Floor Statements

Madam President, I was allocated 15 to 20 minutes. I will try to keep it to 15 minutes to yield at the top of the hour.

Madam President, I ask that my time be used against our allocation on the resolution.

I wish to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is absolutely right. I supplied the medical industry for over 31 years, and the medical device tax will do great harm to medical innovation.

I also wish to commend both the Senators from Florida and Pennsylvania about their great points on the importance of economic growth and how important it is that we concentrate all of our efforts here in Washington on economic growth.

I truly believe that every Member of this body, people serving in Congress, share the same goals, or the same goal: We want a prosperous America. We want every American to have the opportunity to build a good life for themselves and their family. But often folks on the other side of the aisle accuse Republicans--conservatives--of conducting a war on women or a war on the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will tell my colleagues what is the truth. It is that with all of our deficit spending here in

Washington, we are conducting a war on our children. Fortunately, I do not know of a parent or parents who would willingly drive up their own personal debt, who would max out their credit cards with absolutely no intention of ever paying those debts off, but fully intending to pass those debts on to their children and grandchildren and great- grandchildren. Again, fortunately, I don't know anybody who would do that. Yet, collectively as a Nation, that is exactly what we are doing. We are mortgaging our children's futures.

I ask all Americans to please consider what we are doing in terms of robbing future generations of the prosperity and the heritage and the type of opportunity that we should be handing over to them.

An awful lot of people don't quite understand the connection between our high levels of debt and economic growth. By the way, it is economic growth that actually strengthens middle-income Americans. But if we think about our own personal situations, if we in our own family budget have driven our debt levels up to the point where creditors are calling us all the time, how are we going to grow our own personal economy? In other words, how can we increase consumption when all of our extra dollars are going to pay off our debt, pay our creditors? We are under a great deal of pressure. The answer to the question is a person can't grow their personal economy, they can't grow their own personal consumption. That same economic fact applies to a nation as well. That is why these high levels of debt are harming economic growth and harming the very people all this government spending is purporting to try and help.

One way to take a look at this in terms of the harmful effect of all of the regulation, all the government debt, is economic growth. The fact of the matter is, on average, after 14 quarters, the American economy has grown, after post-World War II recessions, by 19.9 percent. Under Ronald Reagan, our economy grew 20.1 percent in the first 14 quarters. Under this President, our economy has grown by only 7.5 percent. Again, I would argue an awful lot of that has to do with regulations, but an awful lot of it has to do with the fact that we have increased our debt to unsustainable levels. It is scaring consumers. It is scaring business people away from investing in capital and growing their businesses.

As Republicans, as conservatives, we want every American to pay their fair share. We actually want a balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction. We want more revenue flowing into the Federal Government, but we want to increase revenue the old-fashioned way: by growing our economy.

Just a couple of quick little facts. Even with the meager economic growth we have experienced from 2009 to 2012, revenue has increased to the Federal Government by a total of $344 billion per year. If we returned to an economy such as we had in 2007, when revenue to the Federal government was 18.5 percent of our economy--it was pretty close to the 50-year average--that would add another $435 billion per year of revenue.

The tax deal, the ``punishing success'' tax increase that was part of the fiscal cliff, supposedly will raise $41 billion in the year 2014. So $41 billion versus $435 billion is a tenth as effective. The problem with that ``punishing success'' scheme is it puts at risk the very growth that is far more effective at raising revenue.

So how do we get our fiscal house in order? Well, we actually have to put our Nation on a glide path toward a balanced budget. We have to return that level of certainty. Global creditors have to be able to look at the United States and say, I think they are getting this situation under control. The only way we can do that is by passing a budget in this body that actually shows a glide path to balance.

Of course, that is not what the Democratic Senate budget resolution will do. It never balances. As Senator Toomey was speaking about, we have to take a look at that first year. In comparison to the CBO estimate, it actually increases spending by $100 billion. It would increase our deficit by $75 billion. That is the primary thing we have to take a look at because these budget resolutions are only about as good as the paper they are written on, so we have to look at that first year.

The other point I want to make in terms of this budget resolution is the claims in terms of deficit reduction are patently dishonest. The claim to reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion in comparison to the CBO baseline is not true. The only way we get that is by comparing apples to oranges. If we adjust the CBO baseline--for example, the $1 trillion--it counts in more spending, or the $300 billion of Hurricane Sandy extended spending, or the additional $200 billion of interest. If we compare apples to apples, this budget at most will reduce the deficit by $300 billion to $400 billion. Again, what we have to take a look at is what it does in that first year, which is actually increases the deficit and increases spending.

