Floor Statements

Mr. President, we have all complained about the big corporations that don't pay any taxes, only to find that many times that is because we offer some tax subsidy that allows them to get out of taxes. We have complained about subsidies for Big Oil, Big Natural Gas. We have given subsidies to companies that go out of business because we are trying to pick winners and losers. Temporary tax policy for whatever we are trying to do does not work.

This amendment eliminates the tax subsidies, the loopholes we talk about not just for Big Oil but for all of the energy tax credits. Folks, if we let the market work, we are going to have wind, we are going to have solar, but we are going to have it in a way that does not waste the money of hard-working taxpayers.

So I encourage my colleagues' support. I know a lot of my colleagues have new subsidies they are proposing, but it is no way to run a free market economy, to try to run it from this room. Let's get rid of subsidies, lower the corporate tax rate, and let our country work.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the actions of a few make it necessary for us to create more rules for the many honest people who serve in Congress, but we must reassure Americans that we are here to serve them and not ourselves. Congressmen and Senators have lots of power and we know that power corrupts. The longer we stay in office the more power we have. Unfortunately, we have seen that power, over a period of time, creates more opportunity and temptation for us to benefit ourselves rather than our constituents.

All of the cases of corruption and bribery I have seen unfortunately come from more senior Members. No offense to my senior Members, please. But this is one of many reasons why we should have term limits in Congress.

My amendment is not a statute. It is a sense of the Senate that says we should have some form of constitutional limit on our terms in office. We are not specific in the number of years, the number of terms. It is a sense of the Senate that we should have some limit on the amount of time we serve. I encourage my colleagues to at least support this and get the debate started.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have amendment No. 1488 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I allowed that to be read because it is so short. I think all of us know that in just about all areas of life power corrupts. And despite the good people in the Congress, the good intentions here, we have found that the longer folks stay in Washington the more likely their associations with interest groups and other temptations often cause bad behavior.

What we are working on here with this STOCK Act is just treating the symptoms again when what we need to do is work on the root causes. If we bring a professional class of politicians to Washington, and we know incumbents always have the advantage in reelections, elections are not the only way to limit terms.

If we want good government, if we want representation of the people, then we need to have folks represented in the House and the Senate who are from the people and not from an elite class of politicians in Washington. That is why for years many of us on both sides of the aisle have worked on this idea of term limits.

My amendment is not a law. It does not set any specific term limits for the House or the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that says we should pass a constitutional amendment that allows the States to ratify some limit on the terms of office. We know this would likely attract people who want to make representation a calling and not a career. So I would hope that as we look at this total bill, and certainly we do not want insider trading, Congressmen and Senators benefiting from their service in any personal way, if we want to get at the root cause of many of the problems here, many of the problems between parties across the aisle, many of the false differences, we need to limit the terms of people who come to Washington and bring in some fresh voices from all over the country. I think we will get better government, certainly less corruption.

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

I wish to thank my colleague from Louisiana, who has made great points about where we are.

I do think it is good news that we are talking about balancing the budget, but unfortunately, as we often do, this is really a political show more than a real attempt to actually balance the budget. The whole process is set up to fail.

We know the President has said that we don't need to balance our budget and that it is an extreme idea. The majority leader here in the Senate has called a bill that cuts spending and caps spending and sends a balanced budget amendment to the States to ratify the worst legislation he has ever seen. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, has said that to balance the budget would cost jobs and that we would do it on the backs of the poor. Now we are to believe that our colleagues on the Democratic side here are serious about working with us to balance the budget.

The situation is too serious to just play politics, and I know from talking to a number of my Democratic colleagues that they feel the same way, that they know we need to balance the budget. It is very difficult for them as a party because a lot of their platform is based on more promises for government and more government spending.

In effect, a balanced budget amendment that meant we couldn't spend more than we were bringing in would change politics in Washington forever, which is something we have to do. But at least we are discussing the idea of balancing the budget.

We know that the President's budget, the only budget we have seen--we haven't seen one out of the Senate in the last several years--increased our debt another $10 trillion over the next 10 years. It didn't balance it.

Just about every Republican voted for a budget, a 10-year budget offered by Senator Pat Toomey that balanced in 10 years without cutting Social Security or Medicare. So we can do it. We can do it without hurting Americans. If we do it now, we can actually control our own destiny rather than what we see across the Atlantic in Greece and other European countries. They lost control of their destiny. They are now in the control of other countries and of fate. But America is still in a position that, if we make the decisions now to begin the process to balance our budget, even if it took 10 years, we could save our country and perhaps save freedom for the world. But there is no question that if we continue on the same course we are on today, we will bankrupt our Nation, lose control of our destiny, and change the world forever. But at least we are talking about balancing the budget, and maybe that is a good first step.

Today, the Democrats have offered a weak alternative to the Republican balanced budget so that they can say they are for it. Again, I think that is important to get on record, that we are at least for the idea of stopping spending more than we are bringing in. For the past 2\1/2\ years, as I mentioned, the Senate Democrats, who are in charge here, haven't even produced a budget, let alone the idea of balancing one. President Obama, as I said, proposed a budget that doubled the national debt in the next 10 years. That is not responsible leadership at a time when we are already at an unsustainable debt level.

Despite all the bipartisan promises to cut spending, Washington is still voting to make government bigger and more expensive than ever. And this includes some Republicans joining the fray here to just increase spending. Federal spending went up 5 percent in the first 9 months of the year despite all the hoopla about us doing something about spending.

