Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday, I was on the Senate floor talking about this piece of legislation that is now pending before the Senate, passed

by the House of Representatives earlier this week. I am a sponsor and supporter of cut, cap, and balance and believe it is a path toward responsibility that we need to demonstrate in the Senate, in the Congress, and here in America.

It seems to me it certainly is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling, but it is equally or more irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling without making adjustments in the way we do business in Washington, DC. Clearly, cutting spending is a component of that, capping spending is a portion of our national economy, returning it to the days, just a few years ago, in which we were spending ``only'' 18-- I say ``only'' in quotes, perhaps--``only'' 18 percent of our gross national product by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, in the last few years that 18 percent has grown to 24.2 percent.

So reducing some spending, capping that spending in the intermediate future, so it does not exceed a certain portion of the national economy, and, finally, passing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems to me to be a reasonable, rational approach to solving the problems we face.

I also indicated yesterday that in my view there is a fourth component. It is cut, cap, balance, and grow. I do not want us to forget the importance of a growing economy. The last time we had our budget that was in balance, close to being in balance, was at the end of the term of President Clinton. Yes, there was some spending restraint back in those days, in those years. Republicans and Democrats could not get together and pass major pieces of legislation that increased spending, so that spending restraint was an important component.

But the other part of that is the economy was growing and people were working and, as a result, they were paying taxes. That is the more enjoyable component of our work, in addition to restraining spending, capping its percentage of the economy, and putting a balanced budget in place so we do not get back into this mess.

The other aspect of that is to make sure we make the policy decisions in our Nation's Capital that allow a businessperson, an employer, to make the decision that now is the time to invest in plant and equipment, now is the time to add additional employees. Yet there are so many aspects of decisions that have been made in our Nation's Capital over a long period of time that now come together and discourage an individual business owner, a potential employer from making the decision: I am going to invest in the economy.

We have all heard the numbers as to the amount of money sitting on the sidelines in the U.S. economy. In my view, the recession we are in has lingered longer than necessary because there is so much uncertainty in regard to what is going to happen next, and a large portion of that uncertainty comes from the inability to predict what policy decisions are going to be made in the Senate, across the hall in the House, and what the Obama administration is going to propose and potentially put in place in regard to rules and regulations.

I certainly hope my colleagues in the Senate will take the proposal by the House of Representatives as serious work. I certainly agree there can be negotiations had. There has been, as I indicated yesterday, some concern about the specific language of the constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget, and we ought not draw the line in the sand and say it has to be exactly the way it is written.

Let's come together and work to find a reasonable, rational solution based upon the outline this legislation provides. From time to time, it has been considered a radical piece of legislation--labeled that way. Yet so many of the things we do in our everyday lives, that States across our Nation encounter and the way they conduct business are certainly capsulized in cut, cap, and balance.

I know there has been significant talk about raising taxes. I heard the Senator from Arizona speak to this before, just a few moments ago. When an individual is struggling to pay the bills, they do not often have the opportunity to ask for a pay raise. What we do at home, what we should do in our own lives, is to reduce our spending levels. Simply asking for more money to meet our current obligations is not usually an option.

That tax issue goes with my comments a moment ago about the importance of growing the economy. Too often, we look at taxes as a source of revenue. I am for raising revenue, but I am for raising revenue by a growing economy and people being at work paying those taxes, not by raising the tax rates but by improving the economy and allowing good things to happen to families, individuals, and businesses across the country. So that Tax Code is an important component of this issue of growing our economy and getting our deficit back in line, back to some level of responsible behavior here.

One-year Anniversary of Dodd-Frank Legislation

Mr. President, the additional point I wish to make--in addition to what I have said already today but also in addition to what I said yesterday to the Senate--is that this is the 1-year anniversary of the passage of Dodd-Frank.

Huge financial regulations were put in place by legislation that, just 1 year ago today, was passed by the House and Senate and signed by President Obama. In my view, that legislation is another component of the difficulty in knowing what is coming down the road--hundreds of regulations yet to be proposed, pursued, and enacted, so many of our businesses and financial institutions do not know what to expect and, therefore, again are waiting to see what happens in the Federal Government, what decisions are made here, in this case not by Congress now but by regulators up the street in our Nation's Capital.

So on this anniversary of the passage of that legislation, I wish to again highlight what I think is a commonsense reform to that legislation. A part of Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A number of Senators have signed a letter to President Obama trying to make clear that before a head of that Bureau is going to be confirmed by the Senate, we believe that structural reform, change in the nature of that organization, needs to occur.

Again, these seem very straightforward and common sense to me. But rather than have a single head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I would ask that--in fact, I have introduced legislation to do this, and my colleagues, in signing that letter, asked the President to help us change that individual to a board or commission similar to other government agencies charged with financial oversight, so the power does not rest in a sole individual.

Then, again, one would think Congress would never want to give up the authority to determine the appropriations for this agency. Instead, the law, as currently written, provides for a draw against the Federal Reserve as compared to where almost all agencies have to come to Congress and ask for their appropriations, which gives us, as legislators--me, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Appropriations--the opportunity to review, to have input, to provide oversight. We ought to change that formula by which the money comes directly from the Federal Reserve and put it back with the responsibility of this Congress making those decisions.

Finally, we want to have banking regulators--who oversee the safety and soundness of our financial institutions today--given meaningful input into the Bureau's operation, all designed to provide greater opportunity for us as Members of Congress, for the American people, to have input and oversight over what will be one of the largest agencies, most powerful regulators in our country's history, and certainly having significant creation of new rules and regulations that are going to, in some fashion, affect the U.S. economy.

