Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday marked 10 years since the horrendous attack of Americans on American soil, but it led to a lot of patriotism and a lot of flags being displayed all over the country.

Over the weekend, I noticed my 3-year-old granddaughter and my 4- year-old granddaughter, when they saw a flag hanging anywhere, said ``God bless America.''

Throughout the history of the United States, each generation has had at least one iconic moment, one moment in time that served to galvanize the Nation and call each and every American to take on a cause much greater than themselves. Ultimately, the results they were able to achieve served to define who they were as a generation and what they were capable of, both as individuals and as a nation.

For my father, that moment was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. As we watched with growing concern, a terrible evil had taken the whole world to the brink of war. We found we no longer had a choice as to whether we would get involved. We were forced to take action and bring our military might to bear against an enemy that had set its sights on world domination.

As soon as the call went out, brave men and women from all across the country volunteered to serve in our military and to take up arms to defend the rights and liberties we cherish as Americans. They soon proved to be worthy of the task as we once again showed that ours was the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. Thanks to them, the tyranny and oppression that threatened to overwhelm Europe was halted and peace and freedom was once again restored to a war-weary world.

Returning home from the battlefields on which they had served with distinction, our service men and women took up another great challenge and that was to rebuild our Nation and to restore its greatness. Their commitment and dedication to that great mission helped to make the United States what it is today. Thanks to them, their sons and daughters received the greatest gift they could possibly receive, our American way of life. Their actions made it clear that the American dream belongs to everyone, and it can come true, if we are willing to do whatever is necessary to make it happen.

For me and my generation, our iconic moment came with the news that the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik into space. In that brief moment in time, we were once again filled with that same determination as we realized we were in second place in the race for space and in other things. That would never be acceptable or accepted.

In the days after that startling announcement, people of all ages found themselves looking to the skies, wondering if we could answer this daunting challenge. Our curiosity and our ingenuity would again be put to the test as we all tried to help in the effort to bring about that ``one giant step for mankind'' that wasn't to come for several more years.

My friends and I in junior high banded together--although we were all very young--to help. We wanted to learn all we could about rockets so we could become rocketeers or at least we tried our best to be worthy of the title. Once again, we had a difficult goal to reach for, and we were proud to think of ourselves as part of that call to action.

Of course, President John F. Kennedy then issued the challenge to the Nation that we would send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth. It sounded impossible, but with American know-how we were able to develop and put into action a plan that made it happen.

When the time came, the world watched with wonder and amazement as Neil Armstrong took those first steps on the Moon and proved once again that whatever goals we set, we always seem to find the tools and talent we need to get the job done.

For my children, their generation's iconic moment came on September 11, when we were once again cruelly attacked by terrorists who had hijacked several planes and used them to destroy the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. It was a moment in time that everyone will long remember for the impact that day and the events surrounding it had on the world and our lives, an impact that continues to be felt.

Even though it was 10 years ago, for almost all of us, the images of September 11 are still fresh in our minds. We can remember where we were when we first heard the news that our Nation was under attack. We can remember how we felt as we watched the Twin Towers fall and the sense of loss as the harsh reality of all the lives that were lost that day became all too real.

There are many lessons learned as we watched the rescue crews, along with our police and firemen, attempt to save as many as they could from the building and then from the wreckage. It was a harsh reminder of how delicate and precious our lives are and how the gift can be taken from us at a moment's notice.

Yet out of all that was lost, there was the birth of something even greater, something more powerful and enduring. It was the sense of community, this sense of country that bound us together as one Nation, as one American. We stood side by side with our neighbors, our families, and even complete strangers, looking out for one another and helping those in need.

Terrorists thought we were a weak nation that would crumble in the face of violence. Those who wanted to hurt us sent a clear message. Yet we sent another. American flags sprung up in every yard, flew from every building, and even hung from our overpasses. The powerfully simple message of the Stars and Stripes was our message: We are America and we stand together.

Like those moments before, the morning light the next day brought with it the firm resolve that we would, once again, come together as one to address that attack. Political differences would no longer separate us. Concern for our shared future was so strong it would unite us to face this threat to our well-being. Together, we resolved we would do everything we could to ensure that terrorism would never again take such a terrible toll from our Nation or any other nation.

I remember during that time being at events where ambassadors from around the world offered an outpouring of sympathy and comfort for our grieving Nation. I was touched by their sympathy and care for America. I was also pleased so many countries helped us to follow the money trails which led to the arrest and prosecution of countless terrorists.

In the years since that terrible day, justice has also been delivered by our brave service men and women who have once again answered the call to duty and taken up arms to rid the world of the network of terror wherever it is found. Thanks to their efforts, nations that had never known freedom before now dare to dream of a better tomorrow for themselves and for their children. People who had lived in fear under the tyranny of oppression will now have a say in their shared future as citizens of the world. Those who had known nothing but anguish and despair now have a reason to hope for a better life. The Middle East is still in turmoil as the people reach for freedom and individual prosperity.

C.S. Lewis once said:

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our

conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to

rouse a deaf world.

I think it is clear that the pain we felt that day was sufficient to rouse us to all the action as it opened our hearts and our minds to God and each other.

In the days to come, the memories of all we witnessed on September 11 will stay with us and serve as a constant reminder that freedom isn't free. It often comes to us at all too great a cost. In that spirit we will never forget those who lost their lives that day, their loved ones and all who knew them and called them their friends. For this generation and those who follow, their memory will continue to inspire us to be ever vigilant and constantly on guard at the gates of freedom to ensure that this ``one nation, under God, indivisible'' will continue to be the home of ``liberty and justice for all,'' for ourselves, for our children, and for many generations to come.

Let's remember September 11 and the feelings we had for our country and each other. May we rekindle the sense of community, country, and world we felt then. May lasting good come out of chaos.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on August 26, 2011, we recognized the 40th anniversary of Women's Equality Day. It is on this day that we celebrate the many contributions of women in advancing our society by fighting for equality and justice. This day also marked the 91st anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guaranteed women the right to vote in 1920. Wyoming was the first in the world to allow women to vote and own property. Wyoming adopted it in 1820. That was 50 years before the nation adopted women's suffrage.

Wyoming has a long history of advancing women's rights and actually refused to become a state when the option was women losing their rights. Wyoming became the first State to elect a female Governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross, just 5 years after the 19th amendment was ratified by the U.S. Congress. We also had the first female Justice of the Peace, Esther Hobart Morris and her commemoration is one of only a few female statues displayed in the U.S. Capitol today.

While we are certainly proud of our past, I am honored to currently serve in Wyoming's congressional delegation alongside U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis who has been a remarkable leader for Wyoming as she continues the proud tradition of leadership of women in our state. Speaking of firsts, Congresswoman Lummis became the youngest woman ever elected to the Wyoming State Legislature. She was also the first woman to serve on the Cheyenne Frontier Days Rodeo Board. Cynthia has taken on a variety of roles ranging from a lawyer and rancher to a legislator and Wyoming State treasurer. Now in her role in the U.S. House of Representatives, her work continually impresses me as she does an outstanding job serving her constituents and fighting for their interests in Congress.

Without a doubt, the ratification of the 19th amendment to our country's Constitution was a landmark in our need to recognize the voices of women and recognize their contributions to our country. While there is no doubt we are a better country for offering full franchise to women, it needs to be recognized that on Equality Day our Nation recognizes a turning point for progress and civil rights, a watershed moment in our ongoing pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

Women serve as a pillar of strength in our country. I am proud to recognize the 141st year of Wyoming women voting and this 91st anniversary of women gaining the right to vote and look forward to welcoming their achievements and contributions in the years to come and assuring that equality is not just a word.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator who preceded me. We are heading into a territory where we have never been before.

In Washington you get to get your Sunday funnies on Saturday, so I took a little peek at ``Dilbert'' today. I hope everybody will look at that because it emphasizes the problem.

``Dilbert'' says:

I am preparing for the complete meltdown of our financial

system. I've got six months of food and water. I have

batteries and flashlights and gold coins.

The lady with the triangular hair says:

I'm prepared too. I have your home address and I noticed

that your preparations are light on defensive weaponry.

And she says:

Could you add some protein bars to the shopping list?

I want to share with you a letter from a 10-year-old in Wyoming that made our statewide newspaper. He wrote:

What does the Government think of me?

. . . They think I'm not so smart because I'm too young to

know what they're doing, like raising the national debt.

Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000. I'm

only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000.

. . . That's more than my dad earns. But it wouldn't buy

everything.

Government shouldn't try to buy everything.

It is my job, and the people's job to buy things we need. I

don't want the Government to think for me. They don't know

I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers

tell me what to do, because they aren't always responsible

for their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do

with their money.

I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the

rules.

I thank Eric Mitchell, Crowheart, WY, for his sage advice.

Mr. President, it is disappointing to be here today addressing the U.S. Senate on a topic that we should have dealt with months ago. Our country is in a financial crisis. Erskine Bowles, the cochairman of the Deficit Commission, coined the situation we face as, ``the most predictable economic crisis in history,'' and yet there is no clear path forward to deal with both the short-term need to raise the debt limit and the long-term need to get spending under control. I am disappointed we have made this discussion about the debt ceiling instead of our ever increasing spending. When you spend beyond your means, you have to cut back.

