Floor Statements

Mr. President, one negative aspect of Senator Coburn's amendment No. 436, as modified, to the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 is that it is a tax increase that is not offset by a tax cut of an equal or greater amount.

It takes away a tax incentive and therefore increases taxes but fails to cut taxes in another area, such as by lowering tax rates. I do not favor taking away tax incentives without cutting taxes in other areas to reach a revenue-neutral result.

Revenue-neutrality should be judged using a current-policy baseline and not the unrealistic current-law baseline that builds in trillions of dollars of tax increases.

However, in this case, the policy considerations regarding ending the tax incentive for corn-based ethanol outweigh this general principle. I will note that this is not the case for the larger-dollar, and more significant, tax incentives such as the home mortgage interest deduction.

With respect to these tax incentives, any changes that increase revenue must be offset with a tax cut in another area, such as by lowering tax rates. My vote in favor of the Coburn amendment should not be viewed as a precedent for increasing taxes.

Taxes are already headed higher than they historically have been according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Americans are not undertaxed, Washington overspends, and we need to get that spending under control.

In terms of energy policy for our Nation, I think the case is more clear in favor of this amendment. I do not believe it makes sense to provide a tax incentive for a product that is also mandated by the Federal Government, which is what we have with ethanol. Moreover, energy tax incentives should be a temporary boost, not a long-term strategy to support an energy source that cannot compete on its own. I believe the time has come for corn ethanol to stand on its own as a transportation fuel.

Mr. President, today is Flag Day and it is the perfect day to re-introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to protect the American flag from physical desecration. I am joined in doing so today by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He was an original cosponsor of this amendment on 6 previous occasions when I have introduced it, including in the 109th Congress when this body came within one vote of approving it.

The American flag is a unique symbol of our country, of its history, and of our shared values. There is, in fact, no more powerful unifying general symbol. At the same time, the flag no doubt means different specific things to different individuals; Congress cannot, and should not attempt to, dictate what Americans believe, think, or say about the flag and whatever it represents to individuals.

That said, Congress should have authority to protect this unique symbol from at least physical desecration. The Supreme Court stripped even that authority from Congress in 1990 when it held that physical desecration is ``speech'' protected by the First Amendment. I believe the Court was wrong in that conclusion, but because the Court claimed to speak for the Constitution, the only way for Congress once again to have authority to protect the flag is by amending the Constitution.

In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the very basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court. As a result, the American people must have the opportunity to decide whether their Constitution should allow Congress to protect the flag.

The amendment we introduce today is as simple as it can be. It states: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Unfortunately, simplicity does not prevent distortion, either by negligence or intention. Critics and some in the media have led many to believe that this amendment by itself bans flag desecration. It does not. In fact, should Congress propose and the states ratify this amendment, it might not result in any change in the law at all. That would be up to Congress and the people we represent to decide.

The issue is that today Congress is today prohibited by the Supreme Court from passing laws that protect the flag even if 100 percent of the American people wanted those laws and the Congress was ready to enact them.

The American people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want their Constitution to allow their Congress to pass laws protecting the American flag. That is the way a representative democracy like ours should function. The Supreme Court distorted that process and this amendment will correct the Court's error. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as many of you have done in the past, to support this amendment and to give this decision back to the American people.

Mr. President, today is Flag Day and it is the perfect day to re-introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to protect the American flag from physical desecration. I am joined in doing so today by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He was an original cosponsor of this amendment on 6 previous occasions when I have introduced it, including in the 109th Congress when this body came within one vote of approving it.

The American flag is a unique symbol of our country, of its history, and of our shared values. There is, in fact, no more powerful unifying general symbol. At the same time, the flag no doubt means different specific things to different individuals; Congress cannot, and should not attempt to, dictate what Americans believe, think, or say about the flag and whatever it represents to individuals.

That said, Congress should have authority to protect this unique symbol from at least physical desecration. The Supreme Court stripped even that authority from Congress in 1990 when it held that physical desecration is ``speech'' protected by the First Amendment. I believe the Court was wrong in that conclusion, but because the Court claimed to speak for the Constitution, the only way for Congress once again to have authority to protect the flag is by amending the Constitution.

In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the very basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court. As a result, the American people must have the opportunity to decide whether their Constitution should allow Congress to protect the flag.

The amendment we introduce today is as simple as it can be. It states: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Unfortunately, simplicity does not prevent distortion, either by negligence or intention. Critics and some in the media have led many to believe that this amendment by itself bans flag desecration. It does not. In fact, should Congress propose and the states ratify this amendment, it might not result in any change in the law at all. That would be up to Congress and the people we represent to decide.

The issue is that today Congress is today prohibited by the Supreme Court from passing laws that protect the flag even if 100 percent of the American people wanted those laws and the Congress was ready to enact them.

The American people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want their Constitution to allow their Congress to pass laws protecting the American flag. That is the way a representative democracy like ours should function. The Supreme Court distorted that process and this amendment will correct the Court's error. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as many of you have done in the past, to support this amendment and to give this decision back to the American people.

Mr. President, I ask for enough time to give my remarks this morning and I ask for an equivalent amount of time for the other side.

I hope I can stay within the time constraints, but I am not sure.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 23 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to TSgt Kristoffer M. Solesbee of Hill Air Force Base's 75th Civil Engineer Squadron. Technical Sergeant Solesbee was killed in action near the city of Shorabak, Afghanistan.

Technical Sergeant Solesbee was a brave and courageous man. Not only did he volunteer to serve his country, returning to the field of battle three times, twice in Iraq and this final tour in Afghanistan, but he volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments in the war on terrorism; he was an explosive ordnance disposal technician.

This is not the first time a member of Hill's EOD flight had been killed while protecting his fellow servicemembers from improvised explosive devices. In early 2007, three other members of the 75th Civil Engineering Squadron were also killed. Yet, despite this tragedy, Technical Sergeant Solesbee always returned to duty. I believe one of Utah's largest newspapers, The Standard Examiner, paid him the highest tribute when it stated ``Kristoffer M. Solesbee died doing what he loved: saving lives.'' I cannot think of a better definition of a true hero.

From those who knew him best, his family, friends and fellow servicemembers, described him as smart and highly energetic. Growing up he loved model rockets and radio controlled cars and airplanes. During his 11-year career in the service, his fellow airmen came to rely upon him and his professionalism. Indeed, there is broad consensus among Hill's EOD technicians that he was the benchmark by which others were judged.

His distinguished service also did not go unrecognized. Technical Sergeant Solesbee was the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal with Valor device and second oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Purple Heart Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force Combat Action Medal.

I know God will be watching over the family of this admirable man. He gave his life so that others may live. TSgt Kristoffer M. Solesbee will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise and offer, with my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, a concurrent resolution which reaffirms our Nation's steadfast and unshakable commitment to the security of Israel, specifically through the establishment of secure, recognized, and defensible borders.

It is unfortunate that I am compelled to offer such a resolution. For years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that Israel's boundaries of June 4, 1967 are indefensible and if reestablished will create a strategic military vulnerability for our staunch ally.

That is why President Obama's recent comments were so dumbfounding. The President's prepared and thoroughly considered remarks called for the starting point of negotiations to be what we all know are the militarily indefensible 1967 lines.

Remember, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines its territory will, in some locations, be only 9 miles wide.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu correctly stated in a friendly and appropriate correction to the President's remarks, the 1967 lines are not boundaries of peace. They are boundaries of repeated war.

Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights, the strategic elevated location which dominates northern Israel. Does the President not remember during the 1973 War the Syrians launched a massive armored attack on the Golan Heights which almost succeeded?

This raises the question of who President Obama was attempting to appease with his ill-advised statements, which unnecessarily drove a wedge between the United States and Israel?

The fact is the national security interests of the United States and Israel are linked. The threats Israel faces are the threats the United States faces. Whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip or these groups' benefactor, Iran, we share a common foe.

Unfortunately, that foe, Iran, appears to be growing stronger and more capable. Iran has repeatedly stated it wishes to wipe the United States and Israel off the map. Iran's obvious aim is to establish strategic dominance over the entire region. Their relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology is of grave concern.

