Floor Statements

When we subsequently go on the motion to proceed, I ask unanimous consent that the speakers on the Republican side be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, Washington is engaged in a debate right now over the kind of country we want to be. The specific issue is this: At some point over the next several weeks, the Federal Government will no longer be able to borrow the money it needs to cover the cost of promises it has already made. So the President wants Congress to raise the statutory debt limit set by Congress. He wants us to raise the limit on the national credit card.

Now, what Republicans have said is that the only way we will do it is if Democrats agree to change their ways so we don't end up with the kind of situation that we are witnessing over in Greece. Make no mistake, that is exactly where we are headed if we don't do something significant and do it now. Democrats so far have refused. Instead, they are making what can only be described as a bizarre request under the circumstances.

In the middle of what we all agree is a debt crisis, they would like to spend even more. They want a second stimulus, more deficit spending. In the middle of the jobs crisis, they want to raise taxes that we know would kill even more jobs when even the President has said raising taxes would leave job creators with less ability to hire. These are their solutions. This is what the President came off the campaign trail to defend last Thursday, and this is what Republicans oppose.

Our view is that the way to solve a debt crisis is to go on a diet, not a shopping spree. Our view is the way to create jobs is to make it easier for businesses to hire, not harder. Frankly, we don't think the voters sent a wave of Republicans to Washington last November because they wanted us to raise taxes. They sent us here to restore some sanity. But the President and his Democratic allies in Congress don't seem to get it just yet.

Right now they are calling for a tax on aircraft manufacturers because they think it is good politics. It is their cheap attempt to try to make anybody who opposes it look bad. What they forgot is many of them voted to repeal a similar tax during the Clinton administration because of the devastating effect it had on jobs. They made the same arguments then, that we need to raise taxes on luxury goods to get more money, and it backfired. The shipbuilding industry alone lost tens of thousands of jobs.

Our Democratic colleagues surely must remember this, but apparently they would rather have fun trying to caricature their political opponents than working out a bipartisan solution that would actually enable us to balance the books.

Here is the point: Washington needs to find a way to spend less. Taxing more is their easy way out. They will start with aircraft manufacturers. Then when that is enough, and it never is, it is some other industry. Then another, and before we know it we are going after absolutely everybody. Why? Because it is easier to find a bill than it is to make tough choices. But most Americans know what it is like to make tough choices, and they want to know if they have to do it, why can't Washington.

That is why I invited the President over here last Thursday to talk with Republicans. My hope, as I made clear, is that he would listen to Republicans and hear firsthand why we think raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea and what the realities are over here.

My goal, as I said on Thursday, was to get together and talk about what is actually possible. The Obama administration said it wasn't a conversation worth having. Republicans in Congress believe finding a way to reduce the deficit and put Medicare on a more secure footing is a conversation worth having.

So today I would like to reextend the offer. I think the best way to solve this impasse is for the President to hear what needs to be done and how we can do it; hear what can actually pass in Congress. He needs to understand the principles at stake from our point of view.

It is not about rich and poor. It is not about an election. It is about Washington taking the hit for a change. It is about having Washington make some tough choices for a change.

Americans want to see accountability here in Washington. They have seen Democrats spending trillions of dollars we don't have, and they have seen the economic situation get worse in many respects than it was several years ago. The facts speak for themselves.

Since the President took the oath of office, nearly 2 million more people are unemployed. That is a 17-percent increase in the unemployment rate under President Obama. Gas prices have nearly doubled--up 86 percent since January of 2009. In the past 2 years, the Federal debt has increased 35 percent. Debt per person has increased by over $11,000. Health insurance premiums for working families have shot up 19 percent. All this while home values across the country have declined by 12 percent. They have clearly made the economy worse.

Americans get this. They think Washington, DC, should find a way to pay its bills or scale back its commitments, as everybody in the country is doing. Americans have made enough sacrifices the past few years. It is time for Washington to learn to make some sacrifice of its own.

Hopefully, the President will agree that reducing the debt is indeed a conversation worth having. I think we can do it. But I think he needs to understand what the legislative realities are and why and we are committed to a result that will restore the people's confidence not only in our economy but in our government.

I yield the floor.

the following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk that is due a second reading.

In order to place the resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today I want to speak about a young man from Corbin, KY, who gave his life in service of our country. LCpl Timothy Matthew Jackson, a U.S. marine, was tragically killed while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on September 30, 2010. He was 22 years old.

Lance Corporal Jackson was deployed with the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Fox Company, based out of Camp Lejeune, NC.