The plans we are considering at this stage in the debate are plans for the next year to 2 years. While there is merit in making the spending cuts these bills make, they are not the ultimate solution.

We need more significant action. We need to move forward with something bold. My Republican colleagues and I have proposed such plans. I have proposed a solution that would cut just 1 penny from every dollar we spend for 6 years and then cap spending at the historical amount of revenue we take in during the 7th year. In the 8th year, we would have a balanced budget.

Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to even debate measures like my penny plan or the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act or even the plan put forward by Speaker Boehner. At the same time they refuse to debate these measures, they refuse to put forward their own plan for long-term structural changes. They are only willing to debate plans that make changes in the short term, and so we are stuck here debating a plan that is deeply flawed.

I think it is important to look at where the debate is today versus where it was when President Obama was sworn in. It is clear that we have come a long way from where we were when President Obama took office.

In 2009, Democrats in Congress passed a so-called economic stimulus bill that cost $1 trillion. To pay for it, we borrowed that money, and as the unemployment numbers prove, all that borrowing didn't solve our economic problems. Apparently, we spend over $275,000 per job--and none of those employees got paid that well. In 2010, President Obama's second year in office, Democrats in Congress forced through an unpopular health care bill which was wrought with budget gimmicks and will ultimately cost our country trillions of dollars. The President's attempt at health care reform was so unsuccessful that the largest problem facing our debt and deficit situation is what we will do to contain health care costs. Another trillion dollars borrowed. Another trillion dollars wasted.

The American people were fed up with congressional Democrats' reckless spending spree and, in November 2010, they voted for real change. Those votes ushered in a new attitude, and 7 months into a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the debate is entirely different. Instead of looking at where we can spend more money, we are looking at what we can cut. Instead of looking at how to borrow more money, we are looking at how we can change our spending habits so that we have a spending plan that will work in the future. Republicans have heard the people's call for smaller government and less spending, and are committed to taking action.

Earlier this year, Republicans led efforts to cut spending in appropriations bills for the first time in years. Now, we need to find a solution to cut trillions of dollars of spending at the same time we allow the President to have some additional borrowing authority to pay for the purchases we have already made. The cuts Republicans have proposed are the largest cuts ever seen, but it still isn't enough to fix the problem long term.

Why aren't we looking at a long-term solution to this problem? Why are we forced to look at short-term, piddly spending cuts at the same time we give the President the ability to borrow lots more money? This isn't one person or one party's fault.

The President does have us in a box. During his State of the Union Message, the President could have explained to the American people the dire situation we are facing. The Deficit Commission had already painted the picture. The President needed to premiere that picture. He could have explained that we are borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend--much of it from China. He could have explained that we are on a spending spree that must be stopped. That was and is the true state of the Union.

After the State of the Union, he could have sent us a serious budget proposal modeled after his own Deficit Commission. Instead, he used the State of the Union to talk about more spending and his budget was such a ridiculous proposal it didn't receive a single vote--Republican or Democratic--when it was put before the Senate.

While the President has failed to lead and deserves a substantial portion of the blame, we in Congress have also put ourselves in this box. During the last administration, we should have worked to contain spending. While we missed that opportunity, when it was clear that we needed to make a major change this year, Democrats in the Senate should have ignored the President's lack of leadership and put forward a budget proposal in the Senate. The House passed a budget, but rather than taking their proposal seriously, my Democratic colleagues demonized the plan as the end of Medicare. They preferred finding a campaign issue as opposed to actually solving the financial problems we face.

Unfortunately, we are quickly running out of options. We are at a catch 22. The country can't afford more debt,

but has to have it. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we won't be able to pay all of our bills and interest rates will go up. On the other hand, if we pass a plan that doesn't fundamentally change the way we do business in Washington, we increase the debt limit with no end in sight and interest rates go up.

The majority in the Senate that brought you banking reform has run up a huge debt and we have all maxed out the Nation's credit cards. Now they want to increase the amount of the mortgage. Imagine trying to get a loan when nothing has been paid on the principle of the previous loan. Now imagine the lender's reaction when he is told that the mortgagee will be back shortly for another loan.

Let me put this in concrete terms because it might be easier to understand. I am trying to keep these numbers proportional to the $14 trillion debt. Imagine that you have a loan on a very large house with a mortgage of $1.4 million. Since buying the house, you have made interest payments, but not a single payment on the principal. You determine you need more money to spend, so you go to the lender and request an additional loan of $230,000. At the same time you do that, you are honest and you warn the lender that you will be back each year for the next 9 years asking for $100,000 more each year. You also let the lender know that you don't want to have to pay off any of the principal on the loan, just make interest payments each year.

I don't think any lender would take you seriously, but if he or she did, they would explain that you would have to obtain a variable rate loan. A variable rate loan means that changes in the risk or the economy could drive interest rates much higher and there would be no protection from those higher interest rates. In other words, your loan with an excellent interest rate of 2.5 percent could go to an interest rate of 5 percent or 10 percent, or like under President Carter, over 18 percent a year. A 1 percent increase in interest rates for the U.S. debt would cost another $1.3 trillion over 10 years. That is just a 1 percent raise.

The lender would point out that the raise in debt plus the rise in interest rates could result in your entire paycheck going to interest-- and the interest payments would have to come ahead of food, clothing, and any social needs--for you, or for your children or your parents or your grandparents. That is what we are talking about here as the future for the United States--interest payments on the debt being the only thing we could pay for.

If the banker were foolish enough to consider such a loan, he would want to know what spending changes you were going to make. He would expect changes immediately, not piddly changes this year for a promise of a big change in the 9th year. He would want some proof that you are serious.

If we act now and agree to cut 1 percent--the 1 percent solution, just 1 penny of each dollar--from all our spending and reduce the cap to the new spending by that level for each of the next 7 years, the lender ``might'' consider your loan. There is a good chance he would expect 2 percent or 3 percent in cuts for the first year to demonstrate that you are serious about kicking your spending habit.

We are in that situation today in Congress. The President is asking for a $2.4 trillion loan increase--the largest loan increase in our Nation's history. Our lenders will explain to us, if we are worried about the low income, the downtrodden, and the less fortunate today, we should see what will happen to those individuals if we don't cut spending. If we reach a situation where all of our revenues are going to interest payments on the debt, the future prioritization to pay for our debt will be unbearable. We can't go out 18 months. The American people don't trust us. We need to be accountable to the people. We need an enforceable, accountable plan with quicker results.

Some might argue that the lender would just expect you to bring in more money. My Democratic colleagues suggest just that when they say we must raise taxes. But everyone knows that if you ask your boss for a raise because you can't control your spending, you could be fired or demoted and, as a result, you would be bringing in less revenue. I don't need to tell you that our bosses--the American people--don't think much of how we have been working for them, and they don't expect a tax increase each time Washington gets addicted to giving away money.

The plan the majority leader has offered uses budget gimmicks to avoid real spending cuts and gives the President a debt limit increase that, while politically expedient, fails to put our country on a workable path. It doesn't provide a way to assure any substantial cuts will be made. While it maybe makes some necessary spending cuts today, it does not provide us with relief from our long term challenges and does not put us in a situation where we would be forced to make the tough choices.

We know that the majority leader's proposal won't pass. Every Republican has made clear that they will oppose the proposal and so it doesn't have the chance to move forward. We have made clear that we will not give the President the single largest debt ceiling increase in history for double the average time generally allowed since 1940 through the proposal the majority leader has offered. We have offered to vote on his proposal time and time again, and for reasons beyond comprehension, he refuses to allow a vote. He did a vote within 30 minutes of the time that the House bill came over here, but he wants to drag out the vote on his bill. I know delay will bring the pressure until the last minute, but that is not how a reasonable government works. I wish we had taken action earlier to avoid the situation we find ourselves in today. I wish the proposal before us was a serious effort to make structural change to how we spend money.

Instead we all know the plan put forward by the majority leader will be voted down later tonight or tomorrow, and we will be in the same place we are right now--in the box where we need to raise the debt limit, but we also need to make structural changes to get our fiscal house in order to keep the markets from melting down.

We do recognize that we are about to enter territory where our country has never been. The stock markets are already reacting. Because we are debating short-term solutions, this debate will continue on even after we act on the debt ceiling.

I hope we can come together on a debt ceiling increase and a plan for real spending cuts. That is where the emphasis needs to be, and it has to have enforcement. I hope the debt ceiling is limited to the amount of guaranteed cuts. I hope we can put our country on a sustainable, fiscal path.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, we have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the debt and the deficit crisis this country is facing during the 112th Congress. Although we have heard from the President that we must raise the debt limit, neither he nor any of his Democratic colleagues, with the exception of the three Senators in the Gang of 6, have presented us with a concrete plan to rein in spending and get our fiscal house in order.