There is one way to judge whether we are cutting spending or not, despite all the rhetoric here and the Washington-speak. If we want to know whether we are spending more, we just have to ask ourselves: Are we spending more than we did last year? The answer is yes. And we are going to spend more next year than we did this year, based on the bills we are passing this week and next. So this isn't austerity. It is gluttony. It is political gluttony.

Since Obama became President, the debt limit has been raised four times. The debt is rising faster and higher than ever. Yet the Senate refuses to pass a budget or cut spending. We must budget and balance the budget or we are going to bring down our whole country.

Republicans have offered a strong balanced budget amendment that limits government spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product-- GDP--and

requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, and it has earned the support of every Republican in the Senate. That is pretty unusual for us. Passage of that amendment should have been tied to the last increase in the debt limit, but it wasn't. President Obama was given another $2 trillion to borrow, and Americans received nothing in return, no cuts in spending.

The Democratic amendment differs in three ways from the Republican amendment.

What Republicans are trying to do is to reduce the level of spending relative to our total economy and to make sure it is difficult to raise taxes to balance the budget. And we should all agree on that. We shouldn't go back to the taxpayer every time we spend too much. The emphasis should be on reducing our spending. But the Democratic amendment doesn't cap spending to the historical levels, which means we can balance the budget by raising taxes and continuing to increase spending. So our amendment is designed to cap that spending at a certain level.

Secondly, the Democratic balanced budget amendment does not require a supermajority to raise taxes. So during regular order here, we can increase taxes to meet the requirement to balance the budget. It would be a nice safeguard for the American taxpayer that we would at least have to get a supermajority to raise taxes in order to balance the budget.

For some reason, the Democratic balanced budget amendment inserts just an element of class warfare, saying that we cannot decrease taxes on those making over $1 million. It doesn't sound like something we would do anyway, but it is not something that should be part of a constitutional amendment that we send to the States to ratify.

The strong Republican balanced budget amendment would force both parties to find ways to cut spending and reform entitlements. Those are the things we have to do. The weaker Democratic version does not do that because it preserves the status quo where it is easier to raise taxes than cut spending, which is where we are today.

For the past 2\1/2\ years, Senate Democrats have not produced a budget, let alone a balanced one. President Obama proposed a budget this year that doubled the national debt. Again, that is not a budget; that is a loan application and this country cannot continue to operate based on more borrowed money and more spending and more threats of raising taxes.

If we want to get the economy going and balance our budget, we have to cut spending. That is the whole idea of the Republican balanced budget amendment. Let's get serious about saving our country and the freedoms for which so many have fought. If we do not do it soon, we will lose control of our destiny.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, all of us regret when there is a situation where one of us has to oppose a nomination of a President, and 1,198 nominations have gone through without being contested. But this is one that rises to the level of concern.

Republicans have been asking questions about this nominee for months--in fact, much longer than that--going back to why she refused to take a lie detector test, why she withdrew her name when she was first nominated for ambassador under Clinton, and why the files have not been properly updated. We have asked the White House for private meetings with the FBI and CIA to give us updated knowledge of what happened in this circumstance so we can make a good decision. But there was never an offer to do that. We had offers of low-level folks to come talk only to me, not to Republicans on the committee. But there are enough questions here for honest answers, and we have not gotten them.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against this nomination.

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

Madam President, I was just listening to the news in my office, and I heard the report that the United States has gone over $15 trillion in debt. Of course, that is just our short-term debt. It doesn't really include our unfunded liabilities, which some estimate to be $100 trillion. But, nonetheless, $15 trillion is the size of our total economy--a condition that would mean certain bankruptcy for almost any business.

All of us in these Chambers have stood in awe, I guess, looking across the Atlantic at Greece and Italy and some of our European trading partners, and it seems amazing to us that despite their terrible fiscal condition, the politicians in Greece cannot even cut spending. They talk about cutting it, but the government employees are out in the street demonstrating, and one just has to think, can't they see what is happening? Why do they want to keep spending? It is like there is an addiction.

But here we are in the land of the free, the city on the hill for the world as far as the country that sets the example for free markets and free enterprise--a country that has fought wars to keep the rest of the world free--and here we are in a situation where we have to borrow well over $100 billion every month just to keep the lights on in this place, just to keep our country going.

All year long, we have been having these public showdowns about how we need to cut spending. We have threatened government shutdowns over the continuing resolutions and over increasing the debt limit. One would think that by this point we would be cutting spending to some degree. We have established this supercommittee, supposedly to deal with our huge deficits. Yet we are passing spending bills this week-- today--that increase spending versus last year. Last year, we spent 5 percent more than the year before.

In reality, in some ways, our country is worse off than Europe because we have Federal debt, we have State debt, we have municipal debt, we have counties declaring bankruptcy, we have

States approaching bankruptcy, and yet we continue to spend more now than we did last year. After all of the fuss and fighting and brinkmanship and supercommittees, we can't seem to cut anything here. In fact, we are increasing spending.

The goal of the supercommittee is not to cut spending; it is not to cut our debt at all. The goal of the supercommittee is to reduce the amount we are going to borrow over 10 years--maybe reduce it from $10 trillion to $8 trillion or $9 trillion.

We are not even on the same page with reality right now. We have increased spending so dramatically over the last few years--we have added $4 trillion to our debt since President Obama came into office, we passed a $1 trillion stimulus, and we passed ObamaCare, adding trillions of dollars in spending.