This is basically not an honest budget. So my first amendment that I will be offering is a simple amendment. It would establish a point of order subject to a 60-vote waiver or appeal that simply requires a balanced budget in the year 2023. Pretty reasonable. I think the American public actually expects us to live within our means far before that date, but this would be a responsible glide path. I think it is an eminently reasonable amendment, and I certainly hope my colleagues here in the Senate will support a very commonsense approach to providing some level of fiscal discipline to our Federal situation.

The second amendment I wish to offer has to do with the financial situation of States and local governments. Far too many cities are already going bankrupt. We have a chart here that shows a number of cities that have already declared bankruptcy and are going through that process. I think it is extremely important that we here in Congress put States and local governments on notice that they cannot come to the Federal Government looking for a bailout. They need to get their own fiscal house in order. We are not picking on anybody, but it is amazing when we take a look at the unfunded liability that some of these State and local governments are facing right now.

The city of Chicago, for example, has an unfunded liability per household of close to $42,000. I said $42,000 per person. New York City is about $39,000, and San Francisco is about $35,000.

The point of this amendment is to put State and local governments on notice that the Federal Government will not be here to bail them out. They need to get their own fiscal house in order.

The third amendment I intend to offer has to do with recognizing the truth of the situation with our entitlement programs. At the current level, at the current path, neither Social Security nor Medicare is sustainable. So this amendment is also a very simple amendment. It establishes a point of order that requires in any budget resolution that we reform both Social Security and Medicare to create a 75-year solvency. Again, I think that is pretty reasonable. Let me describe why I think it is so important. I frequently hear all kinds of people claim Social Security is solvent to the year 2035 or the year 2038. It is a moving target. Let's take a look at the true picture in terms of the Social Security financial balance sheet. This comes right from the Social Security Administration. This is looking ahead to the year 2032, a mere 20 years' worth of deficits.

It is true that Social Security actually was running surpluses for decades. It built up a trust fund of--we will talk about that later-- about $2.5 trillion, $2.6 trillion. But in 2010, that situation turned around. Now Social Security is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, in terms of dedicated revenue to the payroll tax. Over the next 20 years, that total cash deficit will equal $5.1 trillion.

How could anybody, looking at these facts and figures, possibly claim Social Security is solvent? Well, it is because of the fiction--and it is fiction--of the Social Security trust fund. I have a couple of quotes here from the Office of Management and Budget. Talking about the Social Security trust fund, they say:

These balances are available for future benefit payments

and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping

sense. The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the

government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to

fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury.

In other words, they are claims against the Federal Government.

The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does

not, by itself, increase the government's ability to pay

benefits. Put differently, these trust fund balances are

assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities

of the Treasury.

In other words, we have assets worth $2.6 trillion, we have liabilities of $2.6 trillion, netting to zero.

One of the analogies I use to describe the trust fund is very similar to this: If a person has $20 and spends it--by the way, this money is spent; it is gone--and then that person writes him- or herself a note for $20 and stuffs it in their pocket and says, Hey, I have 20 bucks, they really don't. They have a promissory note they will have to give somebody else to purchase so they can have the real $20 to spend. That is basically what we have in the Social Security trust fund. It does exist. It is just worth zero.

But here, ladies and gentlemen of America, as shown in this picture, is the Social Security trust fund. It is a file cabinet. It is locked. That is kind of funny because they are actually nonmarketable securities, but there you go. That is $2.6 trillion worth of value that supposedly makes Social Security solvent to the year 2035. It is a fiction. It is false. And until everybody here in Washington starts truthfully describing the extent of our problem with not only Social Security but also Medicare--I was part of that group of Senators who had the privilege of having dinner with the President a couple weeks ago. I found it very interesting that President Obama accurately described the problem in reforming Medicare. He said the problem is that Americans pay in $1 but they get $3 worth of benefits. He also went on to say we have a problem because most Americans do not understand that.

Well, today I am asking the President, I am asking Members on the other side of the aisle to join with Republicans to honestly describe the problem to the American public. You do not solve a problem until you first define it and then secondly admit you have the problem. We have severe problems with Social Security, with Medicare, with other mandatory spending, with our budget. Until we come to terms with that, until we are honest with the American people--stop pulling the wool over their eyes--we have no chance whatsoever of solving these very severe problems.