Meanwhile, every day we are spending more money that we do not have. While my Democratic colleagues continue to talk about the need to increase the debt limit and get our fiscal house in order, the House of Representatives has taken concrete action to make that happen. On Tuesday night, 234 Members of the House of Representatives joined to pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

The bill will put the country on a sound fiscal course at the same time that it gives the President $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing authority that he has asked us to provide. The problem we currently face is that we are spending too much money and borrowing too much money.

I agree with our colleagues in the House that it only makes sense for us to increase the borrowing authority if we put the country on a path where that borrowing will eventually end, even though it is a long way out.

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act takes a three-tiered approach to finding the right fiscal ship. First, it provides some substantial but reasonable cuts to spending immediately. The bill requires us to cut about 3 percent in spending from the bloated Federal budget next year. That cut amounts to more than $100 billion in spending next year.

The bill allows the House and Senate to determine where those cuts are most appropriate. Because we recognize the need to cut in appropriate areas, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act ensures there are no immediate cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, or to our military colleagues.

At the same time we cut spending, the bill puts in place spending caps that prevent us from spending above a specific amount and puts our spending trajectory on a path where we can achieve a balanced budget. We all wish we could balance the budget tomorrow, but we are spending money at such an alarming rate that it just is not achievable. We are almost borrowing as much money as we take in in revenue. The bill recognizes that fact and gradually caps spending so we can achieve balance.

Finally, the bill gives the President the ability to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion he is requesting, subject to one condition: that Congress passes a balanced budget amendment. We all agree we need to stop borrowing so much money. The only way to stop borrowing is to have a balanced budget--not spending more than we take in.

We have a pretty good idea how much is coming in and how much is going out. That is why August 2 is the day of crisis, and that is including the money we borrow. When we pay the interest, we have to borrow 40 cents on every dollar to pay the interest.

If someone has a maxed out credit card and borrows to pay the minimum balance, do you think they will ever pay that card off? Not a chance. That is the situation we are in.

A balanced budget means we will not spend money we do not have. Therefore, if the President wants to borrow $2.4 trillion more from a country such as China, we need to know it will not force us to borrow money forever. Cut, cap, and balance does not ask for the time for States to ratify a balanced budget amendment after it passes. Their time to ratify gives us time to get where we need to go.

Like families across America, we are going to have to decide what spending is essential. Families have as many ideas for spending money as the Federal Government does. But they know it is not an option to spend what they do not have. They have to decide what is essential and what is nice to have.

I think it is important to take a look at the problem we are facing. If we grasp the size of the problem, we will share my sense of urgency that we must pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

Our national debt is around $14.3 trillion. Our national debt is almost equal to the whole economy of the United States--everything that is produced and sold in the United States.

Our debt is almost equal to the whole economy of the United States. We call it GDP. That is so we do not really know what we are talking about. That means if we were to pay off the debt, every man, woman, and child in this country would need to write a check for more than $46,000. It would be one matter if that number were projected to decrease or if there were signs that we are making progress in bringing our budget back into balance. But that is not happening. Since the President took office in 2009, our national debt has increased by more than $4.4 billion each day, for a total increase of $3.7 trillion.

I can already hear the President counter that he had a lot to clean up. At what point when things are getting worse instead of better is the President going to take ownership and provide a solution on paper? Lots of speeches, no paper.

The stimulus did not work, so let's not repeat it. If we keep doing what we have been doing, we should not be surprised when we wind up with what we already got--the same result.

Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, proved that putting your fiscal house in order increased the economy. They already tried some of the other things, but putting the fiscal house in order is what made the difference.

In 2011 we are expected to spend $3.6 trillion. At the same time that we spend the $3.6 trillion, we will have revenues of $2.2 trillion. That is a $1.4 trillion deficit. If we follow the President's budget, we will have a deficit the next year of $1.2 trillion. The 10-year average, if we follow the President's budget proposal, is nearly $1 trillion in deficits each year.

After his first term, the President's policies are expected to add almost as much debt held by the public as all the Presidents in the history of the United States. That level of deficit cannot be sustained and, contrary to the opinions of my friends on the other side of the aisle, we cannot tax our way out of this problem. Failure to live within our means does not warrant taxing the taxpayers for Washington's failures.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 86 percent of all Federal taxes in 2007. Those individuals are the job creators in this country. Many of them are small business people who reinvest their profits, even though they have to pay the taxes on them at that time. So they put the profits back into their businesses to make them grow.

Increasing taxes at a time of economic struggle will cost jobs and will lead to more unemployment and higher deficits. Businesses are already reluctant to expand because of the increasing and detrimental regulations coming out every day of this administration. Some of the regulations are not even from current law, so they will be fought in the courts and they will be overturned. But it will be at a great expense, a great delay, because it will take over a 5-year period to do that, and we will experience more pain than any cuts we might make.

Now, rather than increasing taxes, we need to cut spending and reform entitlement programs. Mandatory and entitlement programs now account for 62 percent of all Federal spending. That number continues to rise as the baby boomer generation retires. By comparison, mandatory and entitlement programs accounted for 33 percent of all Federal budget spending in 1964--33 percent up to 62 percent.

The numbers do not lie. Entitlement programs are placing a stranglehold on our budget, and yet there are still calls from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to keep them as they are. Misinformation from campaigns and outside groups say there is not a problem and we can fix our budget simply by cutting earmarks and finding waste, fraud, and abuse. That is just not true. Even if the money from the Social Security trust fund that has been spent were returned, the length of time a person now lives makes the fund actuarially broke.

These problems are too serious for us to ignore. Erskine Bowles, the cochairman of the deficit commission, said it best when he testified that ``we are facing the most predictable crisis in our nation's history.''

Everyone knows we need to take action. Everyone knows we need to make the tough choices necessary to right our fiscal ship. Yet there are some who suggest we should not act or that we should wait to act.

To those Members, I say we have kicked the can down the road long enough. It is time for us to take serious action to change the trajectory of our spending habits and get this country in a condition that we can be proud to leave to our grandchildren.

We have known that this debt limit debate was coming for months. We can all see that the government is spending money at a rate that will require us to authorize the Treasury Department to borrow more money. Although the date shifted, the fact that the government will have reached the debt limit should come as no surprise to anyone. That is why it is so perplexing the President and my Democratic colleagues have not presented any written plan to get the country back on track.

Well, I guess the President did present one. We voted on it, and it did not get a single vote in this Chamber--not one vote. He did not even talk one Democrat into voting for it. He had an outstanding opportunity to talk about the deficit crisis that the deficit commission pointed out. He could have done that in the State of the Union speech. He could have followed that up with a budget that would have mirrored what the budget commission said. That is kind of where this Gang of 6 is right now with their suggestion.

But that did not happen. Instead, we move on to the crisis and figure that just raising the debt limit will solve everything. We have known it was coming for a long time.

In the House, Republicans passed a budget that would cut the spending by

$5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Senator Toomey and Senator Paul in this body presented their own budget that would get our country back on track. Senator Corker has introduced legislation that would cap spending levels and head us in the right direction. I have introduced legislation that would require us to reduce spending by 1 percent for 7 years and cap spending each year to balance the budget. It will work: In 7 years, 1 percent.

Incidentally, that is probably how long it will take the States to ratify the balanced budget amendment. If we are saying we can do it without a balanced budget amendment, we should also pass my 1 percent solution bill and prove that we can. A backup plan is always a good idea.

Most businesses in the United States have to find a way to reduce spending by 1 percent to match the economy or to do the regulations we have forced on them. Most families have to find a way to spend one penny less out of every dollar or face a financial crisis.

Why can't the United States do 1 percent--1 percent each year? By making the 1 percent spending cut, we would save around $7\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years, balance our budget, and we would put the country on a sustainable spending path.

Republicans have offered all of these plans, and we continue to hear only silence from the other side. The only plan presented by the majority, as I mentioned, was President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget, which was unanimously opposed.

When the President and the majority do not lead, some bill has to take the lead. Members of the House proved that on Tuesday night by passing a plan that allows the President to have his debt limit increase and get our country back on track. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is a responsible solution to the problems we face. We are spending too much. Too much spending leads to too much borrowing.

To rein in spending, we must make immediate cuts that prove Congress can act. We must cap future spending to ensure that our spending levels do not grow at an unsurmountable level.

To prevent future borrowing, we need to put into place a mechanism that will require us to balance the budget. Forty-nine States require a balanced budget, and it is well past time for the Federal Government to show the same fiscal restraint.

The President has asked us to give him the ability to borrow $2.4 trillion more, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay back and, if the crisis worsens, it will move up to the current generation. It is money we will need to borrow from countries such as China, which are our competitors in the world and which don't necessarily share the same values. I don't take that responsibility lightly.

This responsibility requires immediate action to correct the problem and prevent future generations from having to make the tough choices our out-of-control spending has forced us to make. The House took the responsibility seriously and passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act to right our fiscal ship at the same time we give the President the borrowing authority he so desires. The Senate should follow suit and pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act immediately.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two of Wyoming's best ski areas--Grand Targhee and the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort--for their hard work and commitment to better management practices. Their records of improving efficiency, reducing energy use, promoting better environmental management, and focusing on sustainable operations have earned them the 2011 National Ski Areas Association Golden Eagle Award for Overall Environmental Excellence. The Golden Eagle Award is presented to ski areas and resorts that have shown a true commitment to making sure our great outdoors will be enjoyed for years to come. I congratulate Grand Targhee and Jackson Hole Mountain Resort for their accomplishments. Wyoming is proud to be home to both of these great ski opportunities.