Instead of talking about cutting, the debate now seems to be, how can we take more from the American people in taxes to feed our addiction? We have focused our guns on those very people who create our jobs and create most of the opportunity in our country, people who are already paying the largest portion of national taxes of any country in the world because we have shifted so much of the tax burden onto the top income earners. We are blaming them for the wealth gap when, in fact, the real blame for the wealth gap comes from the government taking so much out of the private sector, regulating with such a heavy hand, and having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

The problem with the middle class is not those who are making too much money; it is a Federal Government that doesn't understand that the more we spend and borrow, the fewer jobs there are going to be in our country today. Yet that is the big argument here. Instead of cutting spending, we are actually talking about taking more from hard-working American taxpayers and bringing it in here and giving it to the people who have created that $15 trillion in debt. How could anyone make sense of that?

It is really pretty amazing, after all the promises we have made to the American people, that we are watching our debt go up like this-- passing $15 trillion--and we still can't talk about any substantive cuts.

Let me give one example of something that makes so much sense. Over the last two decades, we have seen welfare spending increase nearly 300 percent. There are 77 means-tested welfare programs, and over the last couple of decades, since welfare reform, the spending has increased nearly 300 percent. That is more than the combined increase of Social Security and Medicare. It is more than the increases in education or in defense. Are we helping people? Not at all. We have more people in poverty than we ever have had, and we are discouraging self-sufficiency while encouraging dependency on government.

In the last 4 years alone, we have nearly doubled what we are paying for food stamps, from $40 billion to $80 billion in this year's budget. If all we did was return welfare spending to 2007 levels, we could save almost $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is twice the goal of the supercommittee in cuts. But are we even thinking about it? Is it even on the table? Absolutely not, because the one thing I have seen with this place is we are very good at getting bipartisan agreement on increasing spending in areas of need, but we seldom see bipartisan agreement on any cuts. Would we look at responsible caps on welfare spending? Not even a chance. It is not even on the table with the supercommittee discussions.

With Medicaid alone, if we return spending to 2007 levels, we could save more than the goal of the supercommittee of $1.2 trillion, but we are not willing to discuss cuts.

I think it is a sad day for America that we are plowing past $15 trillion, pretending to be responsible to the American people, while last week and this week and on into the rest of the year, we are going to be passing spending bills that spend more than we spent last year. At the same time, we are supposedly in a recession, Americans are tightening their belts, many are out of work, and what we are talking about here is, let's continue to spend and take more from hard-working, tax-paying Americans so we can keep our spending addiction going here in Washington.

It is utterly irresponsible, what we are doing. All the President can do is point at those whom he calls millionaires, who are generally the people who are creating the jobs, running the small businesses, and having the most to do with creating the investment that makes our economy grow, and try to blame them for the problems we create here in Washington.

It is time we keep our promises to the American people. I know it is hard for some in these Chambers to cut spending because dependency on government often means a dependable vote for many politicians. It is time we look at the future and the debt that we are loading onto ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. This country will not survive the types of policies we are producing here in Washington today.

This supercommittee should look at real cuts in spending. If our Democratic colleagues are not willing to go along with responsible spending caps on programs such as welfare, then we need to walk away from the table and take our case to the American people and tell them what is really the truth, which is that the elections in 2012 may be our last chance to turn this around. We cannot keep spending at this level and keep taking more and more from the private sector, from the job producers in our country, bringing it here to Washington, and spending it on wasteful programs that are fraught with fraud and duplication and not even ever consider cutting any of them.

Last week, Dr. Coburn had a couple of amendments to an appropriations bill that had some very small cuts to what had been deemed wasteful, ineffective programs. On one of his amendments, he only got 13 votes. So this is clearly a bipartisan problem.

We need to cut spending. Washington has a spending problem, it does not have a low-tax problem. It is time we focus our attention on reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government and having it live within constitutional boundaries. We need to eliminate programs that are wasteful, return others to the States, and trim our budget to the point where we can pay for what we are spending so that we will not keep adding trillions and trillions of dollars of debt on to our country and our citizens and our next generation.

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

Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the proposed veterans tax credit. I know what I am about to discuss will not make me very popular. I will probably be accused of not supporting veterans by the politicians pandering for their votes, but I am not going to be intimidated into voting for something that may make sense politically but is inherently unfair, and it is not going to work. The measure the Senate is now considering at President Obama's urging is to offer tax credits to employers who hire unemployed veterans. It might sound like good politics, but it is not good policy.

We have learned over the past few years since President Obama took office that employers hire based on their long-term plans, not short- term stimulus. It costs an employer about $63,000 a year to create an average private sector job. A new tax credit for a couple thousand dollars is simply not enough to increase employment. We have to recognize the fact that businesses are not going to hire until the government gets out of their way and creates a stable environment where businesses can thrive.

Let's be clear: I want veterans to have work opportunities. Once a man or woman has completed his or her service to our country, I hope they are welcomed into the job market. But veterans are not hired simply because they are veterans. By and large, they demonstrate admirable qualities that are invaluable in the workforce, such as selflessness, hard work, and dedication to improving oneself. Many other Americans who are suffering in this same bad economy--such as single moms, young graduates, and minorities--also demonstrate these same commendable character traits. The best way to get our veterans back to work is by doing what will help the economy and get all Americans back to work. Sadly, this tax credit does not do that.

The government has tried offering credits to hire particular categories of people many times before. A Government Accountability Office report studied the targeted jobs tax credit that was passed back in 1978. The credit was intended to encourage companies to favor the disadvantaged in hiring, but a followup study found that it was not ``effective or economical'' in helping the targeted group. The program was eventually allowed to expire.