So with that, I yield back my time.

Yes, I came to the floor today to support the Cruz amendment. Does the Senator from Oklahoma still wish to speak?

Yes. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 to 7 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his comments.

I came to the floor to voice my support for the Cruz amendment. I want to concentrate on the cost of the health care law, which is why we are asking in this amendment to defund that bill because we simply can't afford it. So much of our budget already is not considered. Frequently, during negotiations on how we stabilize our deficit and our debt situation, there are many items off the table, things such as Medicare and Social Security. As unsustainable as those programs are, they are off the table in terms of negotiation. But if you want to take a look at the problem with the health care law--ObamaCare--it is the fact that it is simply not affordable. I know the name of the bill is the Affordable Care Act, but we simply can't afford it. Basic economics 101 describes the problem, because ObamaCare will dramatically increase the demand for health care. Thirty million more Americans--and let's face it, we all want those Americans to have access to affordable health care--will be accessing health care or trying to, demanding health care through some kind of program, such as Medicaid, while at the same time the supply will be dramatically reduced. That is going to be an economic disaster.

What I wish to do is put up a couple of charts and graphs showing the true cost. We don't talk about the true budget window when ObamaCare fully kicks in in the year 2016. This is based on the CBO estimate, and all we have had to do is extrapolate the final 3 years. Basically, it shows that ObamaCare won't cost the $1 trillion it was originally estimated to cost when it is fully implemented between 2016 and 2025. It will actually cost $2.4 trillion, at a minimum. And, of course, it will be paid for by these taxes, fees, and penalties, which I guess now are taxes, equaling about $1.4 trillion.

So given the $2.4 trillion worth of cost, we have $1 trillion worth of taxes--and, by the way, the majority of those or a great portion of those taxes will be indirect on middle-income Americans--that leaves about a $1 trillion hole in the current budget window. That is the $716 billion that will apparently be taken out of Medicare providers. We are not sure what will be happening in the full budget window, but that is a $1 trillion deficit risk.

Again, these are all estimates, and I would argue in general that the Federal Government is not particularly good at estimating anything. Back when they first passed Medicare in the mid 1960s, they projected out 25 years and said Medicare would cost $12 trillion in 1990. In fact, it cost $110 trillion--over nine times the original estimate. I don't believe the Federal Government has gotten better at estimating in that intervening time period.

As a matter of fact, President Obama famously repeatedly said that if we passed a health care law, by the end of his first term the cost of a family plan would actually decline by $2,500. Unfortunately, that guarantee has not come true. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a family plan was a little over $12,000. If his promise had come true, we would be looking at a family cost of $10,000. In fact, the cost of a family plan today is now $15,000. Again, that is somewhat of a broken promise.

But let's take a look at what I think is the greatest risk in terms of cost projections by the CBO in that estimate of the total cost of ObamaCare--the $2.4 trillion we are talking about in the true budget window. The CBO estimated only 1 million people net would lose their employer-sponsored care and get dumped in the exchanges with the subsidies. But it is going to be far worse than that, because 160 to 180 million Americans access their health care through their employers. I was one of those employers. I purchased health care for more than 31 years. The decision employers are going to be making in terms of whether to carry health care has dramatically changed under the health care law. Now the decision is going to be: Do I pay $15,000 for a family plan and then try to comply with the now 20,000 pages of law-- rules and regulations?

Leader McConnell printed out those 20,000 pages. You can see it in the hallway. It is an enormous burden for anybody trying to comply with that.

Anyway, the decision is: Do I pay $15,000 trying to comply with 20,000 pages of rules and regulations or do I pay the $2,000 to $3,000 fine--the penalty--and in so doing I am not exposing my employees to financial ruin, I am making them eligible for huge subsidies in the exchange? If an individual has a median household income of $64,000, they will be eligible for $10,000 in those exchanges--$10,000 worth of subsidies. Who isn't going to take that deal?

And that is my point. As employers, we will drop coverage. Employers are incentivized to do so. So rather than 1 million Americans losing their employer-sponsored health care and enjoying those subsidies, there will be tens of millions.