Jackson Hole Mountain Resort has a history of environmental excellence. They have earned their 2011 Golden Eagle Award for working for 5 years to implement an integrated environmental management system to achieve the International Organization for Standardization's, ISO, 140001 standards. This system is an overall approach to sustainability, continual improvement, and a future of responsible

stewardship of some of the most pristine areas in our country. But this isn't the first time that Jackson Hole Mountain Resort has been recognized for environmental excellence. They have a history of commitment to sound environmental management going back 15 years. They first received the Golden Eagle Award in 1995, and were also awarded a Silver Eagle Award for Excellence in Energy Conservation and Clean Energy in 2003, as well as a Silver Eagle Award for Excellence in Visual Impact in 2005.

Grand Targhee has also worked hard to demonstrate their commitment to environmental quality. This year, they are being recognized with a Golden Eagle Award for committing to reduce their energy use by 10 percent, and then exceeding their goal and achieving an energy savings of 18 percent. Their investments in energy efficiency upgrades, weatherization, and better management practices helped them meet and exceed their goals for improving their energy use. This year marks the third award for environmental excellence for Grand Targhee. In 2008, they received the Silver Eagle Award for Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling, and in 2009 they received their first Golden Eagle Award.

Both Jackson Hole Mountain Resort and Grand Targhee have been operating in the Teton Range since the 1960s. They have a history of being some of the best ways to experience Wyoming's amazing landscapes. Their commitment to sound environmental management, conservation, and improving how they use energy demonstrates their commitment to being part of Wyoming's futures for years to come.

I congratulate both resorts for this tremendous accomplishment. It is truly an honor to receive the Golden Eagle Award from the National Ski Areas Association and is one more example of Wyoming businesses leading the way.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some missed opportunities. Last week, I talked a little bit about how I thought the President had missed the opportunity with his deficit commission, he had missed the opportunity with his State of the Union speech, and he had missed the opportunity with his budget.

Well, almost 2 weeks ago, President Obama scolded Congress for not making enough progress on debt ceiling and budget negotiations. He said we needed to stay in Washington last week and get things done. I took him at his word. I thought the administration and the majority were serious about staying in Washington to push forward and get some results. We were all in Washington last week, but we did not get anything done. The debt and the deficit and the lack of a budget are not the only issues facing America. When are we going to have real issues processed through committees that provide real solutions?

Despite reports suggesting that Democrats have reached an agreement on a budget deal among themselves, the majority did not present us with that budget. Despite the President's comments that Congress needed to be in session to reach an agreement, he refused to meet with our caucus. We have gone more than 800 days without passing any sort of budget in the Senate. When we stayed in Washington last week to work on a budget deal, Democrats refused to bring up that budget for a vote.

Last week, we had an opportunity to make headway on the debt ceiling issue. I spoke on the floor last Wednesday and implored my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rolling up our sleeves and figuring out a way to solve the fiscal mess this country is in. I laid down the facts and figures--frightening numbers that should have galvanized us all into action. Instead, we are still pushing for a comprehensive solution to the problem or none at all. This isn't ``deal or no deal'' time.

Now, here we are, and what was supposed to have been an important workweek has come and gone. What do we have to show for it? We had one vote canceled on the Libya resolution, a substitute vote on whether the Sergeant at Arms should compel attendance, which was a nonbudget- related matter, and we had one legislative vote on Senator Reid's resolution about tax increases. This resolution is a sense of the Senate, which is not something that could become law. At this juncture more than ever, we don't need publicity pieces.

What we could have done was moved forward with the balanced budget amendment that all 47 Republicans have cosponsored or we could have voted on my legislation to reduce spending by 1 percent each year until we achieve a balanced budget or we could have voted on legislation other Republicans have offered that would cap spending or we could have voted on legislation offered by Republicans to ensure we pay our creditors in the event we cannot reach an agreement on the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, we didn't do any of that. Instead, we spent a week holding one legislative vote on a sense of the Senate about raising taxes that even if passed would not have the force of law.

Republicans have proposed a variety of ideas that will help us get out of this fiscal mess we are in. Some are baby steps; some are giant steps. Every bill doesn't have to be comprehensive.

Members of the majority have said Republicans were using every tactic to delay. What was last week? A vote on a sense of the Senate? The House passed a budget in April. The Senate Republicans proposed two additional budget measures. The only plan presented by the majority-- President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012--was unanimously opposed, 0 to 97. Not even a single Democrat voted for the President's budget. It sounds like a different course is needed.

I thought we were here to take care of business. Is one legislative vote on an opinion piece considered taking care of business? Not in my mind. I am willing to bet the American people don't think so either. This is exactly the kind of behavior that is frustrating the people in Wyoming and all across the country. They have asked us to come do a job. They have put their faith in us to take care of business and put this country back on solid fiscal footing. The American people want us to thoughtfully and seriously work to address the debt ceiling and reduce spending. Taking one legislative vote in a week doesn't pass the smell test for getting the job done. The work product we gave the American people last week is appalling.

We are staring the most predictable crisis in American history in the face, and, with only one legislative vote last week, we essentially said it is not dire enough for us to get something done; it is not important enough to stop playing political games and stop running the clock. I am hopeful that this week will be different. I am hopeful that we will actually make progress on budget negotiations.

I am encouraged that the President has finally taken it upon himself to engage leaders on the matter. His direct engagement should have been happening for months, and his refusal to get directly involved has put us in the situation we are in today, with 3 weeks until the Treasury Department is left without options for the debt ceiling. We have lost time. We have lost opportunities. We have lost the focus started by the deficit commission. Every day that passes that we don't get anything done is one more option lost and more money spent on borrowed time and borrowed money.

Businesses all across the country can't afford to waste a day, much less a week, without productivity, and if they did, I guarantee they would pay a heavy price. If that unproductive behavior continued, they would have to close their doors. People going to work every day cannot afford to sit around and not do their jobs. If Americans and businesses in this country have to work hard and stay productive to provide for their families and keep their businesses running, so should we. The standards should not be any different in the Senate.

As for a solution that relies on increased taxes, when Congress fails by spending too much, the easy answer is always to raise taxes. There are many Republican proposals for raising revenue without raising taxes. But we cannot get in a situation where, when we fail, we charge the people more. It usually results in less revenue anyway.

The motion we are voting on tonight is a sham. When it passes, we have permission to add amendments to the

sense-of-the-Senate resolution--maybe. In other words, we can amend the opinion of the Senate that cannot become law. How long will we amend and debate an opinion?

I am disappointed we didn't get anything done last week. I hope we all learned a lesson from the week we just lost. The issues facing the country today are too important and too dire for us to waste time the way we did. I know right now committees are not having real markups, so there is nothing in the drawer to vote on. Even the few times a bill has been brought up, the majority didn't want to vote on amendments and shut the process down. That isn't getting us anywhere. We need to change course. The time for action is now, and I hope we can use last week's failure to get things done as an incentive to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the debt crisis our Nation is facing and how we can come together to fix it. We do talk about how we are putting this debt on our children and grandchildren. The time is on us right now. The bill is coming due.

We are facing the most predictable crisis in our Nation's history with our current financial situation. It is a problem we can all see and that we can all acknowledge must be fixed. Of course, acting is not as easy as talking. If it were that easy, we would not be so far in debt.

For some time, we have been talking about reining in spending and making sure that our grandchildren aren't saddled with the enormous debt our country is facing. Now we are facing the reality of reaching the debt ceiling--a cap that has increased to $14 trillion--that is trillion, with 12 zeros--more than $2 trillion over the previous debt limit of $12 trillion--a little over a year ago, in February of 2010.

We have raised the debt ceiling 74 times since 1962, and we have raised the limit 10 times since 2001. Listen to this. In the last 4 years, we have raised the debt ceiling five times. It is accelerating.

What does this tell us about our spending habits? The numbers don't lie. It tells us we have had to raise the debt ceiling to keep up with increased Federal spending. It tells us we have forgotten entirely how to live within our means, and that we need to make serious decisions about cutting Federal spending. We need to make those decisions now.

We have all been talking about it. Republicans have come to the Senate floor and talked about the country's financial future. They have talked about our debt, projections for the future, and agreed that this path is unsustainable.

Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses for decades have continually increased Federal spending. No one party holds all the blame for the situation we are in, but clearly the road we are traveling on is leading to a crisis.

Last week, the President held a press conference where he lectured Republican Members of Congress. He told us we need to stay in Washington to get things done. After listening to his press conference, we invited the President to meet with Senate Republicans. We hoped to explain to the President that the political reality makes it so that a bill containing tax increases cannot pass the House or the Senate. After lecturing us about the need to be in Washington and the need to get our work done, one would assume the President would take us up on our offer to meet. Instead, his spokesperson said meeting with Senate Republicans was ``not a conversation worth having.'' Rather than staying in Washington to work on the debt and deficit, the President chose to fly to a fundraiser in Philadelphia.