Unfortunately, that tax credit was quickly replaced with the welfare- to-work and work opportunity tax credits in 1996. The Urban Institute- Brookings Tax Policy Center studied these credits, which were intended to help the needy, low-income veterans, inner-city youth, and ex- felons. But it found that the credits had ``not had a meaningful effect on employment rates among the disadvantaged.''

President Obama signed another law, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, in March of 2010 to give companies a tax credit to hire unemployed workers. There is no evidence this encouraged employers to hire, as unemployment has remained stubbornly high since President Obama came into office, especially over the last year while this credit was available.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that these tax credits do not stimulate hiring for targeted groups, the Obama administration continues to push Congress to pass another tax credit, this time exclusively for veterans. By using a politically sensitive group the day before Veterans Day, the Democrats are hoping they can trick Republicans into further complicating the Tax Code, when we should be doing everything possible to simplify it.

If we want to help veterans and all Americans, we need to get serious about fixing our economy. There are almost 14 million unemployed Americans and another 10 million underemployed and discouraged workers who need work. We need a simpler tax code that businesses can navigate, not a more complicated one, riddled with incentives for employers to hire one particular group over another. The endless morass of tax credits and loopholes is exactly what is wrong with our Tax Code. We should also repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which are proven job killers. We will have a chance to vote on that later today. We need to open more domestic energy resources.

The answers are right in front of our faces. But, instead, we are pandering to different political groups with programs that have proven to be ineffective. We are giving more false promises to Americans in order to benefit political ends.

All Americans deserve the same opportunity to get hired. I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work. I am deeply thankful for the courageous and selfless service of our veterans. They have performed for our country a service, and we will always be indebted to them. Above all, I am thankful for their sacrifices to protect freedom and equal opportunity in America. But we do not pay them back for their service and sacrifice with false promises of government programs that have been proven not to work.

Let's be honest with our veterans and with all Americans and do what we need to do to fix this economy.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hutchison for her efforts here in stopping another regulatory nightmare. I am beginning to think the FCC stands for Fabricating a Crisis Commission because they are trying to create a new regulation for a problem that does not exist. The overriding problem here is, as the government intervenes increasingly into the Internet and the investment in the Internet, that investment is going to dry up as uncertainty is increased.

I have seen in my State where private investors have put together the money with companies to put down broadband in rural areas only to find that there are some companies operating with a government grant or some government money to compete with them.

Under President Obama, the FCC has become an activist bureaucracy that is inventing a crisis here in order to take control of the Internet.

The Internet is one thing in our country that is working vibrantly. It is a showcase of free enterprise. It does not need to be regulated. For years liberals have warned us that, if the government does not take action, the Internet will not be competitive or accessible. The opposite has happened. More people are using the Internet and have access to cutting-edge technology and devices than ever.

This is yet another misguided big-government solution in search of a problem. Last year, the courts ruled in the Comcast decision that the FCC does not have the authority to mandate how private companies can enter into business agreements and limit the ways they provide Internet services. The FCC did not learn its lesson and instead is at it again with its Open Internet Order, which is vague, baseless, and built on an even weaker legal foundation than their activities in Comcast. Congress did not authorize such actions and the courts have ruled against them. The FCC should not try to get around it by redefining clear legislative language passed by Congress.

There has been no demonstrable harm to which the FCC needs to respond. They cannot give us a case where competition is not growing, where the expansion of broadband is not growing. In fact, new technologies are exceeding the pace that the FCC can even keep up with.

We do not need to come in and slow down the growth. If the FCC wants to take action, it should prove there is legitimate harm in the marketplace. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have a number of laws and regulations to enforce in the name of protecting consumers who use the Internet and competition among companies involved in the market. If those laws are lacking, the FCC should show how and ask Congress to provide it with statutory authority.

The FCC has not done so. They have not shown us that harm has taken place and that they need to take control, essentially, of the Internet. Congress has yet again been cut out of the picture, and many of my colleagues in the majority seem comfortable with abandoning their role. The FCC's bad logic needs to be recognized. They admit these new rules were not imposed due to any previous or existing wrongdoing. That is important for us to recognize.

If a regulatory agency is issuing an order that intervenes into the private sector, there needs to be some substantial harm being addressed. The FCC claims the government must regulate the Internet in order to protect consumers from future harms that could occur. That is not the point of the regulatory structure.

I heard all of these arguments back in 2006 when the Senate was debating how to update our telecommunications laws. If the regulation advocates had won in 2006, today we would have the Internet of 2006. I do not want the Internet of 2006 in 2011, and I do not want the Internet of 2011 in 2016. I want it to grow and improve and evolve just as it is doing now. The government cannot possibly manage the development of the Internet, which the FCC is trying to do.

The Internet does not need a government stimulus. It is a free market industry that is working. Right now, the technology sector has a 3.3- percent unemployment rate, far below the national average. Over the years, communications companies have invested

hundreds of billions of dollars in broadband technology and development, and no deficit-expanding stimulus was required!

If the government really wants to allow the Internet and related businesses to prosper and thrive, it should stay out of it. The Internet is not broken, but our government is. The private telecommunications sector knows how to create jobs; our government does not. The things that work best in our society--businesses, charities, volunteer organizations--are the things that government does not control. Consumers should be in control, not unelected activist bureaucrats intent on taking over the most successful parts of our economy.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to undo the FCC's power grab. Three unelected bureaucrats should not be permitted to simply give themselves the power to regulate the Internet's infrastructure in the face of clear statutory language directing them to do just the opposite.