One of the amendments I will be offering in this budget process will be asking the CBO to provide the worst-case scenario: What happens if the McKinsey study is true, 30 percent of employers will drop coverage or 50 or 100 percent? It will be a simple amendment to get the worst- case scenario.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, all of us have come down here to support a very legitimate request to have a legitimate question answered. I think the Senator deserves those answers. If not an answer from the White House, he at least deserves a vote.

I started watching here this morning. The Senator started about 11:57. It is now past midnight. I think my primary action is one of just being puzzled. I have been here for 2 years. I have never served in any kind of legislative body. I certainly came to the Senate thinking this was the world's greatest deliberative body. What I found is a body that is utterly dysfunctional. Even though this is actually one of the best examples of how this body ought to work, it is also an example of that dysfunction. I cannot believe this issue has not been resolved within a half hour, within an hour. Just take a vote.

We have a number of our colleagues from the House coming here in support of the Senator from Kentucky. The House is operating, I believe, as our Founders intended. They are passing budgets. They are debating issues. They are passing real pieces of legislation that, unfortunately, are being dropped over here in the Senate, where those good pieces of legislation die. That is a real shame.

For example, I serve on the Budget Committee of the Senate. I have been on that Budget Committee for 2 years. We have not yet voted on a budget in the Budget Committee. This is, by the way, when this Nation is facing a fiscal crisis unlike anything we have ever faced in our history. We have racked up 4 years now where our debt exceeds $1 trillion. There is no end of that in sight. We have not passed or even brought to the floor an appropriations bill all year long. How can we function as a body if this is how it operates?

A number of Republican Senators joined the President at his gracious invitation for dinner tonight. It was an excellent dinner. It was a genuine, sincere, open discussion of the fiscal problems facing this Nation. I was part of a group of 44 Senators a year and a half ago, almost 2 years now, who also joined the President prior to the final debate on the first debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. The President of the United States leaving that meeting should have come away with a very strong understanding that those 44 Republican Senators were incredibly sincere in their desire to work with the President, to work with our colleagues across the aisle, to solve these problems. I will tell you, I am one Senator who ran for office not to become a Senator but because we are losing this country. We are bankrupting it.

One of the things I do when I talk around the country, I make it a point that fortunately I do not know of any parent who would willingly max out their credit cards, get in debt way over their heads never intending ever to pay it off, but fully intending to pass it off to the children and the grandchildren. I do not know any parent that way, fortunately. But as a society that is exactly what we are doing.

Frequently in this political town, Republicans are accused of waging a war on women, waging a war on immigrants. None of that is true. What Washington is doing is we are waging a war on our children. We are mortgaging their future. It is absolutely immoral. Americans have got to stop and consider what it is we are actually doing to future generations.

So I felt good at the dinner with the President tonight--I think all of my colleagues did. I hope the President did--with a pretty strong sense, once again, that there is a great deal of sincerity, a great deal of desire to roll up our shirt sleeves, put down partisan bickering, put down partisan differences, work together to solve this problem.

I think there has got to be a realization that neither side is going away. If we are going to start solving these problems, we have got to start working together. We have got to return the Senate into that deliberative body that

our Founders intended it to be. We have got to be willing to be held accountable. We have got to take votes. It should not be that hard. We should not be afraid.

I would ask the Senator from Kentucky--as I understand it, this is puzzling that we are here now after midnight. I applaud the Senator for his resolve here. That is why he sees every Member coming down here and providing the support. But I think all he wanted was either unanimous consent or possibly a vote on this simple question:

Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that:

No. 1, the use of drones to execute or to target American

citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly

violates the Constitutional due process right of citizens.

That seems like a pretty simple question, seems like one most Senators would want to express their opinion by taking a vote, or allowing this resolution to pass by unanimous consent. So I guess my only question is, is that all the Senator is looking for, either an answer from the White House or a simple unanimous consent agreement or a simple vote?

Mr. President, I thank Chairwoman Mikulski for organizing this colloquy among Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs regarding the real consequences of the upcoming sequester on this Nation.

Fortunately, America's veterans are spared from the direct impact of the sequester, as all programs funded through the Department of Veterans Affairs are exempt. Veterans hospitals and clinics will continue to operate normally, veterans benefits will be processed and paid, and other veterans services will continue uninterrupted.