Republicans have been engaged in efforts to fix the debt and deficit since the election last fall. House Republicans passed a serious budget that would cut $6.2 trillion over the next decade--not enough but substantial. After demagoging the Ryan budget as an effort to kill Medicare and push grandma off the cliff, Senate Democrats have yet to bring any budget to the floor.

I heard just a few minutes ago that one is being considered, but it is being considered in a very partisan way, and I don't know if we will get to see it before it comes to the floor. But we have gone 800 days without passing any sort of budget. Even though the media reported that Senate Democrats have reached a budget agreement, they still haven't brought the budget to the floor or shared it with Republicans. Why? I can only assume it is because it includes trillions of dollars in tax increases that would be unpalatable to the majority of Americans.

The President presented a budget and we voted on that budget. In fact, it was voted on 0 to 97. The President couldn't get a single vote for his budget. I didn't see that in many headlines, but it happened. Check on it.

While Democrats continue to ignore the problem, Republicans look for solutions. All 47 Senate Republicans have signed on as cosponsors of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Senator Toomey and Senator Paul put forward their own budget efforts that would balance the budget. I have introduced legislation that creates 2-year budgeting and other legislation that would reduce spending by 1 percent each year for 7 years until we balance the budget. If Congress can't reduce spending by a single percentage point each year, it basically has given up and decided to leave this huge and growing pile of debt to tower over our children and our grandchildren and us, casting a grand shadow over their future and ours.

I remember a hearing we had in the Finance Committee and pretty much what everybody said was: Quit digging. You are in a big hole, quit digging. Phil Gramm talked on taxes and said: Don't penalize America with a tax every time Congress fails to do its job, which is to balance the budget, to spend reasonably. Failure on Congress's part doesn't warrant taxing Americans.

So where do we go from here? Republicans are ready to work, but we need Democrats to work with us. We need the President to take a realistic look at the situation and realize that tax increases are not the answer because the votes aren't there to pass a tax increase. We need to come up with a solution to the budget crisis we face and we need to do it now.

If we are serious about fixing the problem--and I believe many of us are--we have to come to the table willing to work. We have to stop pointing fingers. We have to stop playing political games. We have to stop demagoging ideas that are proposed. We need the President to step to the plate and explain to the American people the problem we face if we don't get our debt and deficit under control and

then give the solutions, not just tax raises.

The President is the only person in the Nation who has the bully pulpit necessary to teach the American people what happens if we don't get a budget and don't get timely appropriations. The President talked about some of the taxes he would increase. The deficit commission suggested those taxes could be used, but they suggested they should be used to lower company rates so we can compete internationally, which would increase revenues. They didn't suggest they should be used to pay for new programs, and they are not even being suggested to reduce the deficit.

Rather than taking the lead in selling the plan, the President has tried to stay above the fray and instead spent his time criticizing Republicans who have come up with a variety of plans. That isn't productive, it isn't helpful, and it will not lead to a deal. We need to end the finger-pointing and show the plan. Show us the plan. Bipartisanship is not about compromise, it is about what we leave out or finding an alternate way to accomplish a mutually agreeable way.

I know it works. I have seen it happen. The late Senator Ted Kennedy and I were able to put this theory into practice when we worked together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He and I came from opposite sides on most issues, but we chose to focus our time and energy on what we knew we could get done. It amazed people, but we sure got results. All in all, when Senator Kennedy and I led the HELP Committee, we got 35 bills reported out of committee and 27 signed into law.

These kinds of results are possible today, but we have to get to work. We can't keep raising the debt ceiling. We can't tax more every time we have a good idea. We have to address the spending problem in Washington, and we have to figure out some solutions to correct our long-term budget outlook. These aren't easy issues to address, but we have been sent to do a job, and that job includes rolling up our sleeves and finding a way out of the mess.

We are here through this July recess, but we are still not doing anything that is proactive or productive. The Democrats are in the Senate majority. They control the floor. Yesterday, we did a nothing vote to see if everybody was back. We will not vote until tomorrow now, and it is just a political ploy put up by the leader. It is messaging, and messaging will not pay the bills. Let's get something done in this session.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I know the issue before us is to change the way the nominations are handled. I wish to express my appreciation for that act and ask my colleagues to support it. A number of the nominations come through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I have been the chairman of that committee, and am now the ranking member. There have been times when nearly 350 appointments have come through at one

time, none of which are accompanied by any paperwork. This situation relates to the Public Health Service Corps nominees, which the Committee is required to report and confirm. However, there is no way to check on any of them because HELP Committee rules specifically state that routine paperwork does not need to be filed for these nominees. So it is a waste of time to take these nominees through the committee process and then to the floor. This bill would eliminate that need.

Now, under the proposal, there are about 250 positions where any Senator can call for a nominee to go through regular order. So for these nominees, anybody who has a concern about a nominee the President appoints has the leverage to be able to take a look at that person, to voice their comments, and to have it considered in the regular order.

I do see a great capability for us to be more productive under this new system, and that is what I would like to see. I would like to ask everybody to support the bill.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments and for the way he delves into any issue we work on and comes up with some unique ideas from his past business experience. I hope people will look at his resume, the information in his biography, to see the fantastic things he has done that show he has the capability to solve problems such as this.

I particularly appreciate the solution the Senator has come up with. Some people say it does not go far enough. You could make it go further than that, but it is timing that is important and actually getting a debate that is important, and I appreciate the way the Senator put it out in a reasonable way where we ought to be able to do it. We need to do it right now so we do not keep passing this debt down, so we get in a responsible position.

I am going to talk about something very similar today. We are in a jobs crisis in this country. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about jobs. There is not any more important issue for American families today than jobs.

For 3 long years, we have been waiting for the economy to get back in gear and start creating the jobs necessary to keep America strong. I am afraid that Congress and this administration have not done their part to foster the healthy job-creating economy we need. We have heard plenty of talk about job creation, but the rhetoric simply does not match up with any action. So today I will speak about the headwinds we face, as well as some of the simple solutions to help spur job creation.

This week the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness presented President Obama with five steps to create job growth. I agree with most of the suggestions. Some of them are steps I have been urging for some time, such as streamlining job training programs and speeding up the government permitting processes. But, unfortunately, for the most part, these are just baby steps. The truth is, the most significant step the Federal Government could take to allow greater job growth is even easier than a baby step. Washington government just needs to get out of the way. Washington keeps putting up roadblocks.

Last month's dismal job numbers paint a very clear picture. Unemployment rose to 9.1 percent--far above the 8 percent level promised by the administration at the time of the passage of the stimulus bill. Nearly 14 million Americans remain unemployed and actively looking for work, and more than half of them are long-term unemployed. With only 54,000 jobs created last month, and 3 million job openings, the problem is clear.

These numbers also reveal some solutions that could go into effect if government would step out of the way. For example, 7,000 of the jobs created last month were in the mining industry. Those of us from mining States know that the mining and domestic energy production industries offer good jobs with good pay and good benefits. Yet the administration has made it incredibly difficult for this industry to continue creating jobs. It has slowed the permitting process for existing mine plans, let alone new mining and drilling activities. Let me say that again. It has slowed the permitting process to a crawl and directed EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Simply stated, the President's policies are making things worse. How bad is this permitting process? Fourteen different mines have asked for an extension so their mine plans could continue in a logical way. There was a big announcement 6 weeks ago: The administration is going to allow 758 million tons of coal to come up for bid. That is 4 of 14 applications: 758 million tons. In my county alone, there are a million tons of coal shipped a day--a million tons a day. The amount permitted for bid is a 2-year supply, and it is going to take 6 years to permit it. And we cannot get the other 10 of them to be put out for bid and to go through that same delayed process. That is affecting jobs and it is also causing resources to be left in the ground that could be effectively used in our economy, which raises the costs.

The broadest result of this misguided energy policy will be increased prices for Americans. That will only dig our economic hole deeper. American families are already coping with the terrible job market and a struggling housing market. Increasing reliance on foreign energy sources and ignoring the sources we could harvest here at home makes no sense.

In certain regions of the country, the result of this misguided energy policy is lost jobs and bankrupted American companies. On the gulf coast, many of the thousands of jobs that were supported by the offshore drilling industry are simply gone due to the moratorium, permit, and bureaucratic delays on offshore drilling in the gulf. Also, when skilled people are out of a job, they go somewhere else to get a job. They go to other countries to get a job and it reduces the number of people

who can do the work here. It is another way of sending jobs overseas.

Some of the production has moved to Brazil and other countries that are not impeding their domestic energy production. And we are their customers. We are the ones buying it at extra-high prices.

Ironically, one of the largest discoveries of oil in the Gulf of Mexico was just announced last week. This discovery proves there are still massive amounts of domestic energy available to help alleviate the high prices if the government would simply get out of the way.

Unfortunately, the slowdown in exploratory drilling as a result of last year's moratorium is expected to lead to a 20-percent production decline next year. And things don't happen overnight. Permitting takes up to 6 years as well.