The FCC should not be permitted to circumvent Congress and essentially enact laws that will impact vital services we all depend on. To keep the Internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. I commend Senator Hutchison for bringing this up and using the powers of Congress to take back control of our legislative responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 3 million Americans use over-the-counter inhalers to control asthma and other respiratory problems. Three years ago, the EPA came out with a ruling that bans these over-the-counter inhalers which takes effect this----

The EPA has banned these inhalers, even though they acknowledged negligible impact on the environment. My amendment just keeps this rule from going into effect until the manufacturer can complete its work with the FDA to change its propellent.

Let's allow Americans to continue their quality of life while we solve the problem. We don't need to do that this January. It will be solved without the FDA enforcing this rule.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time do I have left?

Certainly, there are many doctors who want folks to come in and get prescriptions. There are many manufacturers who make prescription drugs, but let 3 million Americans access these inhalers. They do not cause any problems with the environment. The EPA has recognized it is negligible and the manufacturer will have this worked out over the next few years.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XVI for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 773 to

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XVI for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 774 to

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

I rise to speak in opposition to the Chinese tariff bill being proposed by my colleague from New York. I understand the frustrations that motivated this legislation, and I share serious concerns over China's currency manipulation and trade practices. I have worked for years to ensure that trade happens and that free trade happens on a level playing field. We still have a long way to go.

The answer to these frustrations with China is not to start a trade war that will raise prices on many goods for American families at a time when they are already struggling, especially when this approach has already been tried and failed to gain any positive results for American workers. The absolute last thing our floundering economy needs right now is retaliatory tariffs on American products that will destroy more jobs. If we want to strengthen our currency, we should start by getting control of our own monetary policy. We don't need to start a trade war with China; we need to stop the class warfare that is preventing jobs from being created right here in America.

American workers are the best in the world, but they cannot fairly compete in a global economy when the U.S. Government is keeping one arm tied behind their back. The solution is to free American workers, not to try to tie up our competitors with more misguided policies that will hurt American families with higher prices on household goods. The U.S. Government needs to give American workers the freedom to work, and that freedom starts with the freedom to get a job.

If President Obama and the Democrats want to know who is preventing jobs from being created in America, all they have to do is look in the mirror. Let's be clear about a few things: Other countries are not threatening to massively raise taxes on our Nation's job creators and drive jobs overseas. President Obama is. Other countries did not jam through a health care takeover bill that is raising the cost of health care, making it harder for businesses to hire people and adding trillions of dollars to our national debt. The Democrats in Congress did. Other countries did not force us to pass the Dodd-Frank financial takeover with thousands of new regulations that are raising costs on American consumers and crippling businesses. Democrats in Congress did. Other countries are not writing hundreds of new regulatory rules that are destroying jobs in our Nation's energy sector and keeping us dependent on foreign oil. The administration's EPA is. Other countries are not blocking Boeing from creating thousands of American jobs in the State of South Carolina. The President's National Labor Relations Board is. Other countries are not forcing 28 U.S. States to require employees to join labor unions that make businesses less competitive. Democrats are the ones protecting labor bosses and hurting workers in America.

The Wall Street Journal has called this Chinese tariff bill ``the most dangerous trade legislation in many years,'' and for good reason. If we pass this bill, it is likely to spark a trade war. It is unlikely to create new jobs in America but will result in higher prices for U.S. consumers. Businesses will pay more for raw materials from China, which will increase prices on their goods and reduce employment. President Obama and the Democrats should know better after seeing the results of the tariff that was put on Chinese tires in 2009. In response, China retaliated with tariffs on American auto parts and poultry. This well- intended bill will have the same unintended results.

I understand the economic frustrations people have with China, but as so many of Obama's policies have done, this bill will only make things worse. This bill doesn't export the best of what American workers have to offer, it exports bad economics. Taxes and tariffs do not create jobs, competition and markets do. Freedom will work if we let it.

I urge the Senate to reject this bill and start helping American workers compete more freely here in America and around the world instead of simply trying to hold others back.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of Senator Rubio's amendment and thank him for helping us to focus on the original intent of trade adjustment assistance.

Obviously, we want to help folks who are unemployed or displaced because of trade. But we have to realize where we are with our country right now. We are using borrowed money and sometimes printed money in order to help people. So we have a responsibility to taxpayers and to some form of fiscal sanity, as well as to those who have lost their jobs. What Senator Rubio is trying to do is to restore those original, responsible boundaries of trade adjustment assistance to make sure this program is focused on those who are hurt by trade agreements.

The discussion is somewhat odd in the first place in that for several years the President has been telling us these trade agreements are actually going to increase jobs in our country, expand exports--which I believe they will--but to use this as an excuse and to hold these trade bills hostage for several years in order to fund a program which duplicates many other programs--because we need to remember, those who are put out of work in our country today have not only regular unemployment benefits but they have been extended much beyond what we have done before, and there are dozens of State and Federal training programs now that duplicate each other. Unfortunately, many of them have been

found to be ineffective. But for us to lay another layer of duplication on top of that under the guise of showing compassion, I think we also have to make sure we are being responsible.

So we want to help folks who are unemployed, but we do need to make sure we are being responsible to the taxpayers. As I said, the trade adjustment assistance was originally designed to help those who were put out of work. And, believe me, coming from a textile State such as South Carolina, trade with China and other countries has displaced a whole lot of textile workers. Retraining is very important. The new jobs that moved in required more technical capabilities. But what we have found, as we have seen how our good intentions have hit the ground in South Carolina and around the country, is that even our own Office of Management and Budget rated TAA as ineffective.