But make no mistake about it; veterans are no more immune than any other American from the collateral damage that these senseless automatic spending cuts will inflict. Bear in mind that veterans are parents and teachers, firefighters and law enforcement officers, border patrol agents and small business owners. A large number of civilian jobs at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among other federal agencies, are held by veterans. In fact, veterans comprise 44 percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce. Veterans are subject to the same risk as any other government employee of being furloughed or laid off because of the sequester, and veteran-owned businesses face the same risk as any other small business of losing crucial government contracts.

This is not some abstract inside-the beltway issue. Eighty-six percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce resides outside of the Washington metropolitan area. In my home state of South Dakota, approximately 1,000 Defense Department civilian employees are slated to be furloughed, reducing gross pay by about $6.3 million. This loss in income will surely reverberate throughout the local economy.

The ripple effect of the sequester on the economy and job market nationwide is particularly worrisome for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who already face higher unemployment rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, veterans of these two wars are dealing with an unemployment rate of 11.7 percent, compared to a national unemployment rate of 7.9 percent. The employment picture for Iraq and Afghanistan-era women veterans is even bleaker: 17.1 percent compared to a national unemployment rate for women of 7.4 percent. Furloughs, layoffs, and civilian hiring freezes have the potential to make a bad problem far worse for these veterans.

So yes, the VA is spared a direct hit from the budget axe triggered by the sequester, but veterans are not.

Another impact of the sequester that will be felt across this country is funding for military construction, which is poised to lose more than $1 billion as a result of sequestration. Like other agencies, the Defense Department does not have the flexibility to choose where to cut military construction every single project planned for construction in fiscal year 2013 will be forced to take a funding cut of approximately 9 percent.

The fiscal year 2013 program comprises more than 250 military construction projects in 42 states, the District of Columbia and overseas. As a result of sequestration, every one of those projects will have to be reassessed to determine if it can be executed at the lower funding level, or if it will need to be delayed or cancelled. The Defense Department can shift funding from one project to another through a congressional reprogramming, but that means the Department will be the sole arbiter of choosing winners and losers among the projects that Congress has already authorized. Moreover, reprogramming actions are time consuming and labor intensive, and at a time when the Department will be understaffed due to furloughs and a hiring freeze, the likelihood of delays or deferrals of military construction projects is high. Not only does this affect mission critical and quality of life projects on military installations, but it also impacts the local construction industry, and thus the local economy, in hundreds of communities throughout the Nation.

Carpet bombing the federal budget with across-the-board spending cuts is neither wise nor prudent. It's about as smart as a surgeon performing heart surgery with an axe. There will be casualties, and veterans and military families will be among those casualties.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on February 11, 2013, I was unavoidably detained in Wisconsin due to hazardous weather conditions and was unable to vote on amendment No. 13 in regard to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

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

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to a man who has been generous with his time, his treasure, and his heart, to his friends, his family, the State of Wisconsin, and to America, Senator Herb Kohl.

America and Wisconsin have always been defined by immigrants arriving in this country seeking freedom, opportunity, and a better life for themselves and their families. Such was the case for Senator Kohl's father Max, an immigrant from Poland, and his mother Mary, an immigrant from Russia. Their family's story was just one among the many millions of stories of fulfillment of the American dream.

Max and Mary's son Herb attended Washington High School in the Sherman Park neighborhood of Milwaukee. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Madison in 1956 and went on to earn an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1958.

Senator Kohl's service to his country started at a young age. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve after receiving his MBA and served in the military for 6 years. After his military service, he began contributing to our Nation not in government but in the private sector. During the 1970s, he managed his family's well-known retail businesses. The stores built by the Kohl family remain the legacy that all Wisconsin respects and appreciates.

When Wisconsin's NBA team, the Milwaukee Bucks, was considering moving out of the State for financial reasons, Citizen Kohl stepped in and purchased the franchise. He prevented the team from leaving and preserved professional basketball as an integral part of Wisconsin's strong sports tradition. Suffice it to say, Citizen Kohl had established himself as a very successful member of this Nation's business community. But he didn't hoard his financial success; he shared it and he shared it generously.

Senator Kohl's philanthropy was widespread, but he particularly seemed to enjoy directing his generosity to

helping Wisconsin students and educators. In 1990, he established the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Achievement Award Program. This program provides a total of $400,000 to hundreds of students, teachers, and schools throughout the State of Wisconsin each and every year. In 1995, Senator Kohl continued his generosity to education and sports in our State by donating $25 million to the University of Wisconsin Madison for a new sports arena. The Kohl Center, as it is now known, is the home for the school's basketball and hockey teams.