I do not know if the public is aware, but there is a Middle East cartel that helps set the price of oil. Years ago, they used to able to set prices much easier. They could cut back the supply and increase the cost or they could increase the supply and decrease the cost. Twice I watched them drop the price of a barrel of oil down to $8 and put the American oil industry out of business. They put it out of business long enough so that the people who were qualified to do the work got jobs in other countries. When they brought the price back up, it took years for us to bring the production back up.

Now, they have said Saudi Arabia has run out of energy, that they are just about to use up their supplies. Well, last week they announced they are going to have this huge increase in production. How did that happen? Well, there are new techniques. There are new technologies that are being used for drilling. It is helping to bring up more oil.

We ought to be doing that right here in the United States. We ought to be increasing our supply of oil. There are fields where only 20 percent of the oil was producible at the time it was drilled. New technologies, one of which is to put carbon dioxide, or CO2, down the hole and force the oil up--that is good for another 10 or 20 percent of the oil, and it captures the carbon. Why aren't we talking about capturing carbon? We ought to be encouraging that, not discouraging that.

We also have a company in my state that would like to convert low- sulfur coal to low-sulfur diesel fuel. Low-sulfur diesel is one of the things we really want. With these fluctuations in prices we have seen over the years, they said: We have the money to build this $2 billion plant and get it operational. But what happens if Saudi Arabia and the Middle East cartels decide to drive the price down again? What if that price got down to a point where our production was unproductive, if they put us out of business, if they bankrupted us?

Well, several years ago, Congress said: We can take care of that. We are going to pass loan guarantees. We will provide loan guarantees for you. We are not going to give you the money, but if that price were to drop dramatically, then we would have some responsibility in the situation.

Of course, the chances of it ever dropping to that point are pretty negligible.

We allocated I think about $8 billion for loan guarantees for these types of projects--that is no cost to the Federal Government--out there for this company to go ahead and make low-sulfur diesel and even jet fuel. Our military needs jet fuel. But out of that $8 billion, none of it has been allocated--none of it. At the same time, we did programs for solar and wind in the amount of $20 billion. Which do you think can produce the most energy? But it is OK with me that we have the solar and the wind. I think it is a good idea, and we are developing a lot of that in Wyoming too. But how come we can't turn a loan guarantee loose so that we can change coal into diesel with carbon sequestration? It is because of this adverse opinion on coal that creates a lot of problems.

So it is not just a problem in that area, this slowing down of the process; this is also affecting things such as medical devices.

We are interested in the health care of the American people, and we have an agency that watches out for our safety and should watch out for our safety, and we help ensure that time after time. We did a food safety bill, which is a part of that FDA plan.

But in 2003 it was obvious to the companies that make the medical devices that the agency did not have enough people, enough resources to expedite, to get their evaluation done in a timely manner, and the industry agreed to put up money--not to have any benefit to their particular company but for the whole industry--to get things streamlined, with more people looking at it so they could get the approvals, so they could get these health devices out to people so that they could be used.

Well, since 2003 when they put in the first amount of money, the resources for the FDA have doubled, the fees have tripled, and the production has been cut in half. It is taking too long.

Now, how do I gauge what is too long? Well, Europe does the safety process too. Europe approves these medical devices 2 years before we do. Two years before people in the United States are able to use these things, they are using them in Europe. And you are not hearing about any calamities with the medical devices in Europe. They are doing an adequate job of checking the safety and making sure what they are putting out produces the desired result. But not in the United States. We are slowing that process down--putting more money in, but slowing the process down.

There are things out there that people could really use. Before I came to the Senate, I had a heart valve tear. At that time, they had to do open heart surgery and go in and stitch it up, put a special ring in there, which fortunately for me has held very well. It repaired my heart, and it is in as good or better shape than it was before that time.

But there is a medical device, and now they can come in just like they go in with a stent and put that into that part on the heart, pop this little umbrella open, and I would be fixed. I wouldn't have to have that invasive heart surgery. That has already been available in Europe for 2 years. It still hasn't been approved in this country.

That is a process which is bogged down, which is costing jobs. So what do the companies do about it? They said: Well, let's see, why don't we build our stuff over in Europe? Now, if you build a plant, you are probably looking at 10, 20, 30 years of production before you are in a position to move that plant somewhere else, like back to the United States should we cure our problems. So we have to cure that problem now before we drive all of that overseas and all of those jobs overseas. The people who do the manufacturing on those rings get good pay, they have skilled jobs, but they do them in the country where the plant is, they don't do them in the United States. That is just one more example.

Well, I have another one. Right now, they are in the process of doing a rule and regulation about how long you can drive a truck, how long you can idle a truck, what kind of medical inspection the driver should have to have. One of the groups that brought that to my attention is the owner-operators of trucking companies, and they say the people who are drafting this rule have never driven a truck.

That is one of the problems with a lot of these rules and regulations: the people who are making the rules have never owned a business. And there is this tendency in government to be afraid that at some point something might go wrong, and it might come back. They have never had anybody come back on them for saying no or for slowing something down. Well, actually, they have never had anybody come back on them for saying yes. I wish they would realize that. The outfit with the liability in this is the company, not the one who approve the rule. They just need a good process they can move through and we can have a lot more jobs in this country.

Another way we can assist the jobs, as I have been saying, is by simply getting out of the way and by reducing the regulatory burden the Federal Government places on employers.

The first step here would be to repeal the health care law that is already driving up costs and paralyzing employers who are uncertain of their future obligations. Unfortunately, the President and his supporters in Congress are fighting this effort every step of the way. Although the President issued an Executive Order on January

18 of this year directing agencies to reevaluate the regulatory requirements they impose to be sure they are tailored to impose the least burden, less prescriptive, and justified cost-benefit analysis, we have yet to see any regulatory relief from any agency.

Speeches will not save America, action will. The President can say he wants to get things done, and if nobody does them, we are in worse shape than we were before, not better shape.

I had hoped the entire administration would take this directive on looking at all of the regulations seriously, particularly because regulatory burden falls most heavily on small businesses whose hiring will pull us out of this ongoing recession. Small businesses represent 99.7 of all employer firms. They employ over half of all private sector employees. They pay 44 percent of the U.S. private payroll. They generated 64 percent of the net new jobs in this country over the past 15 years.

I owned and operated a small business. I can tell you that if I had thousands of pages of regulations from a health care law hanging over my head, I would hesitate before creating any new position that increased my exposure. The key is to stay under 50 employees. There is less regulation under 50. I know of some companies that already were at 52, 54, 56. They said: Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to reorganize so that we are under 50 employees.

Although reorganization is always good--we should take a little dose of that here in the Federal Government, but we don't. Everything is based on what we had before plus inflation--no reinventing, no doing things differently. I am seeing that in Wyoming as they are trying to close down some of the small post offices without any new ideas for them, without even covering the costs. But that is another story, and I will cover that later.

As the Senator from Tennessee said earlier, we are here and we are not getting anything done. I think that is part of the strategy. There was no budget--647 days with no budget and bills left undone. We get to this process here where, to keep us from doing amendments on this side, we just keep the floor open like this for days. Then we have a cloture vote, and because we have not had an opportunity to put any of our amendments in, we vote against cloture, and that keeps cloture from happening, and the leader then pulls the bill, and that ends the process. We go to another bill on which we are also going to do the same thing. Some of these are good ideas and ought to be passed, but we don't make it to that point. I am sure that is for the next election, saying: Those darn Republicans just held up everything. That is not how we ought to be operating.

Reducing the regulatory burden that is imposed by the Federal Government would be an important step, but we also need to make sure the administration's independent boards and agencies get the message. So far, it is clear they have not.

An extraordinary effort is underway at the National Labor Relations Board to deter Boeing from expanding into a right-to-work State, where it would create work for over 1,000 employees. Those thousand employees have already rejected a union, but they have the right to do that. Now, this would be 1,000 more people employed in a billion-dollar-investment facility.

So what has happened in Washington State that might have the people there upset? Well, I am not sure. Boeing has also hired 2,000 additional employees out there, so it obviously has not hurt their employment. There will be seven of the planes built in Washington State and three of them built in South Carolina per month. But the case has drawn a great deal of attention not because Boeing is a big company but because the agency's fact-twisting and publicity-seeking reveals a strongly biased agenda. Our economy cannot recover when this administration's policies result in exporting jobs rather than airplanes.

The wisdom of the National Labor Relations Act is to defend the right of employees to collectively bargain when they choose to do so, not stepping in to limit employees' ability to exercise their right not to form or join a union.

At the National Mediation Board, we have seen rulemaking to change the way election results are counted in order to favor organized labor.

When that did not work and the majority of employees still voted against the union, the agency launched multiple investigations trying to smear the employer. These government-sponsored efforts to increase union density have done nothing to create jobs. In some cases, the Federal Government has been counterproductive to that goal and should get out of the way.