For his heroic service, he received many awards, medals, and decorations, including the Purple Heart, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, three Sea Service Deployment Ribbons, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, two Iraq Campaign Medals, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Lance Corporal Jackson--who went by his middle name, Matt--attended Corbin Elementary School, Corbin Middle School, and Corbin High School, where he graduated in the class of 2007.

Many who knew Matt in school knew of his desire to serve in the military after graduation. He was an enthusiastic participant in his school's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.

``All he ever wanted to do when he graduated was join the Marines and serve his country, and that's what he did,'' says COL Rick McClure, Matt's senior instructor in Corbin High's JROTC program.

Matt was an ``outstanding young man. He was quiet. Always had a smile. Just a super young man,'' Colonel McClure says. ``And as long as I knew him, what he wanted to do was to graduate from high school and be a marine . . . I'm just so thankful that we have guys like Matt that will go and give their lives for the freedoms we enjoy.''

Matt's wife Nikki remembers the surprising way Matt asked her to marry him. It was on Christmas Eve. Matt and Nikki were with family, opening presents. One present was addressed to both of them, and Matt opened it to reveal a Cracker Jack box.

``He handed it to me and said open it,'' Nikki says. ``When I did, everyone's hand shot for some, and by the time I could pour some in my hand it was crumbs. There fell the ring in my hand, and I looked at him and he was down on one knee and asked me to marry him. Of course I said yeah.'' Matt and Nikki were married on May 22, 2009.

For Matt's mom Jody Tonkin, it is too hard to pick just one memory of her son. ``I don't have just one,'' she says. ``As his mom, all my memories are the best.''

Matt's aunt Theresa Jackson Hopkins, remembers when Matt was a little boy and went on a trip to Disney World. ``He had a smile on his face the whole time,'' she says. ``That had to be the highlight of his life, until he met Nikki.''

Matt worked hard to prepare himself for the service, and joined the Marine Corps right after high school. In 2008 he was deployed to Iraq. He also served on missions in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Cuba. After his military service concluded, he was looking forward to a career in law enforcement.

Matt's uncle Tom Jackson, remembers the day Matt came home from Afghanistan for a hero's funeral. At the terminal of the London-Corbin Airport waiting to meet the plane carrying Matt's body were over a hundred Patriot Guard Riders, with American flags on their motorcycles, there to escort the fallen marine to the funeral home.

``As we followed the hearse from the airport, the Riders slowed, and there beside the road was a small group of men, women, and children waving flags as tears ran down their faces,'' says Tom Jackson. ``I could read their lips saying `thank you' and at that point in time there was an outward burst of emotion that I just could not contain. I was crying like a baby, a sight that I'm sure that my daughter and grandson had never seen from me.''

The number of people who wished to thank Lance Corporal Jackson for his service was so great the funeral home chapel could not accommodate them all. The city of Corbin graciously donated the use of the Arena at the Southeastern Kentucky Ag & Expo Complex, where hundreds came to pay their respects.

We must keep Matt's friends and family in our thoughts as I recount his story for the Senate today. We are thinking of his wife, Nichole A. Jackson; his father, Timothy Wayne Jackson; his mother, Jody Tonkin; his brothers, Jerricho Tonkin, Barry Daniel Powell, Dustin Johnson, and Wayne Spurlin; his stepmother, Lorrie Johnson; his stepfather, Billy Bowers; his grandmothers, Mary Jackson and Carol Gable; his uncle, Tom Jackson; his cousin, Michael Ryan Hopkins; his aunt, Theresa Jackson Hopkins; and many other beloved family members and friends. Matt was preceded in death by his grandfather, Edgar Jackson.

Matt's Uncle Tom can still recall a time he and a 9-year-old Matt were walking in the woods after dark and Tom feared they were lost. Matt was scared, but put on a brave face nearly until the end--when he finally said, ``Uncle Tom, hold my hand,'' just as the two of them reached the truck.

The family of LCpl Timothy Matthew Jackson must be very proud that little boy grew up to become one of our country's most honored heroes, a brave marine. I want them to know this U.S. Senate honors Lance Corporal Jackson for his life of service. And we honor the immense sacrifice he made on behalf of a very grateful Nation.

Mr. President, I want to say a word about the President's press conference yesterday.

What I heard him propose is that we solve the debt crisis by spending more money--solve the debt crisis by spending more money; that we solve the jobs crisis by raising taxes--solve the jobs crisis by raising taxes.