The program costs taxpayers $1.3 billion in just this year, in 2011, and we are finding that what it was intended to do it is not doing. It is not well managed. It is not helping the people it is supposed to help. Since its inception, the program has gone from a focus on those who lose their jobs because of trade to all kinds of institutions, training groups, and, frankly, fraud, duplication, and not helping the folks it is intended to help.

If we want to know how far out of bounds the program has gone, we all know the story of Solyndra solar company that got over $\1/2\ billion from the American taxpayers and then went bankrupt and we lost our money. The workers now at Solyndra are applying for TAA benefits not because trade put them out of business, but, frankly, a coordinated effort of our government and Solyndra management have put these people out of work. But we can see, if they are now using a program called trade adjustment assistance to add to their unemployment benefits, the program is no longer within the bounds that it was intended.

If we are going to tell the taxpayers this program is intended for one thing, we need to make sure it is. What we are talking about now are trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. No one has come and told us these agreements are going to cost American jobs. Yet we have to pass more spending programs and add on to a program that has been proved ineffective in order to add jobs in America. That is not good policy. I do not think it is good politics.

I am thankful Senator Rubio is taking the leadership to shine a spotlight on the need to help people while at the same time being responsible to taxpayers. We do not need to be funding additional unemployment for every company that goes out of business and was not properly managed. If we keep the program focused, it will help the people we need to help while, again, being responsible for hard-working Americans who are paying the taxes.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this amendment. Federal programs that continue to expand and expand and expand, they become less and less effective; they cost more and more money. If we are going to continue this program, let's do it responsibly.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and several colleagues, I object.

Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague for his attention to this issue. Autism is a very difficult issue for many families, and the incidence of autism in our country is growing. I am thankful Congress, in its wisdom, a number of years ago, established agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, where we have scientists and physicians and many others who are dedicating themselves to researching not just autism but cures for many diseases.

I appreciate again my colleague bringing this up, but I am afraid this is another example of political good intentions having many unintended consequences. The lobby to support autism is definitely very strong, and we appreciate that, but there are many diseases that children and people throughout our country face. We have put experts in place to determine where we can spend the money we allocate for medical research, and we need to leave that to the experts.

We have seen unintended results when our government tries to pick winners and losers. We tried to do it in the solar business 1 year or so ago. There are many companies in the solar business, but we picked one, and we didn't exactly know what we were doing. We gave $\1/2\ billion dollars to an effort that turned out not to be the best place to send taxpayer money.

Autism research will continue, and I think that is something we need to make very clear. The people we have put in charge of doing medical research will continue to do that medical research. The Congress does not have to decide how much we are going to spend on all the different diseases that affect Americans. There are many children facing diseases we don't understand, and they do not have the lobby many other diseases have. We cannot, from a political perspective, in an attempt to demonstrate our compassion, try to direct all the scientific and medical research from the floor of the Congress.

So I wish to make it clear that all of us who object support autism research. We will continue to try to make sure the funding for medical research is there. But it makes absolutely no sense for us, from where we sit, to try to play scientists and physicians and to know where the best outcomes will be and where we get the most for our money. If we are going to do that, we might as well decide what kind of medical equipment is going to be used or what kind of drugs are going to be used, and we certainly don't have that capability.

I am very thankful Dr. Coburn has taken up this issue for years and urged us to leave the decisions for medical research in the hands of those who understand it. Our job, as a Congress, is to continue to appropriate the money, which we will, for medical research. Autism research will continue, as well as research for many other diseases. Hopefully, we can make sure that funding is there because many families are suffering and we need to make sure we do our part in the research area.

So I welcome my colleagues in the majority bringing this bill to the floor for debate. We certainly are not blocking debate on this issue. But passing something such as this, without any debate and without any open vote, is not what Congress should be doing right now.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The last 2 years--2\1/2\ years--have been remarkable in a lot of ways. We have seen a lot of things around our country that are beginning to change the political landscape in Washington.

After President Obama's election, with a lot of fanfare and hope attached, we saw a lot of changes begin in Washington--a lot of new spending with huge stimulus plans that clearly have not worked. We have seen a takeover of the health care system and the financial system.

But what we saw across America is what encouraged me. We saw millions of Americans, from all spectrums of politics, united, coming together for tea party rallies and townhalls. They were concerned about our country. They were concerned about the spending and the borrowing and the debt. In these groups were liberals and Libertarians and Independents and Republicans and Democrats--people with all political beliefs who knew intuitively, instinctively, in their guts, that, in Washington, we couldn't keep spending more than we were bringing in without bankrupting our country.

I joined a lot of those groups around the country, and these were hardly radical people. They were commonsense Americans from all walks of life who were just concerned about what we were doing in Washington. They wanted us to get control of the spending and debt. We saw a lot of people in Washington ignore what was going on. But across the country, many Republicans, and even some Democrats, were listening to what they were saying and made strong commitments that if they were elected to the House or the Senate, they would come and get control of the spending and the borrowing and the debt and try to return to some fiscal sanity, some concept of constitutional limited government that we promise people when we take our oath of office and that we would stand by it. So we saw many new Republicans come to the House and to the Senate with a commitment to get control of the spending and debt, to save our country from this obvious bankruptcy we are headed toward.