Many of my community banks feel so overregulated today. There is a real concern or fear about making loans today--something that is very important for an economic recovery, that aspect of growing the economy--because they do not know what the next set of regulations is going to be.

In fact, for the passage of Dodd-Frank--the legislation we are now observing the 1-year anniversary of it becoming law--the GAO, our Government Accountability Office, estimates that the budgetary costs of Dodd-Frank will

exceed $1.25 billion. In addition to that, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 10 years, Dodd-Frank will take $27 billion directly from the U.S. economy in new fees and assessments on lenders and other financial companies.

So as we look at the legislation that is pending before us--cut, cap, and balance--my hope is we will expand--once we pass that legislation, we will get back to aggressively pursuing a projob, progrowth agenda. Jobs certainly are important for us in generating the revenues necessary to fund the Federal Government and to reduce our national debt. But there is nothing more important to Americans, to Kansans across our State, than being able to have a secure opportunity for employment, to put food on the family table, to save for their own retirement and their children's education.

I do believe--seriously believe--that a significant message that was delivered by the American people in the election of November 2010 was the reminder to us that we have the responsibility--again, government is not a creator of jobs, but we are the creator of an environment in which the private sector can create jobs.

So let's cut, cap, balance and grow the economy and strengthen the opportunity for every American to have a valuable and viable job, with the hope of improvement in their own lives, and, most importantly, make certain we pass on to the next generation of Americans the ability to pursue that American dream.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity of addressing the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jara Settles, an intern on my staff, have floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

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

Mr. President, in my view something significant happened yesterday in the House of Representatives. I am pleased with the outcome of the passage of the cut, cap, and balance legislation. I think we have a serious responsibility here in the Congress to see that we address the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Certainly the way we do that is important. I am one who believes it would be irresponsible not to address the debt ceiling, but I also believe it would be irresponsible only to address the debt ceiling without adequately taking into account the economic circumstances we are in and the tremendous debt our country faces.

There is no way we can continue down the path we are on. While it is easy for us to make accusations, the reality is that this country, through its Congress and through various administrations, has overspent year after year. The fact that 42 cents of every dollar we spend is now borrowed tells us we cannot continue down that path. In one of my townhall meetings this past weekend back in Kansas, the suggestion was we are willing to take a cut in what benefits we get from government but let's do this in a fair way and let's do an across-the-board reduction in Federal spending. The suggestion by the constituent was maybe if we all took 5 percent off of what we received, we would be fine.

I appreciate that attitude but it fails to recognize the magnitude of the problem. Reducing Federal spending by 5 percent across the board will not get us out of the financial circumstance we are in, will not restore fiscal sanity to our Nation. So while we are about, between now and August 2, seeing what we can do to raise the debt ceiling, in my view we have to come together with a plan that addresses the long-term financial condition of our Federal Government.

I am a supporter of cut, cap, and balance, and was pleased by the broad support that legislation received in the House. It is my understanding we will now consider that legislation here in the Senate this week. But I read the press reports and the political pundits who say that legislation is dead on arrival in the Senate. I encourage my colleagues not to reach that conclusion. It may be the one and only path we have to accomplish what we need to accomplish in the next 2 weeks. It may be this is one of the very few measures, if not the only one, that would pass the House of Representatives. We have now received in the Senate a message that says this is something we are willing to do. For a long time I have been told as a Senator there is nothing that will pass the House of Representatives that raises the debt ceiling. Yet we saw last night that was not the case. So let's not be so quick to say that the Senate will not address and seriously consider and potentially pass legislation based upon cut, cap, and balance.

In some circles, this concept of cut, cap, and balance is considered radical, extreme. Cutting spending is not extreme. That is what every Kansas family does when the budget gets too tight, when we have overspent, when the credit cards are maxed. We reduce our spending. It is unlikely we can go out and say I need a raise to solve our problems. Our employers are not that sympathetic. We ought not be so quick to say we need a raise. We ought to say what can we find within the government that we can reduce, that we can cut.

The idea of capping is certainly not radical. For the last 60 years, our country has averaged 18 percent of the gross national product in spending by the Federal Government. In the last couple of years that average has increased to 24, 25 percent. It would not be radical to move us back to the days in which we were living with 18 percent--what seems to me to be a significant percentage; if we would go back to the days in which only 18 percent of our gross national product was spent by the Federal Government.

Finally, balancing the budget is not a radical idea. Amending the Constitution ought to be done rarely and with great regard for this divinely inspired document, but the Constitution allows for an amendment process. In fact, it has been utilized to solve many of our country's problems and challenges over the time of history. It is not radical. Forty-nine States have a provision that requires them to have a balanced budget in some form or another at the end of the year. So amending the U.S. Constitution to say we are not ever going to get back in the mess we are in today certainly is worth pursuing. Of the cut, cap, and balance provisions, perhaps it is the constitutional amendment that is the most controversial among my colleagues. I certainly would express an interest to work with others to find the right constitutional amendment, the right language in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that met their concerns.

This cut, cap, and balance seems to me the path forward and the Senate should pass a version of cut, cap, and balance to not only allow the debt ceiling to be raised but to allow the debt ceiling to be raised only if we become responsible stewards of American taxpayer dollars.