Senator Kohl was first elected in 1988 and even though his duties required him to spend time in Washington, his heart has always been with the people of Wisconsin. For the past 24 years, he has maintained a strong passion for Wisconsin's children, seniors, farmers, and manufacturers.

As a man whose life has been distinguished by generosity, it is worth noting that his final speech on the floor of the Senate was not a long list of his many accomplishments; instead, it was a short heartfelt speech of gratitude to those who made him the generous man he is today, those he served with, and those he represented in the Senate for four consecutive terms. Now it is our turn to thank Senator Kohl for the honorable 24 years he has served his State and this Nation.

During his first election, the slogan of Senator Kohl's campaign was ``Nobody's Senator but Yours.'' There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that he has lived up to that promise each and every day.

On behalf of all the citizens of Wisconsin, I wish to thank Senator Herb Kohl for his generous spirit and his many years of service to Wisconsin and America.

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

Mr. President, in August, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This measure, coupled with CISADA and last year's powerful Iran Central Bank legislation authored by Senators Menendez and Kirk, have helped dramatically to increase pressure on the Iranian government to halt its illicit nuclear activities. Iran's petroleum exports have dropped by more

than half this year, producing losses of over $100 million each day to Iran's economy. Even so, Iran continues to press forward aggressively with its enrichment program and to suppress the rights of its citizens.

The bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Menendez and Kirk to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act will further tighten sanctions on Iran and increase the economic pressure on its leaders. I have worked closely with Senator Menendez and respect his fierce commitment to this issue, and to giving the administration all of the tools it needs to deal with Iran. I support the amendment. Our sanctions laws have become increasingly complex, however, and to assure that the new provisions can be effectively implemented, I hope we can work with officials in the Departments of State and Treasury to continue to refine these provisions as the bill moves to conference. This is a complex area of the law, and we need to have a sure hand as we go forward toward conference, drawing clear lines and avoiding any unintended consequences that might undermine the credibility of the overall sanctions regime.

Mr. President, in 1987, our total Federal debt stood at $2.3 trillion. It took us 200 years as a Nation to incur $2.3 trillion in debt. Last year, with the debt ceiling debate, we increased our debt limit by a little more than $2 trillion. We will blow through that limit in less than 2 years. The President of the United States has put forward four budgets. He has yet to submit any proposals to save either Social Security or Medicare. We are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation and our President refuses to lead, this Senate refuses to lead. America hungers for leadership.

I thank the Senator from Idaho for his question. The answer is yes--the definition of ``private flood insurance'' includes private flood insurance provided by a surplus lines insurer and is not intended to limit surplus lines eligibility to nonresidential properties. While the Senator is correct that surplus lines insurance is specifically mentioned in that context, overall the definition accommodates private flood insurance from insurers who are ``licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved'' in the State where the property is located.

Madam President, I have been listening to the debate on spending and taxes and our debt and deficit. I come to the floor this morning with a few visual aids and charts and graphs to try to dispel some of the myths I have been hearing.

The first myth I constantly hear is about the Draconian cuts being proposed in the House budget. I think this chart pretty well dispels that by showing that 10 years ago, in 2002, the Federal Government spent $2 trillion. This last year--this year--we will spend about $3.8 trillion. We have doubled spending in just 10 years. The debate moving forward shows that under the House budget, we would spend $4.9 trillion. President Obama's budget proposes spending $5.8 trillion. I think it is clear to see from this chart that nobody is proposing net cuts in spending. We are just trying to limit the rate of growth in spending.

Another way of looking at spending is over 10 years. In the 1990s, the Federal Government over a 10-year period spent $16 trillion. The last decade, from 2002 through 2011, the Federal Government spent $28 trillion. Again, the debate moving forward is, over the next 10 years do we spend $40 trillion, as the House budget proposes, or do we spend $47 trillion? Again, no cuts, just trying to reduce the rate of growth.

Let's talk a little bit about what the Federal Government has spent under the current administration. Over the 4 years of President Obama's administration, the Federal Government in total will spend $14.4 trillion. Think back to the last graph. That is almost as much as we spent in the decade of the 1990s. The entire deficit for that time period was $5.3 trillion. In other words, we had to borrow $5.3 trillion of the $14.4 trillion we spent; that is, about 37 cents of every dollar spent, we borrowed. We put that debt burden on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.