The tea party was involved with that. It is hard for me to listen to a lot of the criticism of the tea party and their desire to balance the budget. There is no one tea party. What we are talking about are thousands of citizen groups across this country who are being vigilant about their government, which is what our Founders asked them to be. They are not radical people. They are very commonsense people, and they understand what we are doing in Washington is about to destroy the country.

The tea party is being used a lot to suggest it is a small, radical group that is controlling some in the Republican Party. Over 70 percent of Americans agree with them--that we should balance our budget, that we should cut spending and send a balanced budget amendment to the States to ratify. For every person who says they are part of a tea party, there are hundreds of Americans who feel the same way who share those ideals of constitutional limited government and the concern and real fear that what we have been doing in Washington is taking our country literally to the brink.

It is deeply disturbing to hear the Vice President refer to tea parties as terrorists, as he did today, holding a gun to the heads of Republicans and forcing us to make cuts. Clearly, Vice President Biden and many here are not listening to what Americans are saying, and they are trying to diminish what Americans are saying by suggesting this is part of one small group.

The President showed right away this year, even after the November election, that he wasn't listening. He sent a budget to Congress that increased the debt another $10 trillion by his measures but actually another $15 trillion if we look at it in any kind of objective way. When the Republicans in the House demanded that they keep their commitment to cut $100 billion the first year, what did the President do? He said he would meet halfway, at $30 billion. He doesn't think we need to cut anything. He thinks we need to increase spending, and that is what he has been doing.

This is the second crisis we have had this year. The first was that year's budget, where we came right to the edge of closing the government because the President and the Democrats did

not want to cut anything--at least in the negotiations we see. If they are going to meet us halfway between 100, they start below zero if they end up at 30. They are not with us, and it is hard to negotiate with people who don't understand that we truly do have a problem.

Washington, as Senator Rubio said, has a debt problem, but America has a jobs problem. One of the things we need to understand is, if we could stop growing the government, we could start growing the economy. More jobs would mean more tax revenue and less debt. But, unfortunately, this President continues to make things much worse. He wants to continue to spend and borrow, but he will not take responsibility for his spending. He has failed to lead and he loves to blame others. Sure, he inherited some problems--every President does. George W. Bush before him inherited a recession. Reagan inherited double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates. Yet they moved to solve the problems. The difference is, Obama continues, after 2\1/2\ years, to blame others and his policies continue to make things worse.

Let's talk about this debt ceiling for a minute, this debt crisis, and try to set the record straight. Clearly, President Obama has failed to lead in this whole process. We do need to remember, while he is trying to blame others for this debt ceiling problem, that it was a Democratic Congress and the President who signed into law the current debt limit we have. This was not a Republican-created problem that we have. Then, for the last 4\1/2\ years, Obama and the Democrats had control of spending, so they set the debt limit, and they have spent the money to take us up to the debt limit.

We have known for the last 6 months that we needed to deal with this problem. Yet the President submitted no plan at all. He just asked Congress to rubberstamp an increase of $2.4 trillion in our debt, to borrow another $2.4 trillion, and, he said, with no strings attached. He didn't want to cut anything when this whole debate started--no leadership; 6 months, no plan, just speeches, trying to shift the blame.

He likes to ignore the fact that the House passed a bill that would solve our problem. It was a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance. It cut spending right now, it controlled spending out over the next 10 years, and it sends a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the States to ratify. The response from the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama was truly astounding. The President says he wants a balanced solution, but he does not want a balanced budget. He has actually called us extreme for wanting to balance the budget, and, he said, we can do our job without a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. We can do a job on America, but we are not doing the job we were sent to do, and we certainly have proved we cannot control spending unless it is by law that requires us to do that.

Even though this bill passed the House by a large number, with some Democratic support, and it gave the President a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit but only if we cut spending and controlled it and created some permanent accountability, we sent it to the Senate, and the leader of the Democratic Party would not even allow it on the floor for any debate because he saw the polls. He saw that already, within just a couple days, that 70 percent or nearly 70 percent of Americans supported the approach of cutting and controlling spending and creating some permanent accountability. So it was pushed aside so we could make some more backroom deals, with no transparency, no accountability, no leadership.

I commend Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, the Republicans who have worked through this process. Dealing with people who will not put a plan on the table is very difficult. The Republicans passed cut, cap, and balance. Then they followed up with another plan that was not so good, but it was a plan, and it did not even get past the front door in the Senate.

For 6 months, no plan from the President, no plan from the Democrats. Now we have gotten a deal with a partner who does not want to cut spending, after a November election where we were sent here, and the country pleaded with us to get control of spending, borrowing, and debt.

We can look at this deal two ways. There are two realities. From any Washington standard, this is a historic sea change in the way we do business. Instead of what we were doing last year, where we were talking about how much more we could spend and how much porkbarrel bacon we could take home, at least this year we are talking about the fact that we need to cut spending. So we can say the deal makes progress in that respect.

But in the real world, a dollars and cents world, we have to realize our country is on a path toward bankruptcy right now. We are projecting adding another $10 trillion or $15 trillion to our debt. No one is going to lend us that amount of money. We do not have 10 years. This deal does not change that trajectory at all. We will still borrow $10 trillion or more in the next 10 years. We will still add $1 trillion a year to our debt.