I actually have a fourth component of cut, cap, and balance. I would say it is cut, cap, balance, and grow. The last time our fiscal house was in solvency--was solvent--was back at the end of President Clinton's administration. In part, Republicans and Democrats could not get along well enough in those days to spend money on big programs. There was legislation that was passed that was supported in a bipartisan way by President Clinton and Republicans in Congress to limit spending, so there was some spending restraint. But the reality is that the last time we had our fiscal house in order, that we were spending less money than we were taking in, was a time at which the economy was growing. If we want to address the issue of balancing our budget, we should focus much more attention than we have on growing the economy, putting people to work and allowing, as they work, that the taxes will be collected.

The greatest opportunity we have to improve people's lives is to create an environment in which jobs are created,

in which employers feel comfortable in investing in the future, buying plant and equipment and putting people to work. So while it is cut, cap, and balance today, we need to make certain we do not forget what is in my view that fourth component: Grow the economy. In my view that means a Tax Code that is certain and fair, that does not change, that is something a business person or a family can rely upon. It is also a regulatory environment that allows businesses to have the opportunity to grow their business.

The most common conversation I have had with a business owner in Kansas, walking through a manufacturing plant, some small business that manufactures a piece of agriculture equipment--that is pretty common in our State--the most common conversation we have is: Senator, what next is government going to do that puts me out of business? If that is the mindset, how do we ever expect that business person to reach the conclusion that they have the faith in the future to invest in their plant and equipment and in hiring new employees? We need to make certain our financial institutions, particularly our community banks, are not hamstrung by significant regulations that would discourage them from making loans and create uncertainty about the ability to do that, a tax regulatory and access-to-credit environment that says now is the time to invest in America, to put people to work.

I am here to urge my colleagues to seriously consider, not dismiss, cut, cap, and balance and upon its passage for us to immediately return to the progrowth agenda that allows people to have the faith the future of their country is bright and we return to them the opportunity for the next generation of Americans to understand the American dream can still be lived.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota and would indicate that, yes, Kansas is one of those 49 States in our Constitution in which we are prohibited in almost all ways of living beyond our means. It has been something that the Kansas legislature and Governor have lived with throughout the history of our State, including in today's environment where an economic downturn creates the circumstance in which there are less revenues. So the solution to the problem in Kansas is not a try for more revenue, it is a recognition that spending in difficult times has to be reduced. It is the restraint that we desperately need in Washington, DC, that is so common in State capitals and families and businesses across the country. While I have always indicated to Kansans, while we have this debate every year how to balance the revenues with the expenditures--and it is not an enjoyable debate--we are fortunate in Kansas we have to reach that conclusion and it is something we need in Washington, DC.

For a long time the political talk of Washington is that we are too likely to spend and tax. There is also a problem of spending and borrowing. We are now suffering the consequence. We are not immune from what we see in Greece and Italy and Portugal and Ireland. If we do not solve this problem that we face today in a responsible way, it will be solved for us by the markets, by those from whom we borrow money, determining we are no longer creditworthy. We don't have to worry much about that in Kansas because we have a constitutional provision that requires our legislature and Governor to reach the right conclusion, and it is why I thought this debate on the debt ceiling was the opportunity for us to force ourselves to do the things that politicians do not always like to do.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, it is appropriate that we are here on this July 4 holiday week. I joined a number of my colleagues last week who made it clear it was important for us to be here. Raising the debt ceiling is a significant issue we face, and while I am pleased to see the discussion ongoing on the Senate floor today, we do need actions that speak louder than our words. I say that knowing I am coming here to talk about an issue that we have attempted to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate now for a long time.

We have a looming financial crisis. All the Democratic leadership was capable of bringing up on the Senate floor this week was a sense of the Senate that wealthy Americans should pay their fair share of something.

I suppose we will have a discussion about that, which has begun and will continue for the next few days. But I believe Americans deserve leadership in our Nation's Capital to confront the real fiscal challenges--not just this desire to kick the can down the road and ignore the crisis we face.

In my view, our President and the Senate leadership have failed to lead. They have failed to adopt the President's own Deficit Reduction Commission report. The President has not proposed the results of that report. They have failed to pass a budget in over 2 years. They have failed to introduce a budget even in our committee this year, and the President's budget that he did propose this year is woefully inadequate in addressing the fiscal crisis, the deficits we face.

Crafting a budget is one of the basic responsibilities of Congress, but it has not happened. No country, business, or family can operate responsibly without a budget. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I would love to have a budget that set the guidelines for us to begin the process of determining how much money we should spend, what things might be increased, decreased, or eliminated. Without a budget, the appropriations process continues to falter and, in fact, it would not be surprising that once again we end up with either an omnibus spending bill or a continuing resolution.

The President and Senate Democrats have said they are serious about dealing with our Nation's debt crisis, but

actions will speak louder than words. The truth is the President's budget and the policies of this administration have made our problems worse.

During the last 2 years, the government has spent more than $7.3 trillion and increased the Nation's debt in just 2 years by more than $3.2 trillion. The President is missing and the Senate is dysfunctional. The struggling economy we are experiencing and the financial collapse around the corner is the most expected economic crisis in our lifetime. Yet nothing is being done to stop it.

The cochairs of the President's own Fiscal Commission have said the same thing and have warned that if we fail to take swift and serious action, the U.S. faces ``the most predictable economic crisis in its history.'' They predict such an event could occur in 2 years or less.

It is time to move past empty rhetoric and get serious about confronting the debt crisis. Delaying difficult decisions and simply increasing the debt ceiling once again without making any changes to the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars should not be an option. We cannot afford business as usual.