Much has been said about Iran's nuclear program, but much less has been articulated about its ballistic missile program. In order to achieve its strategic objectives, Iran has embarked on a significant ballistic missile program. Iranian officials have boasted they have the ability to produce a ballistic missile with a 1,250 mile range. In 2009, the Iranians were able to launch a multistage space launch vehicle that the Air Force concluded ``can serve as a test-bed for long-range ballistic missile technologies.''

Even more troubling the Iranians appear to be developing a new long- range multistage solid rocket motor missile. Why is that important? If the Iranians successfully field this type of technology, they will be able to launch, almost instantaneously, missiles which carry warheads over great distances.

With these ominous developments emanating from Israel's and the United States common foe, do we really want to be seen as distancing ourselves from one of our staunchest allies--especially on such a pivotal issue as Israel's borders. This issue of these borders is only underscored by the constant attacks on Israel's borders by Iran's surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas.

That is why I believe this Concurrent Resolution is so important. It reaffirms the long-held, bipartisan policy of the United States, that we will ``support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.''

The United States has no greater friend than Israel and Israel has no greater friend than the United States.

Israel too often finds herself alone in the world, unjustly singled out by the left as a nation uniquely without the moral authority to defend itself.

From my perspective, Israel does not need to apologize to anyone for defending itself against those who would do her harm, and I will always stand by Israel as she seeks to protect her citizens against terrorists and their state sponsors.

Having said that, I also believe many Iranians, especially the young people, know Iran is causing problems in the Middle East. We must support those people who are searchers for freedom.

The security of both our nations is irrevocably linked. This bipartisan concurrent resolution removes any harmful ambiguity the President's remarks last week might have caused.

The United States must stand by Israel. With his remarks last week, President Obama undermined her.

Israel faces consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters of terrorism. But Israel is not a victim. All she asks is the ability to defend herself and for free people to support her right to self- defense.

This is no time for the United States to distance itself from Israel, and I will do everything I can to affirm Israel's territorial integrity and ability to protect her citizens against the unprovoked attacks of terrorist and state actors.

Because Israel is a true friend, I am not surprised that this resolution has strong bipartisan support. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I will be joined by members of both parties who want to remind the world the United States is steadfastly committed to the security of Israel and especially our ally's ability to maintain secure, recognized and defensible borders.

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

Madam President, our economic situation grows more dire by the day. Our unemployment rate has gone back up to 9.1 percent. Last month, only 54,000 jobs were created. You have to create over 125,000 to stay even. Housing prices remain in free fall. Since 2007, home values declined by more than they did during the Great Depression. In large part due to QE2, Americans are facing higher gas prices and higher food prices that are cutting into their family budgets. Now there is increasing pressure for a QE3, which would only accelerate commodity inflation.

Looming over all of this is our national debt. We have a national debt of nearly $14.5 trillion. That actually understates things. This is how USA Today calculated it earlier this week. This chart says it all. Let me read that: ``U.S. owes $62 trillion.''

Let me read that again so it sinks in: ``U.S. owes $62 trillion.''

Numbers such as this are frightening to the American people. They are numbers fit for a banana republic, not the great United States of America, and they are numbers that demand a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I do not say this lightly. Our Constitution has served us well, working over more than two centuries to guarantee and extend liberty and equal rights of American citizens. But from time to time it has become apparent that the Constitution needs to be amended. The Founders themselves contemplated this eventuality, giving to the people's representatives in Congress and the people in the various States the opportunity to amend the Constitution. It has become so clear that our spending situation is so grim, and the President and some members of his party are so unwilling to rectify it, that a constitutional amendment is in order.

The bottom line is that Federal spending has become a threat to liberty. The inability to rein in Federal spending is effectively undermining the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's preamble. Federal spending is a threat to this Nation's free men and women, slowly turning our fellow citizens into servants and stewards.

To restore the promise of the Constitution and the classical liberty the Founders sought to secure, we must amend the Constitution and we must do it now. We must amend the Constitution by voting on S. J. Res. 10, passing it and sending it to the people of the States for ratification. The people I serve in Utah are demanding this action and I know the citizens across this country are demanding it as well. They see the problems looming before them.

One of the first things I did at the beginning of this Congress was introduce S. J. Res. 3, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It received the support of 32 Members of the Senate at that time. We didn't have time to get to the rest of them. But what is remarkable is what happened a few weeks later. All 47 members of the Republican caucus unified behind a single balanced budget amendment, S. J. Res. 10. I was proud to work with my colleagues of varied political beliefs from across the country to draft this amendment that announced loudly and clearly where the Senate Republican caucus stands on this issue.

When I introduced this amendment at the end of March, I was honored to stand beside Mitch McConnell and my colleague from Utah, Mike Lee, as well as my colleagues Senators Cornyn, Toomey, DeMint, Rubio, and many others who took a stand for putting Federal restraints on Federal spending and restoring the Constitution's original checks and balances.

I was honored by the support this amendment received from groups committed to taxpayers and limited government. Here is a list of some of the groups supporting S. J. Res. 10: 60 Plus, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, the National Taxpayers Union, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the Pass the BBA Coalition, the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee, the American Council for Health Reform, Grassroot Voices, and Ending Spending. But most of all I was honored to be serving my constituents in Utah who told me this was a fight worth having.

I am under no illusions that this is going to be an easy fight. The bottom line is that some Members of Congress and certainly President Obama cannot be trusted to control Federal spending in the long term. Consider the issue of entitlement spending. Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt. The failure to put forward a plan that would address their permanent spending shortfalls is quite simply a plan for the destruction of Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats' commitment to the entitlement status quo is the commitment to national bankruptcy.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what the Social Security and Medicare trustees had to say about those programs. In 2010, Social Security ran a $49 billion cash deficit. It is now permanently in the red, with the Federal Government forced to use general revenues to make up for these shortfalls. The trust fund will be completely exhausted in 2036, and we all know there is no real trust fund, just IOUs issued by the government. But even that will be exhausted in 2036.

What about Medicare? Not to be outdone, Medicare's trust fund is now permanently in the red as well, and will be completely depleted in 2024, if not before; that date keeps moving up because of the profligacy of people here in the Congress and the lack of leadership in the White House. These numbers are jarring. They demand a serious and an adult response.

But what is the reaction of our colleagues on the other side to these numbers, at least some of them? For too many, the strategy is one of deny and smear--deny there is a problem and smear those who attempt to fix this spending crisis.

The President's budget was a joke. His do-over budget was nothing more than a speech with some vague details. Before Memorial Day the Senate's Democratic leadership busied itself attacking Chairman Paul Ryan's budget rather than offering up one of their own. Just before Memorial Day, that is what they did. At a time when leadership is called for, President Obama is missing in action and complicit in the demagoguery of his surrogates at the Democratic National Committee.

There is a reason the Democrats are reluctant to offer any way forward out of this mess. It is quite simple--they refuse to cut spending and reform entitlements. But they also refuse to tell the truth about the tax increases that would be necessary to balance the budget their way. The entitlements, of course, are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, to mention a few.

The Democrats are content to be the tax collectors for the welfare state but they will not acknowledge what this entails--massive tax increases on America's families and on America's small businesses.

In his original budget, President Obama proposed $1.6 trillion in tax increases on all segments of our economy. In spite of these tax increases, his budget got nowhere close to balance. Before Memorial Day, Democrats attacked Chairman Ryan's budget and offered up as an alternative roughly $21 billion in tax increases on oil companies. To borrow from John McEnroe: They cannot be serious; $21 billion in tax increases when we have $62 billion in unfunded obligations. The United States owes $62 trillion. What a joke.

The experience of the last few decades and last few weeks demonstrates the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Our spending is simply out of control, and President Obama and many of his allies refuse to address this spending in a meaningful

way. All they have in their bag of tricks are tax increases, but the tax increases that would be necessary to fill this deficit hole would crush the liberty and the livelihoods of the American people.

Rather than doing serious work and making the tough decisions necessary to right our fiscal ship--rather than engaging in true leadership--the President seems content to focus on the next election and leave the hard decisions for a later day. That is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that certain liberals are content to force a full-blown fiscal crisis--one that would make the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009 look like the minor leagues--and then hope all the pressure will be to institute a value-added tax that will be a permanently open spigot, filling the coffers of the bloated Federal Government. Neither of these scenarios is unacceptable.

The fact is, we are running out of time. The country needs to act now. Fortunately, in the absence of Presidential leadership, the constitution provides an opportunity for Congress, along with the people of the States, to amend the Constitution and solve our country's systemic fiscal imbalance, even when the President refuses to do so.