Pending before the Senate and being held hostage under political pressure are three free-trade agreements--South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These pacts have been negotiated for years, and they will open markets to our producers. Yet this administration has failed to submit these agreements to Congress and is refusing to consider a reasonable compromise. That is wrong and it is hurting over $1 billion worth of U.S. beef exports to Korea which would help ranchers all across the United States, including my home state of Wyoming. The Korea agreement not only helps grow U.S. agricultural exports but would also open the door for future trade with China which is an even larger market for U.S. farm products. And that is just one industry. The Korea agreement, as well as the Columbia and Panama deals would also help our service manufacturing and finance industries just to name a few.

In the committee on which I now serve as ranking member, the majority scheduled three hearings on the middle class and job growth. I am concerned about the middle class. The first hearing asked the question of whether the American dream is slipping out of reach. I made the point then that I am repeating today. The American dream starts with a job. The focus on pay, benefits, and organizing does nothing to create a job. We are going to have another one of those hearings next week. I am not sure where it is going. We have not proposed any legislation yet to deal with these issues. We are just getting press. That doesn't get jobs. Stalling the growth of the domestic energy production industry or increasing the regulatory burden on American businesses doesn't increase jobs either and neither does blocking free-trade agreements with our partners around the globe. An unelected, unconfirmed general counsel at a small agency is getting in the way of business management decisions that create jobs.

The American dream is not out of reach, but it is suffering from needless hand-slapping threats. Those should be changed to hand- clapping progress. But this administration has to stop getting in the way of job creation so Americans can have jobs.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as one of the opponents of the amendment.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Tester-Corker amendment No. 392 to the Economic Development Revitalization Act.

The interchange fee debate is not a new one for the Senate. This is an old discussion with both sides--financial institutions and retailers--bringing their perspectives to the table.

I should note that I am a former small businessman and retailer. My wife and I owned and operated Enzi Shoes, a family retail shoestore in Wyoming and Montana, for over 25 years.

Retail stores have been clamoring for a change for years and have always felt ignored by the credit card and the big bank card companies. Stores with small-priced items are forced to allow a sale to be put on a debit or credit card. While some stores post signs requiring a minimum purchase, they are violating their service contract. If the fees were merely a percentage of the sale rather than a minimum amount or a percentage, whichever is larger, much of the argument would be gone. Without the percentage fees, small businesses have no leverage for negotiation.

Soon vending machines will allow you to kind of point your cell phone at the vending machine and click, and you will get your snack or your soda, and it will be billed to your debit card. But if the cost of making that purchase eats up the profits on the sale plus some money out of the vending machine owner's own pocket every time someone buys a soda or snack, will the machines be available? No. You can't be in business if you lose money on every sale.

Now, the vender has an option: They can charge as though every sale is a debit card sale and increase the cost of the item to cover whatever cost the debit card company puts on your purchase. What you have right now is this hidden fee that goes to a card company. The card company shares that fee with participating banks. Banks are now saying that if they lose that fee, they will have to charge their customers in other ways. I am told the average bank will have to make up about $150,000 in hidden fees they are now receiving that customers have been paying on their purchases and don't know about them. Are hidden fees fair? I fight them every chance I get.

According to the Wyoming Retail Federation, retail stores, hotels, restaurants, and small businesses in Wyoming consistently report that credit-debit card fees have tripled in the last 10 years. These fees have become a major cost, now surpassing other traditional costs of doing business. This is a small business issue and small businesses particularly because they do not have the leverage to do any negotiating. Incidentally, in this case, neither do the big companies. But the small businesses are paying two or three or four times, and sometimes more, for credit and debit charges.

When I recently traveled to Wyoming, a businessman compared his expenses in the last 5 years to explain the effects of interchange fees on his business. Gross sales between 2005 and 2010 were $5 million and $5.5 million a year. Percentage of sales made on credit-debit cards was 15 percent in 2005 and 37 percent in 2010. Sales in the last 5 years increased 10 percent and credit card

fees increased over 100 percent. Credit and debit card fees as a percentage of total sales were three-tenths of 1 percent in 2005 and 1 percent in 2010. So the fees tripled in just 5 years. The retailer has no control over that. It is a monopoly. When the bank raises fees, if you know about it, you can change banks. The debit card business is like a monopoly, so when the debit card companies increase their fees, the only alternative is not to accept the cards as payment. But the cards have become a way of life, and the companies know it.

The profit margin of business is too narrow to sustain these increases. This is why defeating the Tester-Corker amendment means saving jobs in my home State of Wyoming and around the Nation. I believe increases in interchange fees are cutting into the resources that could be used to provide more jobs.

During the financial regulatory reform debate last year, Senator Durbin offered an amendment that tasked the Federal Reserve--the Fed-- with studying the actual cost of debit card interchange costs versus fees being charged. I voted in favor of the Durbin amendment, hoping it would create a dialog and a commonsense compromise on this issue. I was trying to force this dialog clear back in my shoe-selling days. Card companies didn't pay any attention. I have tried ever since becoming a Senator. I have been ignored.

The Durbin amendment is the only thing that has gotten the debit card-big banks' attention. But did they try to resolve it with the stores--the stores that were generating the sales and therefore collecting their revenue? Again, a resounding no. They haven't met with them at all. They have spent a fortune trying to convince the public that their monopoly is OK and they shouldn't have to do anything about it; that they have always been right, they are still right, they are going to be right, and they do not have to talk to their customers, which are the stores.

I encouraged the banks to listen and to negotiate, but they chose to advertise and message to make stores look like the bad guys. They have spent a small fortune advertising and messaging. One day, on my way to work, I came by a place where they were giving out insulated coffee cups to give this message that the big banks were going to be put out of business by this amendment.

As we all know too well, dialog is occurring in the Halls of Congress, but that isn't going to rectify the problem. I agree that government should not determine a set price on fees. I will say that again. I agree the government should not determine a set price on fees. But if a huge segment of the economy makes a case for redress, then it will likely fall under what I call the probable legislation rule No. 3: If it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting. It is not a good way to legislate, but unfortunately it happens a lot in Washington, and it may have happened in this case. I have worked for years to bring retailers and the big banks to the table to discuss and negotiate interchange fees and make the system work better for both parties. It hasn't happened, and that is when we get to this reaction time.

Since passage of the bill last July, there has been ample time for the banks and retailers to work out a solution. Dialog between the financial institutions and the retailers has to occur in order to find an immediate and a real solution to this problem.

The interchange fee provision is an important issue that deserves the full attention and consideration of both intended and unintended consequences, but our Nation's retailers and small businesses can't afford continued delays and studies because this kicking the can down the road is to keep things the way they were, and it is what we will be getting today if the amendment passes. Oh yes, it looks as though there is going to be some interaction there. If the big banks win today, the customers of stores lose.

Following the passage of the Durbin amendment, S. 575 was introduced this year by Senators Tester and Corker as a stand-alone bill to delay implementation of the Federal Reserve rules until the impact of those fees could be studied for another 2 years. That is the original bill where this amendment comes from. A similar House bill proposed to delay-study the debit card interchange fee rule for 1 year. Now, searching for votes, Senators Tester and Corker have changed their amendment, so what we will be voting on today is a study and a year of kicking the can down the road. But even though it has been changed, it is still wrong.

My colleagues knew I was not willing to support the original 2-year delay which would effectively bury progress made on the issue. A 2-year study was not just kicking the can down the road; it was making an indefinite delay on any changes and prohibiting dialog between parties.

I commend Senators Tester, Corker, Crapo, and others for working to decrease the study timeline from 2 years to 12 months. As you have heard during this debate, the Tester-Corker amendment would allow for 6 months of studying the interchange fees, plus an additional 6 months for the Treasury and Federal Reserve to draft a final rule. While this is a step forward in the resolution, more needs to be done to accelerate this process. Another full year without a solution is too long for merchants and retailers.

There is another problem too. That is the Fed will still be making the rule. We have to realize that banks work with the Fed all the time, so banks understand the Fed and the Fed understands the banks. Retailers don't work with the Fed. The Fed does not check on the retailers. So how do you think the rule the Fed will write will come out if we kick the can down the road another year? I think the banks will have a big advantage.

What we need is for the banks to listen to their customers, the retailers, and come up with a workable solution. The Fed isn't the right place for that decision. The Fed just made a decision that the banks decided they didn't like. Quite frankly, for some of the small banks, there is a problem too because what was allowed for small banks to give them an edge isn't ever going to happen. People will shop where it is cheapest, which will be the big banks. So I think the Fed did get it wrong, and I don't think the banks will get it right unless there is something that is real to them.

On July 21, the current rule will go into effect. On July 21, they will finally feel that it is real, and they ought to sit down with their customers, the retailers, and get it figured out. I don't think it is that tough. I know where the changes were that I would have liked to have seen, and I didn't represent the whole gamut, but there are a few associations that would be viable to work this out. It doesn't need to be done through legislation. But if today we pass the Tester-Corker amendment, there won't be any incentive for them to do anything for at least another year because the problem still won't be real.

The banks don't think there is a problem. The retailers know there is a problem, and the retailers' customers are beginning to understand there is a problem. I just saw a survey from Montana, and 75 percent of the people are opposed to the swipe fees that are currently in place-- 75 percent. America is figuring things out faster than Congress is, and we have to be with the people. We have to take care of the problems they see, especially when it is that huge a majority. I don't like doing things based on polls, but I do like polls to give me an indication.