The President's solution is to raise revenues to balance the budget. But does anyone really believe that increased taxes will be used to pay down the debt or will it just be used for even more spending? History shows that money raised in Washington, DC, results in more spending in Washington, DC.

When families struggle to pay the bills, they do not simply ask for a pay raise; they cut their spending. The revenue increases we need are not tax increases but increased revenues that come from a growing economy.

The last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of President Clinton's term. Yes, there was some spending restraint, and Republicans and Democrats could not get along well enough to agree to spend a bunch of money, but the real reason the budget was balanced was that people were working and paying their taxes. We need a growing economy once again to balance the budget.

Increasing taxes reduces the chances of economic growth and the ability to create more and better jobs. If we increase taxes, we reduce the chance of economic growth and we reduce the chance of more and better paying jobs.

In Kansas, for example, the President proposes we increase taxes on those who own a business plane. Airplanes are a pretty important component of our State's economy, and this proposal would have a devastating impact upon the Wichita economy, which has already suffered the loss of thousands of jobs under declining business in this country.

Now is not the time to penalize a U.S. industry that produces the best quality airplanes in the world. The U.S. and North America ship a significant amount of business jets worldwide, more than any other region in the world. But because of the recession, nearly every aircraft manufacturer has had to cut jobs, some up to 50 percent of their workforce.

We see this in Kansas day in and day out, and yet the proposal is to make it more expensive to own an aircraft. This does not punish the owners of aircraft. It punishes the people who work every day to make an airplane.

To turn our economy around and put people back to work, Congress and the Obama administration should be implementing policies that encourage job creation, not diminish the chances; rein in burdensome government regulations; replace our convoluted Tax Code with one that is fair, simple, and certain; open foreign markets for American manufactured goods and agricultural products; and develop a comprehensive energy policy. Yet none of these are being done by this Senate.

Spending more has failed to stimulate our economy. Instead, we should cut government spending to reduce our deficit, cap spending so it does not continue to eat up more and more of our gross domestic product, and balance our budget so we do not get back in this mess once again.

First, it is time to cut government spending and change the way Washington, DC, spends taxpayer dollars. Mr. President, 40 cents of every dollar our Federal Government is spending is borrowed. One hundred percent of our tax revenue is spent on mandatory spending and interest payments on the debt. Everything else--defense, homeland security, energy, education--is borrowed. This year we will collect $2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion--a $1.5 trillion deficit.

CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, now projects that debt held by the public will exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product by 2021 under current policies. This is a 10-percent increase in debt relative to CBO's projections of only a year ago.

The debate over government spending is often seen as one that is philosophical or partisan bickering that always goes on in Washington, DC. And certainly I have heard, all of my adult life, the conversations that go on in Washington, DC, and on the talk shows, and in the newspapers, that talk about Republicans and Democrats arguing about balancing the budget and how much money we can spend, but the reality is this time it is different, and our failure to act will have dramatic consequences on the daily lives of Americans.

This is about whether Americans can find a job, can make their payments on their homes and automobiles, whether their kids have a bright future and can pursue the American dream. This is not a philosophical discussion for Washington, DC. This has real consequences for every American family.

We are not, unfortunately, immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. The failure to get our financial house in order and borrowing under control will lead to increased inflation, higher interest rates, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of living for every American. Our creditors may one day decide we are no longer creditworthy, and we will suffer the same consequences that other countries are now suffering that followed that path. We should learn from them.

Secondly, it is time to cap discretionary spending this year and next. We must demand enforceable statutory caps to return Federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product, where it has been for almost all of the past 60 years. Current Federal spending is now nearly 25 percent of gross domestic product and remains on track to be high over the course of the next 10 years.

Third, we must pass a balanced budget amendment. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the best way to discipline government officials. This amendment would require the President to submit and Congress to pass a balanced budget each and every year, cap Federal spending at no more than 18 percent of gross domestic product, and require a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to raise taxes.

Nothing here is unreasonable. Cut spending, cap the percentage of spending to GDP, and pass a balanced budget amendment. When did it become radical or even irresponsible to live within our means? We know what is going to happen if we do not act, and it would be immoral for us to look the other way or to kick the can down the road because the politics of these issues are too difficult to deal with.

Officials from the Obama administration warn that the failure of Congress to raise the legal debt limit would risk default. But the bigger economic threat that confronts our country are the consequences of allowing our country's pattern of spending and borrowing to continue without a serious plan to reduce that debt. Our out-of-control debt is slowing our economic growth and threatening the prosperity of future generations who will have to pay for our irresponsibility.

Our government is not on the verge of a financial meltdown because Republicans will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. We are at the point of financial collapse because Republicans and Democrats have spent money we do not have for way too long. We must use the leverage that raising the debt ceiling now presents to force elected officials to do something they otherwise would not do: curb spending, grow the economy, and balance the budget.

If we fail to respond, if we fail to act as we should, if we let this issue one more time pass for somebody else to solve because it is so difficult, we will reduce the opportunities the next generation of Americans have to pursue the American dream.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 104. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the nomination of GEN David H. Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. President, today, I was unavoidably absent for votes No. 95 and No. 96. At the time of the votes, I was attending a memorial service at Fort Riley, KS, for six soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the Vitter amendment No. 499 and the DeMint amendment No. 510 to S. 679.

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

Mr. President, on Friday of last week, the U.S. Department of Labor released a dismal update on our Nation's economy. Not only did our Nation's unemployment rate rise to 9.1 percent, but the number of Americans looking for work increased to 14 million, and those who have been jobless for at least 6 months climbed 45.1 percent.