I want to know, is there a single Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who thinks it is a good idea to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new job-killing taxes at a time when 14 million Americans are out of work? If so, I haven't heard from any of them. But that is what the President was trying to defend yesterday.

Who thinks the answer to a $1.6 trillion deficit is a second stimulus, that the answer is more deficit spending? Where in the world did that idea come from? That is what the President was trying to defend yesterday.

Look, the President needs to get serious about this. He said yesterday that reducing the deficit grows the economy. That part of his press conference he got right. Reducing the deficit grows the economy.

His own Small Business Administration has told him not to enact one of the tax hikes he was proposing at the press conference yesterday. This is what they said over at SBA: ``This can force many small businesses to close their doors.''

Fourteen million people are out of work, and he wants to take an action that could force small businesses across the country to close? That is his vision of shared sacrifice?

I think the American worker has sacrificed quite enough already. Besides, all of us know that Congress isn't going to approve hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. It is simply not going to happen. We have known that for 6 months, and we have been saying it all along.

The President does not seem to get it. So let me do something that I think would be constructive. I want to invite the President to come to the Capitol today and meet with Senate Republicans anytime this afternoon that he is available; come on up to the Capitol and meet with Senate Republicans. That way, he can hear directly from Senate Republicans why what he is proposing will not pass. So I invite him to come up today and meet with Senate Republicans, hear directly from them, and we can discuss what he has

in mind. Maybe we can start talking about what is actually possible.

The President says he wants us to get working. I can't think of a better way than to have him come right on over today--we are waiting-- and hear from our conference about the legislative realities in Congress right now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

Madam President, over the past several days the American people have watched a serious debate unfold right here in Washington about our Nation's debt and about the future of our economy, and for many the debate has been extremely illuminating. It has done a lot to clarify where the two parties stand. Both sides agree that our deficits and our debt are unsustainable. But beyond that, the differences are stark.

Republicans believe if you increase spending to the point that you can no longer pay the bills, then you need to find a way to cut costs. Democrats seem to think if you increase spending to the point that you can no longer pay the bills, you need to find other people to pick up the tab. This is a fundamental difference between the two parties.

Republicans think Democrats should be held accountable for the way they have mismanaged the national checkbook over the past 2 years and Democrats seem to think that taxpayers should take the hit.

Democrats spend beyond their means and now they expect a bailout from the taxpayers. That is what this debate is all about. It is about holding Washington accountable, for a change. It is about drawing a line in the sand and saying, no, the taxpayers will not bail out politicians. It is about refusing to subsidize the Democrats' irresponsible spending habits another day. Democrats have shown through their reckless spending over the past 2 years that they are not at all concerned about our fiscal future. They should not expect to be rewarded for that.

The entire Democratic approach to this debate has been astonishing, really. I mean, here we are in the midst of two national crises: 14 million unemployed and more than $14 trillion in debt--14 million unemployed and $14 trillion in debt--chronic unemployment and record deficits and debt. And what are the Democrats proposing? Higher taxes and more spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis they want to slam already struggling businesses with a massive tax hike. In the middle of a debt crisis they want to borrow and spend more money as a solution to the problem. This is not a negotiation, it is a parody.

In a discussion about reducing the debt, they want to increase spending. Let me say that again. In a discussion about reducing the debt, they want to increase spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis they want to raise taxes--even as they claim to support job creation. Which is it? Yesterday the President went to a manufacturing plant to tout jobs. Yet even as he was speaking, his administration was looking to saddle manufacturing companies, including the one he was visiting yesterday, with billions of dollars in new taxes.

According to a letter from a group of trade associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, this particular tax would be ``devastating'' to manufacturers. The President himself said as recently as 6 months ago that keeping taxes where they are enables businesses to hire more workers. Six months ago the President said that. In other words, he was saying that raising taxes leads to fewer jobs. So he can call for tax hikes but he cannot call for tax hikes and job creation. It is one or the other--six months ago making the argument that tax hikes lose jobs; today out touting jobs on the one hand and pushing for higher taxes on the other. He can't have it both ways.

The Democrats' spending spree has brought us to the brink of an economic calamity and now they are telling taxpayers they will not do anything to prevent it unless the taxpayers hand over more money in the form of tax hikes. And they have the nerve to call their critics immoral. I want to know what you call spending trillions more than you have and then expecting others to pick up the tab; that is what this is all about, spending trillions more than you have and expecting somebody else to pick up the tab.