Getting a balanced budget amendment passed is going to be an uphill climb. We all know that. I know all too well the Democrats' calculated resistance to serious efforts to reduce Federal spending. In 1997, a balanced budget amendment I introduced and fought for fell short by just one vote in the Senate. We had 66 votes. We actually had 67 that morning, but one of our Senators was threatened by the unions and flipped and we lost by 1 vote. Fourteen years later, our national debt stands at $14 trillion, threatening our economic future, reducing our global competitiveness, and jeopardizing our national security. Can we imagine where we would be had we been successful in passing that amendment and had one more vote to do it back in 1997? We wouldn't be in the colossal mess we are in today. Yet the resistance to a balanced budget amendment is probably even stronger among Democrats now than it was in 1997.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful that if the citizens and taxpayers of Utah are in any way representative of the people in the rest of the country--and I think they are--it is clear they have had enough. The people of this country are not going to stand by any longer and wait for Congress to fix this situation. They understand the Constitution must be amended in order to revive the Founders' original limits on the size of the Federal Government. Passing a balanced budget amendment is not just a constitutional imperative, it is essential to the long-term fiscal health of this country.

In the coming weeks, the fight over the debt limit is going to come to a head. It is going to be a long, hot summer. But I, as will a lot of others who care for this country, will be itching for a fight, and I will go to bat for this balanced budget amendment. In this country, the people are sovereign, and it is well past the time we give them a balanced budget amendment to ratify.

I urge my colleagues who have not done so already to support S.J. Res. 10. I look forward to debating and voting on this resolution--and passing it--later this summer.

I believe the leadership on the other side should bring up the balanced budget amendment and have a full-scale debate before we lift the debt ceiling--if the debt ceiling is to be lifted--and I am not so sure it should be lifted without a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, the very least that has to happen is to bring up this balanced budget amendment before we actually get into the fight over the debt ceiling. It would be very good for this whole body to have to defend itself and to have to make arguments, pro and con, with regard to a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

I believe when the American people see what terrible shape we are in--caused by terrible profligacy, caused by terrible spending by the Congress of the United States--when people start to understand this, they are going to get tremendously angry, and I think in every respect they are going to start saying we have had enough. We have had enough. It is time for you folks in the Congress to stand and pass a balanced budget amendment that we will have to live with in order to save this country and save it from the free fall we are in. I hope we can get our colleagues on both sides--we do have all 47 Republicans--I hope we can get our colleagues on the other side to think and look clearly toward a balanced budget constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 10. I look forward to debating and voting on this amendment and passing it later this summer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak until I finish my remarks.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

Right before Memorial Day, the Finance Committee held two trade hearings, the first on the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, the second on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Earlier, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. These agreements have been thoroughly reviewed by our Finance Committee. In fact, given that the Colombia agreement was signed in 2006 and the Panama and South Korea agreements in 2007, these agreements have been more than thoroughly reviewed by U.S. elected officials and U.S. agencies over the past several years. For the sake of the U.S. economy and for the sake of our country's standing in the world, it is clearly time to take the next step. It is time for President Obama to submit implementing legislation for these agreements to the Congress.

The U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are good agreements that will benefit the United States and American workers. According to the nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission, these trade agreements, once fully implemented, will likely increase U.S. exports by over $12 billion and grow the U.S. gross domestic product by over $14 billion. Put simply, our trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will boost U.S. exports, expand the U.S. economy, and thus promote job growth in the United States.

The President and members of his administration understand this. They have spoken on numerous occasions on the benefits of the U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea for our country. Please bear with me as I review some of their statements.

Four months ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address-- 4 months ago--expressed his support for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which he stated will support at least 70,000 American jobs. He then asked Congress to pass the Korea agreement as soon as possible.

Last December, President Obama noted that the South Korea agreement is expected to increase annual exports of American goods by up to $11 billion. In that same speech, he said:

I look forward to working with Congress and leaders in both

parties to approve this pact because if there is one thing

Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it

should be creating jobs and opportunities for our people.

I couldn't agree more.

Just 2 months ago, the President stated that he believes a recently announced labor action plan of Colombia serves as a basis for moving forward on a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement and that this represents a potential $1 billion of exports--our exports--and could mean thousands of jobs for workers here in the United States.

After meeting with President Martinelli of Panama, President Obama said he is confident now that a free-trade agreement would be good for our country, would create jobs here in the United States and open up new markets with potential for billions of dollars of cross-border trade.

The President's principal trade adviser, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, just last month recognized that the U.S.-Korea trade agreement will support more than 70,000 American jobs, and he noted as well that it will result in over $10 billion in increased annual exports from the United States.

In April, Ambassador Kirk said Colombia represents $1.1 billion in new export opportunities for the United States. Regarding Panama, he stated that the Panama agreement will provide access to one of the fastest growing markets in Latin America.

In speaking of all three pending agreements only last month, Ambassador Kirk said that ``the pending agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are at the forefront of our efforts to open new markets.''

In April, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke emphasized the need to pass the U.S.-Korea Trade Promotion Agreement through Congress as soon as possible. He also said that the administration feels similar urgency to get the pending Panama and Colombia trade deals done. He noted that all three pending trade agreements will move us even closer to President Obama's National Export Initiative goal of doubling American exports by 2015.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has spoken on behalf of the administration in favor of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. On May 12, he stated that the paramount reason to implement these three pending trade agreements is jobs. He went on to note that these trade agreements will result in over $2 billion in additional sales of U.S. agricultural products. Secretary Vilsack has also stated that until we complete these three trade agreements, U.S. agriculture will not have a level playing field in Colombia, Panama, or South Korea.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken on the benefits of these three trade agreements for our country. When discussing the U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement in April, she stated not only that this agreement will increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and thus support tens of thousands of American jobs but also that implementing the South Korea agreement is profoundly in our strategic interest. When speaking on the subject of trade and economic growth last month, Secretary Clinton said that ``one of our top goals is to complete free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.''

As someone might say, there is a lot of upside to these agreements-- billions in new exports, billions in economic growth, and thousands of new jobs. What is not to like?

So I have a question. What is the holdup? What on Earth is the administration waiting on? This country needs all the jobs and economic growth we can get. So why does the administration refuse to submit these agreements to Congress for consideration? Despite declaring the benefits of these agreements for the United States at every turn, the Obama administration is sitting on them, hurting our economy, and undermining our job growth.

With respect to international trade, the administration has adopted a policy of delay and dither. I see few signs that the administration is working hard to move these agreements through Congress. I don't see administration officials walking the Halls of Congress in attempts to build support for the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea agreements. While the administration has said great things about these agreements, as I have mentioned, its efforts to build any type of momentum to advance them on Capitol Hill are tepid at best.

On trade policy, the administration is all talk and no action, or, as my friends from Texas might put it, on these agreements, the President and his team are all hat and no cattle. This is definitely a strange economic strategy. While our economy remains shaky, unemployment remains high--the unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent--and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, the administration just sits there. It just sits there.

Actually, let me correct myself. The administration doesn't just sit there; instead, the administration is actually going out of its way, finding new excuses for not moving forward with the implementation of these trade agreements.

Despite countless speeches from the President and his administration about the importance of the three trade agreements to American exports, creating American jobs, and strengthening our alliances with key friends, his administration busies itself concocting more roadblocks, more delays, and more excuses. It is time to be blunt about this. This schizophrenic trade policy is doing nothing but hurting American workers, hurting jobs, and undermining our recovery.

I believe each free-trade agreement, standing on its own merits and with the full backing of the White House and congressional leadership, will pass with significant bipartisan margins. But we are now told we will never have a chance to vote on any of these agreements unless the White House and Democratic Senators get what they want on trade adjustment assistance.

Let's put this in perspective. Our economy teeters on the brink with a weak economic recovery. One in seven Americans happens to be on food stamps. Durable goods orders dropped 3.6 percent in April. Last month, the economy added only 54,000 private sector jobs, and unemployment went up to 9.1 percent. The real estate market remains in tatters with the average single family home price falling by 33 percent since 2007. We face an historic spending crisis that has generated warnings from Standard & Poors and Moody's that the Federal Government faces a downgrade in its debt rating--an action that would be devastating for this Nation and to America's families.