It is clear the current economic policies are not working in our favor. In fact, I suggest they are working against us, creating an environment of uncertainty and hampering job growth in America. When the message coming from Washington, DC, is more taxes, more regulation, and more intrusion in the free market system, it is no wonder businesses are not hiring additional workers.

Americans are looking for leadership to get our economy back on its feet so they can find a job and provide for their families. In a recent survey, 90 percent of Americans said the economy is in bad shape and, by a margin of 2 to 1, Americans said our economy is on the wrong track. I couldn't agree more. Changing the course of our economy will require Washington, DC, changing its course.

Instead of creating barriers to job growth, Congress and the Obama administration should be implementing policies that encourage job creation. History shows that sustainable economic growth starts with the private sector. So Congress and the administration have a responsibility to create an environment where businesses can flourish and start hiring again, and that starts by pursuing a series of progrowth policies.

First, in my view, Congress must rein in government regulation and stop passing burdensome mandates that come at the expense of that job creation. As I tour manufacturing plants and other businesses in my home State of Kansas, owners often ask: What is the next thing coming from Washington that will put me out of business? Jobs in this country are undercut with each new government regulation because it drives up the cost of doing business, erodes our global competitiveness, and limits the access to credit that businesses need to grow. Rather than hiring new employees, businesses are spending their resources on complying with these burdensome regulations and costly mandates--from the EPA's effort to regulate carbon to the mandates imposed by the new health care law.

According to the Small Business Administration, the smallest businesses--those with less than 20 employees--spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with Federal regulations. That is roughly $10,585 per employee to comply with all Federal regulations, and very small firms are burdened even more per employee.

Small business, as we know, is the backbone of the American economy. Those businesses employ half our private sector workers and have generated 65 percent of new jobs over the last 20 years. So it makes no sense to drive up their operating costs with additional government regulations because that leaves them with fewer resources to hire new workers.

Second, Congress can spur economic growth by replacing our convoluted and burdensome Tax Code with one that is fair, simple, and certain. When businesses know what to expect, they can better plan for future expenses and will invest in their companies, grow, and hire new workers.

Unfortunately, Congress is often too shortsighted when it comes to tax policy. A 1-year or 2-year extension of tax cuts does not give businesses the certainty they need to plan for that future. Employers have to make decisions about the future of their business today, and given the fact that their taxes will rise in the near future, they are reluctant to hire new workers or expand their business. If we are serious about creating jobs in this country, we have to give our country's job creators the ability to plan for the future and a Tax Code that encourages investment.

Third, Congress must open foreign markets for American manufactured goods and agricultural products. Across the country, thousands of Americans depend upon exports for jobs, including more than one-quarter of all manufacturing workers in Kansas. By increasing our Nation's exports, we will create jobs and opportunities for all Americans without raising taxes or increasing the Federal budget. We should be exporting our manufactured goods and agriculture products, not our jobs.

Unfortunately, trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, for example, have been stalled for 4 years, and each day that passes, we risk losing more of our market share to our competitors. During this delay, Colombia has moved forward on trade deals with Canada, Chile, the European Union, Brazil, and Argentina. On July 1, a pending agreement between the European Union and Korea will go into effect. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries continue to move forward in their trading relationships with our trading partners.

Together, the trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are worth an estimated $13 billion in U.S. exports. The agreement with Korea alone is worth $11 billion and would create an estimated 70,000 new jobs for Americans.

It is past time for the President to send Congress implementing language for these trade agreements so we can open more markets for American goods and agricultural commodities. When American businesses are given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field for these markets, they will succeed and more jobs will be created here at home.

Fourth, the United States, to remain competitive in the global market, must develop a comprehensive energy policy that allows for ample energy supply that is both affordable and reliable. Rising gas prices and recent events in the Middle East have again demonstrated the importance of having access to a reliable energy supply. Higher energy prices are not only threatening

our global competitiveness, they are also hampering our economic recovery. I don't know how we can expect our economy to recover when energy prices are what they are. But when employers have access to reliable energy supplies, they can spend their resources on hiring new workers rather than on those escalating energy costs.

In my view, no single form of energy can provide the answer. To meet our country's energy needs, we must develop traditional sources of oil, natural gas and coal, encourage the development of renewable energy sources such as biofuels, wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower and expand the use of nuclear energy, as well as encourage conservation.

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service found that our country's resources are far greater than those of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined. In fact, our combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal supplies are the largest on the planet. Yet, in 2009, the administration canceled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah and last year suspended 61 leases in Montana. The administration has also restricted access to oil and gas exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast--although these two areas hold commercial oil reserves of 28 billion barrels and up to 142 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. More production of energy in the U.S. means more jobs in the U.S. and more U.S. workers at work and lower energy costs for businesses and their employees.

Finally, Congress must reduce government spending to bring about this economic growth. I think the debate on government spending is often seen as some philosophical discussion or a partisan political bickering opportunity here in Washington, DC. But the reality is out of control government borrowing and spending has very real consequences for the daily lives of Americans. Our failure to balance the budget will result in increased inflation, higher interest rates, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of living for every American. But this reality has not yet sunk in here in Washington, DC, despite several recent warnings.

At the end of April, Standard & Poor's, one of the world's big three credit rating agencies, downgraded our Nation's future financial outlook from ``stable'' to ``negative.'' S&P said our country has ``very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness--and the path to addressing these is not clear.''