Does anybody seriously propose tax hikes as a solution to a job crisis? Who proposes more spending as a solution to a debt crisis? Who thinks if we raise the debt limit now without enacting serious spending cuts and meaningful reforms first it will lead to greater fiscal discipline later? There is an important principle at stake in this debate. It is not about rich versus poor. It is not about an election. It is about whether Washington will ever be held accountable for its mistakes. That is why Republicans refuse to let the taxpayers take the hit when it comes to reducing the debt, and that is why all 47 Republicans in the Senate support a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The debate we have been having over the past few days shows more than ever why we need a balanced budget amendment in Congress. A balanced budget amendment would require that lawmakers stop spending money we don't have. When we come back after July 4, we will fight for an opportunity to vote for it. Broke or balanced, that is the choice. The American people should know where their Senators stand on this issue of accountability. Senators can talk all day long about the importance of balancing the books and living within our means, but a vote in favor of the balanced budget amendment will show we actually mean it. A vote against it will show that they don't.

Look, no one denies that both parties are guilty of spending beyond our means. But this White House has taken

wasteful spending to new heights, and its allies in Congress are all too quick to defend it. The last time the Senate voted on a balanced budget amendment, the government's annual deficit was about $100 billion, the national debt was about $5.5 trillion, and it failed by a single vote--a single vote. Today, the annual deficit is $1.6 trillion, and the national debt is $14.5 trillion.

The President and his party need to be held accountable. The fiscal mess they have helped create calls for rehab. That is what the balanced budget amendment would provide--a spending straitjacket. No more blank checks. If Democrats won't pass a budget of their own, it is time Americans impose a budget on them. Americans are not about to let Democrats use another crisis as an excuse to expand the size of government.

If ever there were a time for Washington to pass through a crisis and come out smaller on the other side, it is right now. Republicans are totally united in this effort. All we need is 20 Democrats to join us. Washington should be forced to make the kinds of difficult choices the rest of the country has to make. Lawmakers should have to make the case for a spending increase before they approve it. Never again can they just spend away and then demand in the teeth of a crisis that taxpayers cough up the money--as I said earlier, the taxpayer bailout.

It is time to put the American people back at the helm of our ship of state, and if that is what this vote achieves, then this debate we are having this summer will have been well worth it. If Washington is forced to finally reform its ways, then one day we will look back and say that the American people won this debate, and we will say the balanced budget amendment was just the thing we needed to get the house in order. Broke or balanced, that is the choice before us.

I look forward to this vote. The American people clearly want it. Let's hold Washington accountable, and let's begin to restore power to the people who sent us here not to do our own will but to carry out theirs. That is the principle at stake. It is about the kind of government we want to have--a government of the people or a government above the people. That is the choice. Much depends on the outcome.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for a few moments as in morning business.

Mr. President, if this week has shown us anything at all, it is that the American people cannot wait on Democrats to do the right thing when it comes to spending and debt and putting us on a path to balance. So today Republicans are beginning the rule XIV process on a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

A balanced budget amendment would require that lawmakers stop spending money we do not have. When we return from the Fourth of July break, we will fight for an opportunity to vote for it.

We have had a chance this week to see how Democrats in Washington want to deal with the fiscal mess they have helped create--by forcing the taxpayers and the job creators to actually bear the burden. Well, Republicans think it is about time Washington bears the burden, for a change. Let Washington find a way to balance the books on its own. The American people have paid enough of a price over the past few years for Washington's recklessness. Republicans are not going to allow Democrats to make them pay even more.

Speaker Boehner has already committed to a balanced budget vote in July, so the Speaker and I are united in this effort. Americans can expect all 47 Republicans in the Senate to support this amendment. It is time to put the American people back at the helm of our ship of state. And if that is what the vote achieves, then the debate we are having will have been well worth it.

If Washington is forced to finally reform its ways, then we will all look back and say the American people, indeed, won this debate. And we will say the balanced budget amendment was just the thing we needed to get our house in order.

Broke or balanced, that is the choice.

Mr. President, I am going to rule XIV the proposal. I do not think the Presiding Officer has it yet. The Chair should have it momentarily. It has miraculously appeared.

I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I rise today to note the loss of an honored and distinguished Kentuckian. Mr. Tracy T. Arflin of Radcliff, KY, passed away this June 18. He was 74 years old.

Mr. Arflin went by ``Tom,'' but was also known to generations of Radcliff-area youth as ``Coach.'' Tom Arflin dedicated the last 32 years of his life to volunteering on behalf of youth sports in his hometown. He was the manager of the Rangers in the Radcliff Baseball/ Softball Association, and coached two teams, the Eagles and the Jaguars, in the North Hardin Youth Football League. He had both a football and a baseball field named after him, and was the North Hardin Youth Football League president for the past 21 years.