We cannot call this a debt reduction bill. We can not even call it a spending reduction bill. For the next couple years, it hardly cuts anything. When we talk about cutting in Washington, we are not cutting spending from where it is today; we are reducing the rate of increase that is planned. So it is important we tell the truth to the American people that while this deal may be the best we can do--with the leadership in the White House, or lack thereof, as well as the leadership, or lack thereof, in the Senate--it may be the best political solution we can get, but it does not solve America's problem. It certainly does not solve America's job problem, and it does nothing but add another $10 trillion to our debt if we are able to go that far.

I will be voting against this bill because I do not believe we have 10 years to try to get it right. I think it is very likely, over the next year or two or three, that we are going to reach a very real debt limit when no one will lend us any more money.

Today, in America, we have to borrow $140 billion a month in order to pay our regular bills. The people who are adding to that debt every month think it is extreme to balance their checkbook. It is time we get our House in order and force this Congress, by the Constitution, to balance its budget. We cannot continue to spend more than we are bringing in and expect to reduce our debt. That is the inside Washington mentality.

This deal is not a good deal for America. It may be the best deal Washington can come up with, with the current leadership, but it puts our country at risk. But in a Washington where there is no leadership in the White House, there is no accountability, and there is someone sitting in the Oval Office who will not take responsibility for anything, this may be a deal we have to accept for now.

I intend to vote against it because it is important we tell America the truth; that this puts our country at risk. It is time we do what is best for America, not what makes the best deal in Washington. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this deal, even though I know they already have the votes. But I hope when this is passed, we will not think for 1 minute we have solved the problem, we will not try to convince Americans that now we have a few more years to spend and borrow without any repercussions.

We need to immediately get back to the debate that was getting America involved in the last election, which was balancing our budget and getting some fiscal sanity in Washington. While we are in desperate straits in our country right now, and we see our economy getting worse because of the policies of this administration, the good news is this: We can solve this problem with one more good election. That is what I am looking forward to: taking my case to the American people and the case they sent us here to make to this Congress, that we need one more election to finish the job they started in 2010. If they want us to get control of spending and borrowing and debt, we need a few more good people, such as the House freshmen who have stood their ground on this whole debate and those who have come in here in the Senate and have led the way for a balanced budget. It is that day I am looking forward to because on that day, we will once again, hopefully, listen to America, get our House in order, balance our budget, and do what is best for our country.

I yield back.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and Senator Collins, for their leadership on this issue. It is good to see Democrats and Republicans working together on something.

Unfortunately, like many of the things we work on, we are dealing with symptoms of a much deeper problem that we fail to recognize. The reason we have gone from a few hundred confirmations during President Kennedy's time to thousands today is because of the incredible exponential growth of the Federal Government--new departments everywhere, where we have new positions that have to be filled with nominees who are confirmed by the Senate. Rather than look at the behemoth we have created, we are moving to make it somewhat less accountable.

I appreciate the rationale behind this, but I do think we have to recognize when we are treating symptoms and not solving the problem. The problem has led to much of the debt, the spending and an out-of- control Congress and congressional interventions, because all of these agencies invade on the private sector. But I do appreciate the opportunity to speak and to offer an amendment.

The amendment we will be voting on in a few minutes does relate to the International Monetary Fund. This is a fund set up years ago to help struggling poor nations that get themselves in trouble. The United States has been the largest contributor for years. But the IMF has gone from being an international agency that helped in a limited number of difficult situations to one that is now huge; that has access to Americans' general fund. That is what I want to talk about today.

My amendment would deauthorize what we did in 2009 to open our bank account to bailouts all over the world. Americans have gotten plenty tired of our spending and our borrowing, and particularly the bailouts they have seen from Washington and how these bailouts have not worked but often made things worse. The international bailout fund is the International Monetary Fund.

In 2009, this Congress passed an additional $100 billion credit line to the International Monetary Fund. This can be drawn on without any congressional approval, without the President's approval. It is an open checkbook, in effect, that the International Monetary Fund can use, and they will use, during these difficult times, as we see irresponsible nations such as Greece that need international funds to continue their profligate spending.

We must deauthorize this. Our country is in dire straits--close to bankruptcy itself. The President is asking us, for the fourth time, to increase the debt limit of our Nation so we can borrow another $2 trillion on top of the $14 trillion we have already borrowed. We cannot afford to let the International Monetary Fund--which we discovered in the last month has some questionable management practices--access $100 billion more than they already have of our money and help bail out countries all over the world that have failed to make the difficult decisions.

Don't think for a moment this is helping the poor in other countries. This is a bailout for the big banks around the world that have made loans to governments and now expect the International Monetary Fund to back them. Americans saw enough of that during our own Wall Street bailouts. Yet this Congress approved $100 billion more, which has not been accessed yet but is available to the International Monetary Fund right now without our permission. We can stop that today with this amendment.

There is no excuse for giving away money around the world when we cannot even keep our promises here in America--promises we have made to our seniors and promises we have made to our veterans.

Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to maybe do one responsible fiscal thing in this session of Congress and at least put this on hold. Let's stop this authorized $100 billion for international bailouts.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this next amendment is about accountability and transparency. I thank the leadership teams on both sides for accepting most of the positions here for legislative affairs that interface on our behalf with the administration. There are eight more positions and that is all this amendment is about. They are public affairs positions that interface on behalf of the public with the administration. Certainly we can give the public the same accountability and transparency we ask for ourselves. These are the positions within the White House. If Americans have a problem in any area, whether it is defense contracting, Health and Human Services, HUD, Labor, they call a public affairs officer. These folks need to be accountable to us and we need to make sure they respond to the American people. There are only eight positions here that we are asking to go through the normal confirmation process.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.