Furthermore, just last week another credit rating agency, Moody's--if we needed another reminder--warned that our failure to reduce our growing deficit could prompt them to downgrade their outlook on our AAA rating to negative. Without a ``credible agreement on substantial deficit reduction''--this is Moody's talking--this could happen as soon as next month. This would have a devastating impact on our already struggling economy.

Reducing our Nation's debt will require us to work together to craft a serious plan. President Obama's proposal to balance budgets in part by raising taxes on businesses, in my view, would only make our economic circumstances worse.

Washington does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. It is time for us to work together and pass a responsible budget to reduce our deficit this year, next year, and far into the future. The plan should include significant spending reductions, a balanced budget amendment to restrict Washington's future ability to borrow money that would put us right back in the mess we are in today, and should address our long-term unfunded mandates.

As John Adams once quipped: ``Facts are stubborn.'' And the facts tell us that Washington must change direction if we are to grow our economy and put people back to work. The failed economy we are experiencing and the financial collapse around the corner is the most expected economic crisis in our lifetime. We know what is going to happen if we do not act, and it would be immoral for us to look the other way or to kick the can down the road because the politics of these issues are too difficult to deal with.

Americans deserve leadership here in our Nation's Capital to confront these challenges and not to push them off to the next generation of Americans. If we do so, if we confront these issues correctly in a responsible way, businesses will succeed, profits will be made, employees will be hired, and Americans will again be able to live and pursue the American dream.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on Thursday, in a speech on the Middle East, President Obama said:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be

based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that

secure and

recognized borders are established for both states.

While the President has since sought to revise or clarify his remarks, it is valuable to remind ourselves what a retreat to the pre- 1967 boundaries would mean for the security of Israel.

After Israel declared independence in 1948, it was invaded by five neighboring armies, and an armistice line was subsequently established in 1949. This line is known as the Green Line. While some refer to it as a border, it was never officially recognized as an international border.

If Israel were forced to retreat to the Green Line--its pre-1967 boundary--Israel would be only 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. Such close borders are untenable today and would subject Israel's population to great and grave danger.

Following the Six Day War, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 affirmed Israel's right to secure and recognized borders. As Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out, calls for Israel to withdraw to those ``secure and recognized'' borders have never been interpreted as being synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries. A quick look at a map of Israel will explain why these boundaries cannot be secure.

Prime Minister Netanyahu today, in a joint meeting of Congress, reminded us that ``Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size.'' Two-thirds of Israel's population and infrastructure lies within a 60-mile strip along the Mediterranean coastline. Tel Aviv would only be 11 miles away from a Palestinian state with its border as the Green Line, and Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's largest and busiest, would be a mere 4 miles away. It would only take one rocket fired at Ben Gurion for the entire airport to shut down, isolating Israel from the rest of the world.

With the Green Line as its border, the dangers to Israel come not only because of the short distances between major Israeli cities and a Palestinian state, but also from the geography of the land. The 60-mile strip along Israel's coastline lies below the hilly heights of the West Bank. With control of the high terrain, terrorists could easily target and terrorize much of Israel's population just as they have from Gaza but with even more deadly accuracy.

When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Israel's leaders had hoped the Palestinians would demonstrate they could live peacefully with Israel. Instead, Hamas assumed power and Israelis living in the southern part of Israel have had thousands of rockets and mortar attacks directed at them. So far this year, more than 300 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza, terrorizing countless families in Israel.

The threats to Israel from a Palestinian state with its border as the Green Line are clearly understood in this context--especially since Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party inked an accord with Hamas to form a unity government earlier this month. Although welcomed by President Abbas, Hamas still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The United States designated Hamas a terrorist organization in 1997. It has killed more than 500 innocent civilians, including dozens of Americans.

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists, and we should not expect or ask Israel to do so either. Instead of calling for negotiations based on boundaries that leave Israel vulnerable to attack, the President should have insisted the Palestinians prove they are ready to be responsible and peaceful neighbors. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said:

The Palestinian Authority must choose either peace with

Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace

with both.

Israel's security must come first. Any efforts to force Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 boundaries--the 1949 armistice line--would undermine Israel's security and threaten the future of any peace talk.

In 2004, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. Res. 393, which endorsed U.S. policy for a Middle East peace process. In particular, the Senate supported a statement that said:

In light of realities on the ground, including already

existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic

to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will

be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

I believe it is important for the United States to again oppose any plan to force Israel to withdraw to those 1949 boundaries. Borders between Israel and a Palestinian state should be decided only by Israel and Palestinian leaders through direct negotiations. Borders should not be a precondition set for negotiations by the President of the United States or anyone else. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said today: ``Peace cannot be imposed.''

Since recognizing Israel 11 minutes after its founding in 1948, our two countries have worked side by side to advance democracy and peace and stability. Israel is our staunchest ally in a volatile part of the world. We cannot now turn our backs on Israel by forcing it to take a position in negotiations that would endanger its very existence.

I oppose any plan or effort to force Israel back to those 1949 armistice lines and encourage my colleagues to work to see that is not the case. I ask my colleagues to support that position as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 74 on cloture for the nomination of Goodwin Liu, of California, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. I was in my home State of Kansas at the time of the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted to oppose the invoking of cloture on the nomination.

Mr. President, the first months of 2011 have been marked in the Middle East by profound change as citizens have demanded greater representation and increased accountability from their governments. As many of those protesting for change were beaten and killed in the streets, a sense of uncertainty about the future of the region and the commitment of some of our allies to American values was palpable. Yet, during this time of revolution, there has been no doubt about the certainty and strength of our Nation's alliance and friendship with Israel.