To forestall this coming crisis, leaders in Congress and the administration are meeting on an almost daily basis to determine how best to get our Nation's deficits and debt under control. Every spending program and expenditure is being reviewed to find cuts to get our fiscal house in order.

Everyone recognizes these three trade agreements will promote jobs and economic growth at a time when both are in short supply. Submitting and passing free trade agreements would be a quick and cost-free way of generating economic growth. Yet, in an environment where Congress is desperately attempting to encourage economic growth and rein in spending to avert a fiscal crisis, the White House and many Democrats are delaying the pro-growth trade agreements until we get more government spending through TAA, the trade adjustment assistance program. And for what? If an expanded TAA is so critical, where is the record of success to prove it? What evidence is there that giving some workers who have lost their jobs more benefits than others improves U.S. competitiveness or is a responsible way to spend taxpayer dollars? The mere fact that more people are in a program, and that more taxpayer money is being spent, is not evidence of success.

Congress does not pick winners and losers in the movie rental business. When Blockbuster employees lost their jobs because of the rise of Netflix, nobody stood up and said we should create a new, big, spending government program to help displaced Blockbuster employees.

President Reagan recognized the problems inherent in this program when he said:

[t]he purpose [of TAA] is to help these workers find jobs

in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with

that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of

normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater

benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign

competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are

laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that

this is unfair.

That is what President Reagan said.

By tacking the expansion of TAA onto the stimulus bill, and refusing to allow Congress to vote on the extended TAA program on its own merits, it is unclear whether there is, in fact, bipartisan support for this expanded program. It is billions of dollars more. If the expanded TAA program can stand on its own merits, as each of the FTAs can, then it should be introduced and voted on separately from the free trade agreements. Demanding an expanded TAA as another excuse to delay voting on these important agreements is irresponsible and self-defeating.

At the same time, by not submitting these agreements for approval by Congress, the administration is doing a disservice to the American economy and, at the same time, is letting down some of our strongest allies. Nothing good can come from this continued inaction.

Make no mistake about it. Failure to submit these agreements is a failure in Presidential leadership. I am convinced the window for the administration to submit these agreements will soon pass. Given the upcoming election season, I am afraid if these agreements aren't submitted this summer, they never will be.

The President needs to act. I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals is great. But we all know that if one doesn't do the work and take action, goals become little more than false hope. They never become reality.

The President and his Cabinet admit these agreements are essential to their goal of doubling exports and creating jobs here at home. Yet, the action necessary to achieve that goal and create those jobs--submission of the agreements--remains in the distant future. Instead of benefiting from these agreements, we watch the days slip by, the explanations and excuses pile up, our export markets decline, and our economy suffers.

I strongly urge the President to submit implementing bills for the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements to Congress this summer. There is no time like the present when it comes to encouraging economic growth and business creation.

I understand they want to help their union employees throughout the country who are less than 7 percent of the private sector economy. What about the millions and millions of others who are losing their jobs not because of this but because we don't export and we don't have these free trade agreements with these three very important countries to us, both from a neighbor standpoint and from a strategic standpoint?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, and I thank Senator Toomey for his work.

Early this year, along with every one of my Republican colleagues, I introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The people of Utah want this amendment. The polls show that if Congress were to pass it and send it to the States for ratification, it would have significant support across the country.

From my perspective, the debate we have been having over the fiscal year 2012 budget this week--if you can even call it a debate-- exemplifies yet again the need for a balanced budget amendment. It seems like a simple thing, but the balanced budget amendment would require the President to submit and Congress to pass a balanced budget. Given the budget process over the last few years, this simple requirement takes on added significance.

The fact is it has been 756 days since Democrats passed any budget, the most basic of Congress's constitutional responsibilities. And the fact is that absent a balanced budget amendment, Congress will never adopt the spending restraint necessary to restore constitutional limits on the Federal Government and the Nation's fiscal integrity.

The consequences of this ineptitude reached a new low on the Senate floor yesterday. To recap for those who missed it, Democrats took to the Senate floor and accused Republicans who are attempting to right our fiscal ship by reforming programs for the poor and elderly of seeking to harm women, children, and other vulnerable members of our society. This verbal assault was deliberate and premeditated. I actually thank my colleagues on the other side who declined to participate in those attacks. Those attacks might make for good politics, but they are terrible for this country.

People here might wish to deny it, but the fiscal crisis we face is real. They might wish to say that Social Security's finances are just dandy, but the fact is the disability trust fund will be exhausted by 2018 and the overall trust fund will be exhausted in 2036, a year earlier than we previously thought.

As bad as Social Security is, the situation with Medicare is even worse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare will be insolvent in 2020. According to the Medicare trustees, Medicare's unfunded liability is $38.4 trillion. And what is the Democratic response to this? All is well. Nothing to see here. Please move along. This is what the Democratic candidate in New York's special election had to say about her opponent's claim that reforms to Medicare were necessary to restore the solvency of this program:

That's simply a scare tactic to tell our seniors that there

will be nothing for them. . . . That's not the truth.

Republicans are trying to scare seniors? That is rich. A liberal surrogate for the Democrats is currently running an advertisement that shows House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. Talk about a new low. The head of the Democratic National Committee--fresh from lecturing conservatives about civility in politics--described the House budget as a tornado through nursing homes.

Yesterday we were treated to claims on the Senate floor that stopped short of these attacks, but not that far short. Yet it is Republicans who are trying to scare seniors? Give me a break. Still, as bad as yesterday's display was, I ended my day positive about the future. Last night, I attended a dinner celebrating the centennial of President Ronald Reagan's birth and at that dinner I had the honor of introducing Lech Walesa, the former President of Poland, who helped to roll back the Iron Curtain and liberate a continent.

When Ronald Reagan became President, the Soviets were on the march. It was not a foregone conclusion that Communists would wind up in the ash heap of history. When Lech Walesa mounted the fence at the Gdansk shipyards, the only thing he could be certain of was prosecution by Communist authorities. But Reagan and Walesa understood something. They understood that communism was a lie, played out on a world historical stage. And to borrow from Shakespeare, Reagan, and Walesa, that the truth will out.

The fundamental truth we face today--one that cannot be denied--is that our Nation faces a spending crisis that no amount of additional taxes can fix. So let's talk about this budget process in a serious way. Unfortunately, doing so will not reflect well on this Chamber.

Borrowing from another one of Shakespeare's plays, in Hamlet the character Marcellus observed that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. One might say the same about the Senate's action on the budget resolution. A budget is not law, but it is an important document that installs the guardrails for the operation of fiscal policy.

Under the Congressional Budget Act, each body is to report a resolution by April 15 of each year. President Obama submitted his budget, and the House met the April 15 deadline. But Senate Democrats have no budget of their own. Here is the Senate Democratic budget resolution: Just one big laid goose egg.

So here we are today talking about the House-passed budget. The simple truth is my colleagues on the other side don't want to vote on a Senate Democratic budget. Instead, they are determined to vote on a budget that everyone knows will not pass this body. Why is this? With all of their hard-edged partisan fury, and not even a thin reed of fiscal governance, like Marcellus, it is reasonable to conclude that something is rotten in the Senate. And if we follow the scent with our noses, we will find it comes down to numbers.

The magic number is 50. There are 100 Members of this body and 53 of those Members caucus with the Democrats. So why aren't there 50 votes for a single Democratic budget? We have heard Senate Democrats won't support the President's budget. The stated reason is that the President's do-over budget was nothing more than a speech that was so vague that our friends on the other side refuse to treat it as a budget. I believe there is a bigger problem holding up the Democratic caucus. The heart and soul of the Democratic caucus is liberal, and I respect that. But a healthy number of my friends on the other side are not entirely in that camp. And many more realize a pure liberal fiscal position might not be politically palatable. After all, the voters sent a message last fall to get spending under control and not to hike taxes.

So because Senate Democrats are jammed up, unable to get their act together, their leadership proposes no budget of their own. We are engaged in a Senate budget debate, but there is no substantive Senate Democratic budget before us, and we don't have one because at least 50 members of this body do not agree on one, even though they have 53 on their side. So how then do we define the majority's fiscal position?