Mr. Arflin's job as coach included the roles of mentor, leader, and league developer. He not only inspired many kids who may not have thought they were cut out for sports to stick with it, he also encouraged many parents to volunteer their time as coaches. Some of them are still at it even after their children have grown out of youth league play because of Tom Arflin's example.

Tom Arflin was also a U.S. Army veteran who proudly served for 27 years, including two tours in Vietnam. For the past 42 years he was a member of Mill Creek Baptist Church in Radcliff.

This May Tom was diagnosed with brain cancer and underwent radiation treatments. A few weeks before his passing, Tom's son Tracy T. Arflin II organized a grand community celebration for his father, and more than 100 family members, friends, and former and current coaches and players gathered to honor Tom Arflin for his many decades of service.

Tom was preceded in death by his wife of 49 years, Louise C. Arflin, and by his sister, Anna. Surviving members of his family who are mourning Tom's loss include his son and daughter-in-law, Tracy T. Arflin II and Sharon; his grandson, Matthew T. Arflin; his sister, Lucy Webb; and his brother, Billy Arflin. I wish to express my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Tracy T. ``Tom'' Arflin for the loss of this wonderful man.

Mr. President, the Hardin County News-Enterprise recently published an article about Tom Arflin and the community celebration thrown in his honor. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).

Mr. President, a little later today, I will sit down with President Obama to discuss his request to raise the Nation's debt ceiling. When I do, I intend to make a request of my own. I intend to ask the President what he is prepared to do, outside of raising taxes, about the massive deficits and debt that have accumulated on his watch. I will tell him what Republicans are looking for in this debate: to cut spending now, cap runaway spending in the future, save our entitlements from bankruptcy, and get our economy moving. I will tell him the truth about requests by some in his party that we increase spending and raise taxes as a way of solving the debt and jobs crisis that precipitated the President's request to raise the debt limit in the first place: Not only are they counterproductive from the standpoint of an economic recovery, they are also politically impossible since Republicans oppose tax hikes and Democrats have already shown they will not raise taxes in a down economy either.

Let's start by taking both proposals off the table and focus on what can actually pass Congress and what will actually spur the private sector in our future and create jobs. Those who are calling for tax hikes as a part of these debt discussions either have amnesia about the fate of similar proposals just 6 months ago when Democrats controlled both Chambers of Congress by very large margins, as well as the White House, or they are acting in bad faith since we all know that including massive job-killing tax hikes would be a poison pill.

Let's move past the tax hikes, talk about what is actually possible, and let's talk about what has and has not worked over the last 2 years. On this second point, this much is clear: If government spending were the answer to an economic slowdown, we would be in a boom time right now. Instead, we are facing record deficits and debt and a seemingly endless stream of bad economic news. Despite massive spending increases by Democrats, millions have lost their jobs.

The problem is that Washington spends too much. That means Democrats are simply going to have to make the kinds of tough choices about Washington's budget that most other Americans have been forced to make about their own budgets over the past couple of years.

Last week, President Obama told a group of people he was prepared to bring down the deficit by trillions of dollars but refused to list any of the ways he was willing to do it. All he did was list the things he refused to cut. This weekend, the President proposed even more deficit- financed spending disguised as what he calls investment. You really cannot have it both ways.

At some point, the President needs to realize that the reason our debt has skyrocketed 35 percent over the last 2 years and that our annual deficit is now three times greater than the highest deficit the previous administration ever ran is that spending has spiraled completely and totally out of control and that the big-government policies of the last 2 years simply have to change. Consider the failed stimulus bill when Democrats passed it. They said it was a one-time cash infusion that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8

percent. Two years later, with unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, they are saying we need to keep up the stimulus-level spending, despite its obvious failure. Their commitment to spending and tax hikes is so deeply held, it seems they do not even recognize the state of our economy or the fact that the tax-and-spend policies of the past 2 years have made matters worse, and they have to change if they are ever going to get out of the fiscal mess we are in.

Democrats seem to think the solution to our tax crisis is to ask taxpayers and businesses to reward their economic stewardship with even more money to spend as they please. They don't seem to understand that the voters didn't elect dozens of additional Republicans to the House of Representatives last November because they wanted their taxes raised. They sent them to reverse policies that had failed. We have seen the consequences of giving Washington a blank check. It is the reason we are in the mess to begin with.

So my message to the President is quite simple. It is time for Washington to focus on fixing itself. It is time for Washington to take the hit, not the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.