Since the United States recognized Israel 11 minutes after its founding on May 14, 1948, the two countries have worked side by side to advance democracy and peace.

In a region where dictators and family rule are the norm, Israel has stood out as a beacon for democracy--a country with an independent judicial system and strong rule of law where citizens are free to worship and speak as they wish.

For those wanting better governance and more rights in the Middle East, they just have to look next door to Israel for an example of how things could be.

In advance of Yom Ha'atzmaut--Israel's Independence Day--I wish to congratulate the citizens of Israel for building a strong and vibrant country despite the myriad challenges, wars and attacks they have faced. I look forward to working in the Senate to strengthen this strategically important relationship.

Mr. President, I am a firm believer in the view that an individual can make a difference. I am a firm believer that what happens in Washington, DC, is important in our Nation's history and what goes on in our country, but the reality is we change the world one person at a time. That individual is how we make life better.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning, I was on the National Mall near the World War II Memorial, and I was there for the dedication of a plaque honoring an individual who made a tremendous difference in the lives of many and made a tremendous difference in the life of our Nation. It was the moment in which a plaque was unveiled recognizing Senator Bob Dole for his contribution--in fact, his efforts and leadership--in seeing that the World War II Memorial was built. Clear

from those who spoke and from what I know of the subject, the World War II Memorial would not be available for us as a nation today in the absence of that individual, Bob Dole, who led the efforts.

There is much in Bob Dole's career here in Washington, DC, as a Member of this body, of the U.S. Senate, that we can heap accolades upon him for, but certainly one of them I know he is most proud of and certainly one of them I and the American people are most grateful for is his efforts to recognize the 16 million Americans who served their country in World War II. There are only about 2.5 million Americans who served in World War II now living, and we lose hundreds of them every day.

Last week, I was at the World War II Memorial with Kansas World War II veterans welcoming an honor flight and thanking World War II veterans from my home State for their service to our country. The World War II Memorial is a magnificent tribute to the sacrifice many have made before us.

I saw the World War II Memorial. It serves its purpose. I saw the World War II Memorial before it was ever dedicated. I put my walking shoes on and walked down to the World War II Memorial a few days before the official ceremony back in 2004, and I saw the place that says ``Kansas,'' and I thought about Kansans.

I thought of my own dad, who is a World War II veteran who served in northern Africa and up the boothill of Italy. I tell this story because the World War II Memorial served its purpose. I walked away from the memorial and used my cell phone to call my dad back home in Plainville, KS. Unfortunately, I got the answering machine at my parents' home, but from a son's point of view, I conveyed the message to my dad: Dad, I am at the World War II Memorial. I respect you, I thank you for your service, and I love you. It is something that sons don't often say to their parents, but it is something that we as Americans--something that the World War II Memorial brings out in us not just to our parents but to all World War II veterans: We respect you, we thank you for your service, and we love you.

We had the opportunity on Tuesday to pay tribute to a special World War II veteran, Bob Dole. One of the aspects of Bob Dole's service to his country certainly in the military as well as here in the Senate, here as an American, was to take care of those who served with him, and not only in World War II. He has been the caring and compassionate guide for all of us as we try to make certain that no military service goes unrewarded and that no commitment that was made to those who serve our country is forgotten.

So I am here today to pay tribute really to all World War II veterans, to all our military men and women now serving, and to those veterans of other wars, but to especially pay tribute to Bob Dole, who recognized and continues to recognize throughout his life the value of service to country and the value of service to other veterans. That plaque is a special reminder that Bob Dole made it possible for all of us as Americans to pay tribute to that generation and is a loving reminder for those who served that we are a grateful nation. It is important that we never forget those who gave us the opportunities to live the lives we live today.

While there are, again, much for which we could congratulate him and express our gratitude to him, I hold him in the highest esteem for his military service.

Sixty-six years ago today, April 14, 1945, young Bob Dole was wounded in northern Italy. He lay on the field in blood and mud for 9 hours. He was rescued. He was returned to home. The people of his hometown raised money. I still remember the photograph of a cigar box in the drugstore into which people back in those difficult times put their dollars and their quarters and their pennies to raise money for Bob Dole's rehabilitation. He was able to access the services in Battle Creek, MI, of a VA hospital.

Amazingly to me, three future Senators who served in World War II ended up in that hospital at the same time. Our own colleague Senator Inouye, our previous colleague Senator Hart, and our previous colleague Bob Dole were all at the hospital at the same time recovering from their wounds in service to their country.

So it is today that I recognize an aspect of Bob Dole's life--most important, his willingness to sacrifice his life and his service to his country as a member of the 10th Mountain Division; his courage and dedication to his ability to reteach himself, to relearn to write, to bathe, to eat, to become a productive member of our society, and to lead our country in so many ways. I was honored to be present on Tuesday, 2 days ago, in which a grateful nation said: We thank you for your efforts in recognizing other veterans, in the creation and development of the efforts to see that the World War II Memorial, so long in waiting, is now on the National Mall.

Tom Brokaw, the author of the book ``The Greatest Generation,'' was the master of ceremonies on Tuesday, and he concluded his remarks on Tuesday morning by telling the story of Bob Dole raising money for the World War II Memorial. There are no public funds, no Treasury funds in the building of that memorial. Senator Dole and others raised the dollars from private sources to build the memorial. He tells the story of Bob Dole going to California and meeting with a wealthy Hollywood mogul asking for money to build the World War II Memorial. According to Tom Brokaw, the mogul said, ``I am not interested. I have other priorities.'' Bob Dole's response to the mogul, to the noncontributor, was, ``When I was 22, I had other priorities too. I went to war.'' Bob Dole went to war and served his country every day thereafter.