What budget would the majority of Senate Democrats support if they could? That budget is lurking in the background of this debate. It is the budget the party's liberals would enact if they could. It is the budget the President, in his heart of hearts, supports. It is certainly the budget the folks at MSNBC support. It is the House Progressive Caucus's budget--an intellectually honest presentation of the liberal fiscal policy position. For interested folks, take a look at pages H2362 through H2870 of the Congressional Record of April 15, 2011. There you will find the House Progressive Caucus budget's fine print and the debate over it.

The Progressive Caucus budget is real and it is ambitious. It is also politically risky. Similar to the House budget developed by Chairman Ryan, it took political courage. It is a statement of policy principles and numbers. With a goose egg as the stated Senate Democratic budget, from my perspective, the best place to look for the Democrat's position is the budget of the House progressives. There is no doubt that is where the sentiments of a majority of the Senate Democrat caucus truly are.

I also think the House progressive budget offers a valuable contrast to the House-passed budget. Last time I checked, there are two major parties in Congress, and both parties should be accountable for what they would do about our perilous fiscal situation.

So let's hold them to account. The House progressives aim to balance the budget by 2021. They aim to reduce public debt as a percentage of GDP to 64.1 percent by 2021. They aim for both taxes and spending to grow significantly but to equal 22.3 percent of GDP by 2021. House progressives advocate a fulsome growth in the role of the Federal Government, with new domestic spending rising by $1.7 trillion--new domestic spending.

How do they propose to pay for all this? While the Democrats play ``hide the ball'' on this issue, the House progressives are refreshingly frank. The short answer is, tax hikes and cuts in defense spending. They propose $4 trillion in new taxes.

Let's take a look at these new taxes: raise marginal tax rates by 17 percent to 24 percent for single taxpayers. Look at that chart. There is an increase in the top marginal rates by 17 percent to 24 percent. There is a brandnew ``millionaire'' surtax, with rates reaching as high as 47 percent. There is a new record-high death tax rate of 65 percent.

They treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. That means, in some cases, the marginal rate on capital gains and dividends would more than triple. They tax all overseas business income currently. That would mean, with respect to growing global markets, U.S. businesses would be subject to uniquely high levels of taxation.

They create new taxes on banks and financial transactions. I will remind folks that the CBO told us last year this kind of tax would be passed through to bank customers and depositors.

House progressives look to reform Social Security by raising the base of the payroll tax on both employers and employees.

Look at this. My goodness. On health care, House progressives' transparency is breathtaking for its honesty.

All right. I thank my colleague.

Their budget anticipates taking ObamaCare to the next level with a government-run plan. Progressives would impose government negotiation of prescription drug payments.

Where are the spending cuts? One word, ``defense.'' Defense will be cut by $2.3 trillion. This is the progressive budget. The hearts of the Democratic Party would love to proceed down this path: ever higher spending and ever higher taxes to pay for it. But the heads of the party realize that this would be politically disastrous. And so, like Hamlet, they are paralyzed when action is demanded.

The failure of the Senate Democratic leadership to produce and vote on a budget of their own cannot be allowed to mask a simple fact. The Democrats might not like the solutions in the House budget, but their own failure to offer a proposal is a vote for the status quo. And a vote for the status quo is a vote for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare. And that is the true threat to America's elderly.

Serious times deserve serious measures. For that reason, I will be voting for the motion to proceed on the House-passed budget, as well as the budgets proposed by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, and my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul.

We have entitlement programs with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions. And the Democrats' response? Don't reform those programs to make them sustainable. Instead let's scare up $21 billion by attacking tax breaks for oil companies.

If my Democratic colleagues want to have a tax reform debate, I am open to that. But let's not pretend that increasing taxes on oil companies will make one iota's worth of difference in making the country's entitlement programs solvent. Let's not pretend that this is a remotely serious solution to the country's fiscal problems.

Instead of offering a serious budget proposal and debating it, Democrats chose to engage in the basest of politics, smearing Republicans as hostile to women and the elderly.

I wish it were not so, but Marcellus' observation is compelling today. Something is rotten in the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, and in spite of these antics, I am optimistic about the future.

The truth will out, and the truth is that this country is racing toward a fiscal crisis. This fiscal crisis is still avoidable, if we take courageous actions.

Chairman Ryan, in proposing his budget, and the House leadership for voting on it, have done just that. And fortune favors the bold.

I thank my colleague for that little extra time. I intend to vote for three of these budgets today because the three of them make sense. They are not crazy, they are not phony, and each of the three would save Medicare and other matters in the Federal Government.

I thank my colleague.

That is a good question. The distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee has asked a fundamental question. The answer, to me, and I think everybody else, is as clear as a bell: The American people overwhelmingly expect the Senate to do the people's business. First, we have to get our fiscal house in order. The House has taken the first step. The folks in Utah have dealt with their family budgets, business budgets, and government budgets, and they rightly ask that the Senate do exactly the same.

I sure do. They actually worsen the deficit by $2.2 trillion in relation to the CBO baseline.

Until one sees the numbers in black and white, the budget is just talk. Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to produce fiscal blueprints in an intellectually honest, complete, and transparent fashion. The majority, the Democrats, have the responsibility to take the first step, and the Republicans have a responsibility to convey our fiscal blueprint through debate and amendments. That is the way this traditionally has always been done. As the distinguished ranking member indicated, our side is ready to engage in this important debate and process, but it is hard to do it when they would not even put up a budget. They have not done that in the last couple of years. Without a budget, we don't have anything to debate and analyze.

There is no question about it. The chairman has the responsibility for holding hearings that lead up to a budget resolution, the structure of the budget resolution, in accordance with his party's belief, it seems to me, and then bringing it up in committee where both sides can argue about it and both sides have the right to amend and improve it. Then they can bring it to the Senate floor. But they don't do that. Then they wonder why we are in such fiscal difficulties.

I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama understands this fully as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. Having also been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, frankly, I am concerned about it-- and I think everybody is concerned--because they don't want to come up with a budget, and there may be invalid reasons for that.

Will the Senator yield?

There is nothing more important in our lives now than coming up with a budget that would put us on a downward trend for spending. We are spending around 69 percent of the GDP. Our national debt of $14.3 trillion is 90 percent of the GDP. We are headed toward 90 percent of GDP of spending. If we get there, this country will have difficulties that will be difficult to overcome. That is where we are headed, especially if we don't have a budget to debate on the floor of the Senate.

That is right. I think the distinguished chairman of the

Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, wants to do it. But in their caucus they cannot get together because they all want to spend and tax more. They want to keep spending and taxing the way they have in the past. It is clear we cannot keep doing that.

That is a good question. I tell my friend from Alabama that it amazes me how much our friends on the other side are hard wired to increase taxes.

As the ranking member knows, if current tax policy is left in place, including today's low rates, family tax relief and the alternative minimum tax patch, the Congressional Budget Office tells us revenues will trend to the historic average of 18 percent of GDP. The President moves revenues up to record highs as a percentage of GDP. Last year it was about 25.3 percent. The last time we had that was in 1945, at the end of the Second World War, at the height of it.

Now, the tax increases contemplated by the President's budget will mean half of the small business flow-through income will be hit with a marginal tax rate of 17 to 24 percent on top of the regular tax rate. Democrats and Republicans agree the small business sector is the key to job creation. Seventy percent of the jobs are created by small businesses. The top marginal rate on capital gains income will rise to 59 percent in a little over 18 months under the President's budget. That will drive down aftertax rates of return on investments.

Is that policy a path to recovery? I don't think so. I don't think anybody else who looks at it with any degree of intelligence thinks so. That is another reason we need to engage in the budget process in the committee, and I have to say that I am appreciative of my friend's leadership on that committee. He will have to lead our side, but it is hard to lead when you don't have anything to lead on.

Of course.

Our corporate rate is 35 percent. That is the highest in the world, other than Japan's. It is causing a lot of corporations to leave our country. In the 1970s, 39 of the top 50 multinational corporations in the world were based in the United States. Today there are only 16--that was the last figure I heard--which is low. The reason is we are taxing them to death, and we have a lot of other screwy tax aspects that don't work. We can solve all these problems if we just get a decent budget and work to bring spending under control and get on a downward trend with regard to spending.

I have to say, we cannot do it without budget debates and balance. Our friends on the other side don't seem to be able to get their caucus together and allow the chairman to come up with a budget on time, in a way that will help us debate this matter and, hopefully, resolve it on the Senate floor.

