutionally guaranteed right, then part of the deal is you have to cover the damages from any accident. So that is not a good comparison.

So this absolute mandate that every man, woman, and child in the United States go out and purchase health insurance, purchase a product in the private marketplace, is unprecedented, and for that reason it is unconstitutional. It is an unprecedented expansion of the power and role and authority of the Federal Government.

In the last few days, there have been hearings--quite late to the hour, but there have been hearings in the Senate in the committees about the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. Of course, this central question came up. I found the response of some of the witnesses at the hearings who favored ObamaCare or advocate for ObamaCare pretty startling on this point. One Senator in the committee asked them: Well, if we can mandate constitutionally that every American man, woman, and child buy health insurance, why can't we pass a law that says obesity is a real problem in this country--which it is--and therefore we are going to mandate that every man, woman, and child in America eat certain vegetables and certain healthy foods every day? Do you know what the response was from this advocate of ObamaCare? Well, I don't think you can mandate that they eat the food; you can only mandate that they buy the food. Great. Very reassuring. To me, that is not an argument for the constitutionality of ObamaCare; that is a clear argument for the unconstitutionality and danger of the ObamaCare Federal power overreach.

There are many other aspects of ObamaCare which also pose serious constitutional problems. My point is, these are big problems, and they are not minor details which we can tweak with amendments. They go to the heart of this gargantuan bill.

Similarly is the dramatic expansion of government and the cost of that expansion. Instead of controlling and lowering health care costs, ObamaCare is expanding government and expanding health care costs. In fact, the Senate Budget Committee estimates that the bill will cost $2.6 trillion for the first 10 years of full implementation. All of that new spending does not lower health care costs, and there are multiple sources affirming that. Yet President Obama continues to claim that the act will ``slow these rising costs.'' Maybe he did not see that CMS's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, said that overall national health expenditures will increase by a total of $311 billion over the next 10 years under the law. Now, when the CMS Actuary was asked directly if President Obama's health care bill would hold down unsustainable medical costs just last week, that Actuary replied: ``I would say false.''

Last year, CBO also confirmed our concerns about the bill's inability to contain costs, stating, ``In CBO's judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.''

In addition to increased costs for the government and present and future taxpayers, health insurance premiums will increase for Americans and their

families. In fact, the CBO estimated that premiums will increase by $2,100 even though at least candidate Obama promised to lower premiums by $2,500 per family.

So that big expansion of government and cost and health care costs, including taxes and health care premiums, is another big problem. Again, this is not a minor detail which we can fix with a perfecting amendment, with a few tweaks to the bill. This goes to the core of the entire plan.

Another fundamental issue which goes to the core of the entire plan is the fact--and I think it is a well-established fact--that the ObamaCare plan will cost us not just money, not just increased taxes, not just increased health insurance premiums, it will cost us jobs. That should always be worrisome, but it should be particularly worrisome as we stand here today and debate this in a horrible economy, as we are trying to come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Again, this is not just any period of time; this is a time of prolonged historic unemployment.

This bill costs us jobs, and this bill absolutely decimates job creation. The bill taxes jobs and places more burdens on job creators. For instance, the National Federation of Independent Business, representing thousands of American small businesses, including many in Louisiana, my home State, said:

If new taxes, new mandates and new government programs in