Senator Dole in his remarks concluded by saying, ``I am the most optimistic man in America today.'' We ought to be optimistic because we have individuals such as Bob Dole who have served our country. Today we recognize that service, 66 years ago, April 14, 1945, in northern Italy.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I come here tonight one more time. I am a very short term Member of the Senate--only about 3 months. Every time I have spoken on the Senate floor, I have talked about the importance of reining in spending. With the crippling nature of our national debt and the belief that if we don't resolve these issues, the future of our country is at stake, it is really one of the primary motivations I have for serving in this Congress: to see that we turn this country around for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.

I think Kansans would say it is time for all Members of Congress to come together and fund the government. A shutdown demonstrates once again how we lack the ability or the desire to just use some common sense and reach a common goal. A primary function of Congress is to see that we appropriate the necessary funds to provide for government.

Today, it seems to me we have come to the point at which this issue needs to be rapidly resolved. We are down to just a few billion dollars--and certainly a billion dollars is a lot of money to Kansans and to me, but we need to resolve this issue so we can move on to the more dramatic and important issue we face as Members of the Senate, as American citizens--that being next year's budget and the future of additional spending down the road.

Tonight, in addition to saying let's resolve this issue, let's continue to fund the government, let's not pursue the strategy of a shutdown, I am here to express my genuine concern about the tactics that seem to be ongoing today, in which we, as the Senator from Alabama suggests, are holding hostage our service men and women and their pay.

We have had a lot of discussion in Washington, DC, about who is an essential government employee. I will tell you there could be no questioning the fact that our service men and women are essential government employees, and they will be working regardless of the consequences, regardless of the decision made here about the so-called shutdown.

From my view, it makes absolutely no sense--in fact, it is immoral-- to ask our service men and women to serve in harm's way and have to worry about the paycheck that feeds their families--and, in fact, most of them live month to month, live paycheck to paycheck. The idea that while they are serving and sacrificing away from family, they would have the additional concern about whether the paycheck is going to arrive and be deposited in their accounts seems to me to be something beyond the pale, something we could never expect from a Congress of the United States of America.

So I am here one more time to say, yes, absolutely; let's get spending under control. The idea that we cannot go back to 2008 spending levels plus inflation--we can do that. Nobody should believe that we cannot accomplish that goal, and nobody should be using the service men and women's paychecks and their service to our country as a hostage or the idea of whether this government is shut down. Resolve this issue now and make certain we resolve it in a way that no member of our Armed Services, or their families, is harmed by the decisions we make.

This is an important decision. It is about the future of our country. The immediate concern is whether our service men and women understand that we value their service and that we will take every step to make certain they are not harmed by political inaction--the inability of us in Washington, DC, to resolve the issue of the continuing resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the memory of a caring and charismatic business icon and decorated Navy veteran.

Alfred Schwan, who passed away on March 18, 2011, helped found a small, all-American family business with his brothers Marvin and Robert and built The Schwan Food Company to what it is today a multibillion- dollar, frozen-food company with thousands of employees and millions of customers.

Alfred was known as an adventurous and outgoing person who had a quick smile, relentless energy, and a can-do attitude.

Alfred started in the frozen food business early. Born in 1925 to Paul and Alma Schwan, as a young man he helped his father at the Marshall Ice Cream Company make popsicles and ice cream bars.

But Alfred did not go straight into the family business. He left to fulfill a dream and serve his country as a pilot and joined the U.S. Naval Aviation Corps. Alfred flew torpedo bombers and taught antisubmarine warfare.

He met his wife Doris during a blind date at a USO Club. They married in 1946, the same year Alfred was awarded Navy Wings of Gold. A year later they had their first of five sons.

Answering a call from his family, Alfred joined the family business in 1964 to oversee factory operations and company drivers. Those company yellow trucks have become beloved across the nation. I know I remember seeing the yellow Schwan truck in my neighborhood.

With a commitment to integrity and hard work, Alfred went on to oversee the Schwan pizza business. He guided the production of Schwan pizza in their plant in Salina, KS, for three decades. Under his leadership the plant grew from having little more than a dozen employees to employing 1,500 Kansans with the capacity to produce more than 3 million pizzas a day. Alfred listed the growth of the Salina plant as one of his proudest achievements in business.

After the death of his brother Marvin, Alfred was appointed CEO, president and chairman of Schwan in 1993. He retired as chairman in 2009 at the age of 83.

Among the many public honors this inspirational and optimistic leader received include being honored by the School Nutrition Association of Kansas as an Outstanding Industry Member of the Year, induction into the Frozen Food Hall of Fame, and receiving Schwan's most prestigious honor--the Marvin M. Schwan Heritage of Quality Award.

Alfred was such an important community leader and citizen of Kansas that, when he retired, Salina, KS, declared February 6 as ``Alfred Schwan Day.''

As March is National Frozen Food Month, it is appropriate to honor Alfred's life and the energy and passion he gave to this important industry. He was an innovator and pioneer in the frozen food industry. With more than 700 facilities nationwide, the frozen food industry employs nearly 100,000 Americans and generates a payroll of approximately $3 billion.

On behalf of all Americans, I thank Alfred Schwan for his service to our country and to U.S. consumers. Frozen foods are a staple in American homes, office lunch rooms, and school cafeterias. These foods provide an important source of healthy, affordable, and convenient food choices that help feed our Nation and the world.