My friend from Alabama, as he always does, has arrived precisely at the critical point. We need a fiscal policy that is balanced. Its remedies must respond to the causes of our current fiscal calamity. In the most recent fiscal year, spending hit, as I said, over 25 percent of GDP. That figure is easily more than 20 percent above the historical average.

It is unbelievable we are spending that much. Spending is fueling the deficits we are facing. The President's budget reaches into the American people's pocketbooks with taxes trending at or near historic highs in an anemic effort to close the gap. The other side of the ledger, spending, is not dented. It remains far above any reasonable historic average. Nobody can refute that fact. These are facts. I am concerned about it. I will tell my colleague that.

The ranking member, my friend from Alabama, summed up the fiscal predicament perfectly. It comes down to a lack of balance. Our friends on the other side simply cannot agree among themselves at this time, and the reason they cannot agree is, most of them are looking to the revenue side of the ledger to resolve what is a spending problem.

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over 50 percent of Federal spending, and that will trend to 60 percent shortly. It has jurisdiction over nearly all revenues. As a member of the Finance Committee and ranking member, I fail to see how a tax-increase-driven budget can be advanced in the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. I am keenly interested in how the Budget Committee will come down on the biggest policy question of our time.

I am pleased to have the advice and counsel of my friend from Alabama as that process moves forward. I would like to have the advice and counsel of the distinguished Budget Committee chairman, but he cannot get his side to do what is reasonable; that is, bring down spending. That is what we have to do. We are taxing enough. We are spending us into oblivion, and that is the problem.

I thank my colleague. He sums it up pretty well, is all I can say. For our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, we need to get this done. Frankly, it ought to be done in the Budget Committee and not by rule XIV on the floor. The reason it should be done in the Budget Committee is because I know the minority will weigh in and at least have their viewpoints expressed. There will be amendments, and people can vote up or down on whatever it is. Then they can bring it to the floor, and we should have a complete consideration of it here as well. That is the way it ought to be done.

As a former member of the Budget Committee, I have to admit it is a difficult process, but it is not difficult if we all work together to get spending under control and quit taxing the American people to death. We can do this if we work together.

I hate to say it, but I think our friends on the other side are not working together in their own caucus. The distinguished Senator from Alabama has pointed that out--I think courteously--today. I hope they will get together, even though I am pretty sure they are going to come up with a budget that continues to spend and tax such as we have had in the past. I hope they do not. If they do not, I think the American people will breathe a sigh of relief and say they did a good job. If they do, I think it will be more of the same.

Is it time to move to the Liu nomination?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to the nomination, if the leader has no objection, so I may give my opening remarks.

I withdraw my unanimous consent request and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be divided equally.

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

Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Republican leader's Offshore Production and Safety Act, S. 953. I have to say it is a breath of fresh air to be discussing a substantive energy policy proposal.

Last week in the Senate Finance Committee and yesterday on the Senate floor, we witnessed a cynical charade as some of my colleagues attempted to exploit high gas prices as an excuse to, once again, raise taxes. It is no secret the liberals in Congress have an answer to every problem but unfortunately it has been the same answer for every problem. Whether the problem is health care costs, out-of-control spending, unemployment, or high gas prices, their answer in every case is to raise taxes. The American people have caught on to the uninspired monotony of that particular message.

In the last election they sent us their own message: enough with the spending and enough with the taxing. Apparently, though, that message was not loud enough or clear enough because the worn-out big government approach remains the only option being offered by my friends on the other side. Americans are fed up with lame excuses to expand the size of government. What Americans want, need, and deserve is real solutions to real problems. Those problems are real. High gas prices are an indicator of a much deeper problem facing our Nation's energy security. It is a problem that runs deep but it is not too difficult to understand.

Our problem is a President who would rather buy foreign oil than produce it here in America. In fact, he not only wants to buy foreign oil, he is willing to subsidize it. These are Brazilian workers, Brazilian oil workers. I hope Americans were watching the news as President Obama handed over more than $2 billion to Brazil's government-owned oil company to produce Brazilian oil. It was a nice gesture, I am sure. But why aren't we spending it here at home? And why aren't we able to drill here at home? Why aren't we, the third largest oil producer in the world, able to go after our own oil to bring these prices down.

Liberals spent this last week calling basic tax deductions for American companies ``subsidies.'' Funny thing, because those same liberals appear to have no problem with this gigantic handout of taxpayer dollars to a foreign competitor.

I like Brazil, and I am happy they are doing as well as they are, so this is not a knock at Brazil. It is basically a criticism of our President for giving $2 billion to help them with their oil exploration when they seem to be doing just fine by themselves. At least I am assuming the liberals have no problem with it because they have been deathly silent on this subject during this entire debate.

I hope Americans were watching because that was their money our President was sending out of our country, out of our economy, and out of the reach of tens of thousands of unemployed American energy workers whom this administration has helped to put out of work.

Let me put up another chart. These are our workers. These guys are out of work. These men and women who can develop our own oil are out of work because of this administration.

We all know about the President's artificially broad moratorium on drilling in the gulf and how it has devastated that already crippled region. But the President's anti-Midas touch has reached out to kill oil production in other regions of the country as well.

Since taking office, President Obama has cut Federal energy lease offerings by 67 percent in the Rockies alone and a whopping 87 percent in my home State of Utah. Is it any wonder we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil? Is it any wonder our jobless rate remains at historic levels? Is it any wonder government revenues are down? Let's not forget that this is the same President using our tax dollars to subsidize Brazilian oil production to the tune of $2 billion.

After taking office, one of President Obama's earliest actions was to withdraw 77 energy leases in Utah. These leases had been through almost a decade of environmental studies. They had jumped through every environmental hoop there was and had already been auctioned off and paid for by good-standing energy companies. We know we are dealing with a very aggressive anti-energy agenda when we see leases pulled back that have already been

paid for. The energy companies are not blind; they see it too.

A recent survey of the energy industry in the Rockies tells us the tragic and unnecessary story. Due to the hostile atmosphere created by the Obama administration, $1.1 billion of capital investment was shifted from the Rockies to other areas, including overseas. If it were not for the anti-energy efforts of this administration, the companies surveyed stated they would invest an additional $2.8 billion in the region in the future. Eighty-nine of the energy companies surveyed said they would continue to divert investment from the Rockies until the current policies become less hostile, and 71 percent of the industry respondents stated that dissatisfaction with the Federal permitting process is the general variable driving investment right out of our Nation.

When are we going to wake up? When is this administration going to wake up?

Some of my friends on the other side have an extremely difficult time understanding this, but when we deter energy companies, we kill real jobs and we kill domestic energy production, and we make America weaker. These aren't just jobs, these are highly paid jobs. Yet we are willing to subsidize the Brazilian oil workers. I like those workers. I think they are finding oil for their country. I think their country is energy efficient because of their work offshore. Some of those rigs used to be in the gulf but no longer can be there because of the stupid anti-energy policies of this administration.

Here we have American companies willing to spend more than $2 billion of their own money to create American jobs and American oil, but President Obama says no--or at least the people around him who advise him tell him to say no. Yet our President does not hesitate to give more than $2 billion in taxpayer funds to Brazil to create foreign jobs. Just wait, because this story actually gets worse. The President then hopes taxpayers will send even more money overseas as we buy Brazil's oil--oil we already have subsidized in the first place.

But the President saved the best for last. He now proposes raising taxes on American energy production.

This deserves repeating. The President says no to American energy companies wanting to use their own profits to make more American jobs and more American oil, but he then gives away taxpayer money to subsidize foreign jobs and create more dependency on foreign oil. While he is at it, he may as well tax American energy production for good measure. That is what they want to do to us. It doesn't make sense.

Look, I like the President. I personally am a friend of the President. I can't believe he is doing this on his own. He has to have these dumbbells down there at the White House feeding him this stuff. But he is bright enough to look through it and see it doesn't work or is it just that their supporters are demanding--the Democratic supporters are demanding--this type of harm to our country and to our people?

Well, I said it twice, and it makes less sense the more I think about it. He may as well tax American energy production for good measure.

The whole farce would be comical if it weren't so incredibly harmful to our Nation, our economy, and to our American families who have dedicated their lives to providing the United States with the domestic oil and gas we so desperately need.

I wish to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Cindy and Bruce of Uintah County, UT, an oil-rich county, if we were allowed to get the permit and go out and find it.