I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend, and I travel to a different part of the State every weekend and talk to the real people; I just don't read it in the papers or read the studies. I can tell you that 75 percent is probably just about right. I think it might be just slightly higher than that in Wyoming.

The banks and the retailers should get together and come up with a rule that will work for both of them but not one that maintains a monopoly. When you sign on to one of these credit card agreements--and you have to do one of those in order to be able to accept them and have the money work through the system back to you--you are not given any options. There isn't anything you can shop around for because all the agreements are the same. If you sign one of those agreements, you have to be willing to accept it no matter what the size of the purchase.

Now, if you are selling a soda for $1 and you are paying 44 cents, you know the soda company isn't making enough to cover the 44 cents, so they have to

raise their price, which gets passed on to the customer. They have to raise the price so that it covers the credit card, but it also has to cover the other sales because there is no way for them to distinguish one from the other. They can't charge more for a credit card sale than a debit card sale, and they shouldn't. So they build in a hidden fee that you don't know you are paying. That fee is a huge fee, and it takes away some of the profits on the small sales. That is one of the primary areas that is driving this whole issue. There are other areas, too, but that is the simplest one that could be figured out.

Both sides on this issue need to have a hand in the negotiating. Defeating this amendment gives them both a hand, and that is why I strongly believe two things need to occur to fix this problem. No. 1, any study should not be longer than 6 months total study time and drafting of the rule and, No. 2, banks and credit unions must come to the table with retailers and merchants to define some middle ground. It would be more workable if bankers and retailers sat down and negotiated an agreement. They don't need a study. The retailers know what the problem is. The banks know the problem better than the retailers. So all they have to do is skip the study, sit down, and work it out. I think it could be worked out before July 21, although a deadline is always good. So we really need to defeat that.

It is a tough issue for small business owners, merchants, and retailers because many of our community lenders have come to rely on this interchange income. No good comes from pitting small businesses against lenders in Wyoming or otherwise, especially not in this economy. Bankers already know what changes need to be made. If they had put more effort into forcing bank card fees to be more reasonable, the situation could have been solved years ago. Clearly, it could have been when I was back in the shoe business. I can tell you, I am pretty discouraged that now that I am in the Senate they still are not listening.

This bill has made them listen. So no more delays should occur. Interchange fee reform was overwhelmingly approved by Congress last year. U.S. consumers do not need additional studies to tell them they already pay the highest swipe fees in the world. Delaying these reforms will delay urgently needed relief for American businesses and consumers, relief that cannot wait longer during this fragile economic recovery.

Today I ask my colleagues to side with the stores and their customers; otherwise, we will have just done another bailout for big banks.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me. Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street.

This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming agreements to compete for large government contracts.

This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue. The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill, an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory obligations for small business set-asides.

As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9 years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the Federal Government gets the goods and services they need.

This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me. Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street.

This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming agreements to compete for large government contracts.

This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue. The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill, an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory obligations for small business set-asides.

As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9 years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the Federal Government gets the goods and services they need.

This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Tim Johnson, Grassley, and Tester. Without their support this bill would not be possible. We have always enjoyed bipartisan support on this issue and I want to thank them for their work in making sure that our livestock markets remain competitive.

Our Nation's ranchers and family farmers aren't looking for handouts when they take their animals to the auction barn, they simply expect that they will receive the price they deserve for the quality they produce. However, there is evidence that there are bad actors out there who stack the deck when it comes to the prices they use in livestock contracts. The Packers & Stockyards Act was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law since that time has provided protection and remedy from manipulative market practices but the growth

of our markets in recent decades has opened up opportunities for new abuses that the original law never could have expected.

These opportunities for manipulation have developed as our markets have become increasingly more consolidated. The top four firms control over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic doesn't even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry in recent years. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed.

The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti-competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. Some livestock markets already do this to ensure transparency but there are others who allow transactions to happen behind closed doors.

The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem, large packers owning captive supplies, by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. All our livestock producers are asking for is a level playing field and this bill helps them do what they do best, continue producing the finest meat in the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss high gas prices and the direct impact they are having on every American. Every day, we see the impact of high gasoline and diesel prices on our constituents and their pocketbooks. Some wonder if they will be able to put food on the table when they cannot afford the gas it takes to get them to work. Others see skyrocketing food prices caused by the increased fuel costs and wonder if they can afford a healthy meal for their children. Others wonder if they can take a vacation or cool their houses this coming summer.

Today, gas prices hover around $4 per gallon. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that the cost of fuel is causing a financial hardship for their families. That same poll suggested that 21 percent of Americans say the impact of high gasoline prices is so dramatic that their standard of living is jeopardized.

This is a serious problem and it needs immediate action. Unfortunately, rather than taking action to address the problem, I am concerned that Congress will once again punt on doing what we need to do to bring prices down now. To bring prices down, we need to address the fact that the United States imports too much oil from foreign nations. We need to increase supply at the same time we work to reduce demand.

There are two approaches that have been considered in recent weeks. My Republican colleagues and I have offered legislation that will increase production in the Gulf of Mexico. It will allow for the development of more American energy, which will decrease the amount of oil we import. With unrest in the Middle East, it will start the process of giving America a more stable source of domestic energy, and it will create American jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is 9 percent. Our bill looks at the problem--an unstable supply of energy-- and provides a solution that will make our country more energy independent today.

The other approach being considered is that of my Democratic colleagues. Their bill, which failed to move forward yesterday, sought to increase taxes on five companies in the oil industry. Whether or not those tax benefits should exist is worth debating in the context of overall corporate tax reform, but that is not what we are debating today. We all know that their approach to energy policy won't do anything to improve the current situation. In fact, their legislation might make matters worse by leading to less domestic production and a larger increase in gasoline prices.

The contrast couldn't be greater. Republicans have put forth thoughtful legislation that will begin to address the problem and help lower gasoline prices. Democrats have put forth punitive legislation that might make some feel good now because it punishes ``Big Oil,'' but ultimately it will not do anything to lower gas prices. Republicans support legislation that will create American jobs. Democrats support legislation that will drive American jobs overseas.

Some suggest that our bill will not do anything to lower prices because it will take too long to implement to have a real effect. That is the same argument I have heard since I came to the Senate over 14 years ago. Opponents of domestic production always say that it will not do anything to lower prices today. If we had taken action to open up areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when I came to the Senate in 1997, we would be producing approximately 1 million more barrels of domestic oil today. If we had stopped efforts to lock up the gulf coast 10 years ago as many Republicans suggested, we might not be having this conversation today. And, if we do not do anything today, Senators will still be asking these same questions 10 years from now. And, it might not take 10 years for oil to come online if agencies are not delayed from issuing permits by frivolous lawsuits. The 2006 highway bill included a provision that prohibited lawsuits from being filed more than 180 days after publication of the final permit in the Federal Register. Such a provision should be included in future legislative efforts to move forward with American energy development in a timely manner. With high oil prices, we have an opportunity to act today and we should not let this opportunity pass without action.

In addition to lowering gasoline prices, we have the ability to increase revenues to the Federal Treasury today without raising taxes in a punitive manner on one industry. By passing legislation that allows for more domestic production, we will increase revenues to the Federal Treasury at the same time it creates good paying American jobs. In 2008 and 2009, the oil and gas industry paid over $30 billion in rents, royalties, and fees. The industry is estimated to generate approximately $100 million in revenue each day this year to the Federal Government. This amount will only increase as we allow for the production of more domestic energy.

With Americans hurting, we need to do something--anything to reduce gasoline prices. But, instead of working on solutions for one of the single most important issues confronting the American people, my colleagues in the majority loudly sings campaign rhetoric chorus and verse. They say, ``let's punish big oil for making big profits'' and ``let's not allow these energy companies to dupe us when Americans are paying record high prices.'' What they do not say is that their approach will do nothing to help the situation and will likely make the situation worse. They do not admit that their proposal is good politics, but bad policy. This is not the way we should legislate when Americans cannot afford to fill up their tanks. We need to do something about energy and we need to do it now.

Like most of my colleagues, I support developing more alternative energy. I support the use of wind energy and the development of better solar energy technologies. Wyoming is the perfect place for much of that development to happen. While we need to develop these technologies for the long term, we need of the energy we can get today. We need more American oil from American soil. We need more domestic natural gas. We need more nuclear energy and we definitely need more clean coal.

Republicans stand ready to have a serious debate about our country's energy policy. We have offered a proposal that looks at the supply and demand challenges we face and addresses them head on. Republicans stand ready to pass legislation that will lower gasoline prices and will increase domestic production. Those actions will, in turn, create American jobs and will increase revenues to the Federal Treasury at a time when we see record deficits.

For too long, we have talked about the need to have a comprehensive energy policy. We have talked about the need to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources. It is time for us to stop talking and to act. The upcoming vote on S. 953, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is our first opportunity to act, and I hope my colleagues will join me in working to lower gas prices by passing this measure.