I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to continue my statement.

Cindy and Bruce write:

Our family returned to the Vernal, Utah, area . . . after

being absent for 10 years. We realized we loved the area and

wanted to be back with our families. . . . At that point we

decided we wanted to do more than just get by in life working

for someone else. . . . Since things looked very promising

for the oilfield industry, we started a small oilfield

trucking company. We struggled to make all this work and to

establish a reputable and trusted company with a good

customer base. In February of 2009, as the new presidential

administration and new head of the Department of the Interior

took over, the oil and gas production companies slowed their

drilling and production programs drastically. The RAPID

economic change was shocking. Overnight, we went from being a

prospering business to a business that is just hoping we can

pay our bills. . . . Our story is not unique. It is the same

story for many of our friends, neighbors and family members.

Our lives and the economy here are in shambles. It is not

because we did not work hard, spend wisely, follow all the

government rules, or that we made irresponsible decisions. It

is because of sudden changes in our government.

This was no naturally occurring economic downturn that killed Bruce and Cindy's business. It was hostile government policies intent on slowing domestic energy production on Federal lands.

This point is made again and again to me in letters from Utahans from this region. One letter states:

As I talk with many people each day at work, there is one

common thread: The policies of the current administration

have made it a very risky business for companies trying to

produce oil in this area. Leases have been canceled, then

resold, and then suspended. The confidence of the oil

producers has been undermined by these actions. They have

lost a lot of money on the bids for these leases.

These experiences are duplicated wherever Federal energy leases are offered. I can say I have never seen a more anti-energy administration than the current one, and all Americans are feeling the pain of President Obama's suicidal energy policies.

Today, we are talking about a real solid energy proposal. It is a proposal that will create American jobs in the gulf and throughout America's energy industry. The Offshore Production and Safety Act is a proposal that will strengthen our Nation, not weaken it. It will get us producing American oil again in the gulf, and that is a critically important goal.

If I had my choice, we would be discussing a more comprehensive energy bill that would also be reopening oil production on onshore and offshore leases. I am an original cosponsor of a bill with my colleague, Senator David Vitter, called the 3-D Bill. The Ds stand for domestic jobs, domestic energy, and deficit reduction. This bill deserves full consideration. It is a bill that would increase jobs, reduce energy costs, and generate significant revenue to State and Federal Governments. In short, the bill would reverse the Obama administration's onerous new constraints on domestic oil and gas production. The 3-D bill would reverse bans of some offshore Federal leases in each Outer Continental Shelf planning area, it would open ANWR to oil production, directing some of the resulting revenues toward renewable energy production, and it would reverse President Obama's recent moves against commercial oil shale production.

Unfortunately, we are not discussing that bill today and here is why. Republicans have had to force the Democrats' hand to allow a debate on even a limited proposal such as the one introduced by our Republican leader--and well done. But this issue is not going away, and I will continue to push the issue of onshore and offshore Federal leases and advocate for the 3-D bill.

The bill we voted on yesterday had nothing to do with gas prices or energy policy or getting more energy. As we heard from Member after Member on the other side, that bill was about raising taxes for more government spending. The bill we are voting on today is a serious energy proposal. It is a smart proposal that, if passed, would create real jobs, produce real domestic oil and gas, and leave the deficit- busting revenues for the government. As such, I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I hope our friends on the other side will see this. It is time we stand and start changing this, regardless of what this administration is doing to America.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we are discussing a bill to raise taxes. That is what it is. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, S. 940 will raise taxes by $21 billion over 10 years. And what provoked this bill to raise taxes? This time it is high gas prices.

I wish could say I am surprised, but since Democrats took control of this Chamber, and since President Obama was elected, this seems to be a recurring theme. No matter the question, the answer always seems to be: Raise taxes. There is rarely any consideration of how this impacts the economy, how it impacts businesses and families who have to shoulder this load.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle too often look at working men and women as an endless source of cash that Washington can rely on for more governmental programs. The Democratic Party's emblem is a donkey. Sometimes I think they would be better off transitioning to a one-trick pony.

The Democratic bill we will be voting on later today is called the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. That is certainly one message-tested name. ``Big oil''--check. ``Tax loopholes''--check. Again, never underestimate the left's ability to underestimate the American people. They think that because American citizens are angry at high gas prices, they are going to run off the cliff and support a measure just because it mentions ``big oil'' and ``tax loopholes.''

I can tell you that the people of Utah are not going to support this bill, and the American people will not either.

The American people want and they need energy solutions. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 7 out of 10 Americans say that gas prices are causing financial hardship. FedEx and UPS have increased fuel surcharges from 6.5 percent to 8.5 percent. By the time 2011 ends, expect restaurant prices to be 3 percent or 4 percent higher, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The issue of high gas prices is much greater than the price at the pump. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the weak U.S. dollar has added 56 cents to every gallon of gas. This is a drag on a fragile economic recovery. It inflates the prices of everything from groceries to school supplies. Just recently, we found out that one in seven Americans is on food stamps--one in seven. One writer has dubbed this the ``Food Stamp Recovery.'' And this weak recovery is made weaker by higher gas prices.

And to deal with this? Democrats decide that rather than promote a sensible energy policy, it is better to score a few cheap political points at the expense of the politically unpopular oil companies. Americans are rightly upset about the cost of gasoline. But the solution to higher gas prices is not to raise taxes. Raising taxes on domestic energy producers might be a good thing for Hugo Chavez, but it does nothing to lift the burden of increasing gas prices that are afflicting the American economy and working families. Under this bill, Hugo Chavez's Citgo would receive a tax incentive while U.S. companies such as Exxon and Chevron would not. I was amazed to see the advocates of this legislation admit as much during a hearing on this matter last week in the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an extra 5 minutes for my remarks.

One after one, my Democratic colleagues acknowledged the obvious. The policies they were proposing--higher taxes on oil companies--had absolutely nothing to do with energy policy or sound tax policy and everything to do with generating more revenue for more government spending. They acknowledged that this legislation would do nothing--I repeat, nothing--to lower the price of gas at the pump. Not a thing. They acknowledged that.

I can see now why Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and Senator Begich of Alaska called this tax increase proposal a ``gimmick'' and ``laughable.'' These are two Democrats who have been honest about what is going on here. Raising taxes will do nothing to lower the cost of fuel. And for what it is worth, this bill will not help pay down the deficit either. Nothing in this bill mandates that these new revenues would be dedicated to deficit reduction. In fact, any net revenue increase in this bill would be set aside and added to what we call savings on OMB's pay-go scorecard, revenue that can be used to pay for future legislation. We all know that when we increase taxes, our colleagues on the other side are going to spend every dime of it. That has been a matter of fact.

So let's be clear about what is going on here. Democrats want to increase taxes to pay for more government spending. They have been refreshingly open about their intentions. One of my colleagues stated that this bill will allow us to spend money on cops and kids. Another said it will ``raise a significant amount of additional revenue for important projects in the United States of America.'' But the choice here is not lower taxes versus assistance for public safety and children. If Democrats want to pay down the deficit and have money for essential projects, there are plenty of options available besides increasing taxes.

My colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, has led a one-man crusade to identify hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful and redundant government spending and programs. If the entire Democratic caucus spent even half the time investigating wasteful government spending as it does looking through the Internal Revenue Code for ways to increase our taxes, and to malign a business like Big Oil, our fiscal situation would be much better.

Make no mistake that this bill is a tax increase on American jobs. Under this proposal, there is a disincentive for domestic energy producers to invest in the United States. Under this proposal, American corporations will be at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. Under this proposal, a lot of our oil companies-- especially the larger ones--are going to find it a lot better for them to work offshore, overseas, away from America, to find oil, which is what they are doing anyway, without all of the tragic tax increases that come their way in our country.

Sometimes we talk ephemerally about the impact of tax increases on the economy. In practice, this bill is a direct assault on American jobs. And for what? It does not do anything to bring down the cost of energy. Nothing. Nada. It does not do anything to bring down the deficit. Not a thing. But what it does manage to do is gloss over the Obama administration's lack of an energy policy--or should I say war on energy?

The angry truth is, this administration abetted by Democrats has an energy policy designed to increase costs at the same time that it purports to stand shoulder to shoulder with working families who cannot make ends meet because of these increased energy costs.

This is the President's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu--the current Energy Secretary:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels of Europe.

That is astounding to me. Some of those levels are approaching $10 a gallon.

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels in Europe.

The administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth. At the same time that it feigns sympathy for the families hit hardest by rising energy prices, it attempts to impose a radical environmental agenda on an unwilling middle class. At the same time American families moved to the suburbs so they could have room to grow and play, buying minivans and SUVs to accommodate their growing families, the environmental left is pushing its agenda of urban living, public transportation and, yes, small families.

For all of its righteous anger about high gas prices, it is clear from its policies where the administration stands in this fight.

As a Senator who has worked hard to establish a strong energy foundation for America, I have watched with dismay as President Obama has done everything in his power to tear that foundation up, aggressively stop domestic energy production, and leave our Nation vulnerable to our foreign competitors who are smart enough to develop their own energy resources.

Since taking office, President Obama has cut new energy leases by more than 60 percent in this country and by more than 80 percent in my home State of Utah. We have a lot of oil there. It is just a matter of getting the permits to be able to drill for it or to develop it in the case of tar sands and oil shale. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming have an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil through oil shale and tar sands.

We are all aware of the President's efforts to forestall domestic energy development offshore, but less media attention has been given to its successful efforts to move the industry off our Federal lands in the Intermountain West.

The Department of the Interior oversees more than 42 percent of the State of Utah, including much of the land where domestic energy production is pursued. One of the early moves of the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, my colleague and dear friend, was his controversial withdrawal of energy leases that had already been auctioned off and paid for by energy developers after years of jumping through environmental hoops--years; some estimate about 7 years, maybe longer, of jumping through environmental hoops. Then, just by a stroke of a pen, they withdrew 77 leases that had been paid for.

This is a terrible signal to our domestic energy producers, and companies are now leaving our Federal lands in droves seeking a less hostile regulatory environment on private, State, and foreign-owned lands. Get that ``foreign-owned'' lands part. They are finding it is easier. They do not have all of the rigmarole and the redtape to go through to develop oil on lands overseas.

A recent survey showed, in the absence of national constraints, energy companies would be investing an additional $2.8 billion in the Rockies if they did not have all of these constraints and all of this rigmarole to go through.

S. 940 is terrible policy. In a long line of terrible policies, it is lousy energy policy, and it is lousy tax policy. Increasing taxes on American production will only stifle our economy. If Democrats want to have a conversation about tax policy and tax reform, we are ready to have that conversation. But do not single out, through selective taxation, one industry to take away these particular tax benefits that have been useful in helping us develop our oil domestically.

We should not be exercising our power to tax in a punitive way that singles out particular unpopular industries or just particular industries. Fortunately, I do not think the American people are going to buy this latest installment of ``let's raise some taxes.'' They always leave out the latter part, ``so we can spend more,'' and claim that ``we are doing more for the people'' when, in fact, they are spending us right into bankruptcy.

This bill we are debating today will not do anything to address high gas prices. As Democratic supporters have acknowledged, there is nothing to help us with lower prices at the pump. It will not do a thing. But what it will do is raise revenue for the Federal Government to spend.

Yet, again, the party of big government has proposed additional taxes to fund that big government. You see, the deficit is not the Democrats' problem. No. For the Democrats, the deficit is always somebody else's problem. It is the fault of business or individual citizens for not doing their ``fair share'' or accepting their ``shared responsibility'' to fund this government. These are new terms that are being used now.

The American people deserve better than this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to proceed to S. 940 and to support the motion to proceed to S. 953 when we take it up tomorrow.

I know a little bit about oil and a little bit about developing oil. I know one thing. We have lots of oil in our country if we will just give the permits and allow the development of that oil. It does not take any brains to realize we have all kinds of oil offshore.

So for the President to go down to Brazil, give them a $2 billion subsidy to develop their oil offshore, and then compliment them for having done so, with rigs that probably were in the Gulf of Mexico before, basically, it was shut down, and then say we will buy their oil from them, I mean, it is laughable, absolutely laughable--and not develop our oil in this country.

We know there is all kinds of oil in Alaska. We know there is all kinds of oil in ANWR. If one were to go to ANWR, one would be shocked at how barren the place is. Yet to hear the environmentalists talk, one would think it was the most beautiful, lush part of the planet. The fact is, we can develop oil there without ruining ANWR and help our country in the process, save the taxpayers an awful lot of money, keep our country strong, and make us not dependent on Big Oil or anybody else.

Would it not be wonderful if we could just have some good free market principles and allow our people to find our own energy in our country? A lot of people did not realize, until it came out last week, that the United States is the third largest energy producer in the world.

Now, we are the largest user by far, but there is a reason for that. We have been the most important country, with the greatest economy, helping people all over the world with our tax dollars.

I hope we vote down this bill today and vote up the one tomorrow.

Mr. President, I am also pleased to join with my partner on the Senate Finance Committee in producing bipartisan legislation that gives States increased flexibility to improve the lives of children and youth.

The legislation we will introduce today is the product of many months of work and is the result of an open and transparent process bringing together relevant stakeholders. The Committee has heard from the state groups, the advocacy community and most importantly, youth both in and out of the foster care system. Young people in ``Foster Club,'' have a saying: ``Nothing about us, without us.'' We have taken their motto to heart and the legislation we are introducing today reflects years of input for youth in and out of foster care.

I agree with the Chairman of the Finance Committee when he characterized the State Child Welfare Innovation Act as another step on the pathway to comprehensive child welfare reform.

Comprehensive child welfare reform is desperately needed. The current financing system is antiquated, relying on an income eligibility proxy dating back to pre-welfare reform standards. The majority of Federal support goes to the least desirable outcome: the placement of a child or youth into foster care. Federal priorities should be aligned so that States are able to keep families together, safely.

But financing reform is not enough. The underlying foster care system needs to be improved. Often times when children enter foster care, siblings are separated. Children and youth are shuttled from place to place. Their education is disrupted. Their ability to play sports or engage in after school

activities is thwarted. Under the current system, about 30,000 young people a year exit foster care without a permanent connection and are at risk for homelessness, incarceration and drug abuse.

My State of Utah informs me that with flexibility, Utah can improve on the State's decade-old effort to protect children and strengthen families.

As we look to make improvements to our social service delivery systems, we should be relying on the States to chart the way through flexibility and innovation. The States are the critical units within our constitutional democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy, where appropriate solutions to problems are best crafted. The Federal Government needs to give States maximum flexibility in crafting solutions that work for their citizens. I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with that approach and look forward to making further progress to improve the lives of children and young people.

Mr. President, I am also pleased to join with my partner on the Senate Finance Committee in producing bipartisan legislation that gives States increased flexibility to improve the lives of children and youth.

The legislation we will introduce today is the product of many months of work and is the result of an open and transparent process bringing together relevant stakeholders. The Committee has heard from the state groups, the advocacy community and most importantly, youth both in and out of the foster care system. Young people in ``Foster Club,'' have a saying: ``Nothing about us, without us.'' We have taken their motto to heart and the legislation we are introducing today reflects years of input for youth in and out of foster care.

I agree with the Chairman of the Finance Committee when he characterized the State Child Welfare Innovation Act as another step on the pathway to comprehensive child welfare reform.

Comprehensive child welfare reform is desperately needed. The current financing system is antiquated, relying on an income eligibility proxy dating back to pre-welfare reform standards. The majority of Federal support goes to the least desirable outcome: the placement of a child or youth into foster care. Federal priorities should be aligned so that States are able to keep families together, safely.

But financing reform is not enough. The underlying foster care system needs to be improved. Often times when children enter foster care, siblings are separated. Children and youth are shuttled from place to place. Their education is disrupted. Their ability to play sports or engage in after school

activities is thwarted. Under the current system, about 30,000 young people a year exit foster care without a permanent connection and are at risk for homelessness, incarceration and drug abuse.

My State of Utah informs me that with flexibility, Utah can improve on the State's decade-old effort to protect children and strengthen families.

As we look to make improvements to our social service delivery systems, we should be relying on the States to chart the way through flexibility and innovation. The States are the critical units within our constitutional democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy, where appropriate solutions to problems are best crafted. The Federal Government needs to give States maximum flexibility in crafting solutions that work for their citizens. I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with that approach and look forward to making further progress to improve the lives of children and young people.