I often hear that the whole problem with the deficit is caused by the war costs or the 2001 to 2003 tax cuts. We added those to the chart here. We can see that the total amount over that 4-year period of the overseas war costs and the Bush tax cuts was $1.2 trillion. It is less than 25 percent of the total deficit. Again, they are a factor but not the cause of the deficit. The cause of the deficit primarily is spending.

This chart basically shows what has been happening over the last 50 years. The structural deficit we have incurred is a basic result, on average, of the Federal Government spending 20.2 percent of the gross domestic product from 1959 to 2008, prior to this administration. On the other hand, revenue generation averaged about 18.1 percent of GDP, which gives us a 2.1-percent structural deficit. That is why our debt has continued to grow.

Under this administration, starting with the recession, that structural deficit exploded, with tax revenue dropping to about 15 percent and spending skyrocketing to 25 percent and now to about 24 percent. It is on a trajectory to hit 35 percent by the year 2035. Clearly, that is unsustainable.

Another way of taking a look at the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, in terms of their total effect on our deficit figure, is to actually put them on a bar chart. The red bars represent the total deficit. The blue portions on the bottom of those red charts are the actual reductions in revenue from those tax cuts. We can see it is not a very large figure. In total, over that--I guess that is an 11-year time period, the total Bush tax cuts were about $1.7 trillion, while the entire deficit was about $7.5 trillion. The tax cuts represent about 22 percent of that total deficit--but, again, when we take a look at the last 4 years, a far smaller portion of the deficit, because the primary deficit over the last 4 years has been on the spending side of the equation.

What does the President offer us for solutions? Last year, he proposed the Buffett rule. In a speech on September 26, in proposing the Buffett rule, he used the basic principle of fairness that he said the Buffett rule represents, and if that was applied to our Tax Code, it could raise enough to not only pay for his jobs bill, it would also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Think about what President Obama said there. He said the Buffett rule would not only pay for his jobs bill but would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Here is the chart and here is the fact: The Buffett rule for 4 years--4 years of the Buffett rule, it was projected, would raise about $20 billion total. President Obama's 4 years of deficit is $5.3 trillion. So let's state it a different way: $5,300 billion. It doesn't take a math major to realize $20 billion doesn't even come close to stabilizing a deficit of $5,300 billion. President Obama misled the American people. I think the President of the United States has a far higher duty to the American people. He should be honest with them.

Last week, we debated the other tax proposals offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. In proposing this and actually, unfortunately, passing this piece of tax legislation, the majority leader said this piece of legislation is about debt. It is about the debt, he said. We have to do something about the debt, and we have tried mightily to do that. We have tried mightily.

Again, let's take a look at the facts. The first years of that tax legislation--the only years that count--would have raised $67 billion a year on average compared to last year's deficit of $1,326 billion. Is that trying mightily to fix the debt and deficit? I don't think so.

If we were serious about fixing our debt and deficit situation, if we were trying mightily to do that, we might have tried passing a budget in the last few years. We might have actually brought appropriations bills to the floor so they could be debated and passed in the House and signed into law so we would not be faced with what we are faced with right now, which is a continuing resolution to fund the government in 2013.

Again, dispel the myth: The Democrats' tax proposal would do nothing--almost nothing--to stabilize our debt and deficit. It is simply a political exercise. It is political demagoguery. It is class warfare.

I ask the American people to consider a simple question: Are they for increasing taxes on the productive sector of our economy, the small businesses, those 1 million small businesses that would be affected by this? The money that would be taken out of those small businesses that they would use to expand their business, to buy capital equipment, to increase wages, to pay for health care, and invest in 401(k) plans, it does not stabilize the debt and deficit. It does nothing to do that.

I think Republicans basically agree with President Obama and President Clinton. Back on August 5, 2009, just as we were coming out of recession, President Obama said: ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' I agree with that. Republicans agree with that.

Back in December--the last November and December of 2010--right after the lameduck session when all the tax rates were extended for 2 years, President Obama said: ``If we allow these taxes to go up . . . the economy would grow less.''

He was right. Back then, by the way, average growth in our economy was about 3.1 percent. During the last four quarters now, the economy has only grown about 2 percent. Our economy is in worse shape. It only grew at 1.5 percent in the last quarter. We can see the downward trajectory.

Of course, President Clinton also said probably the best thing we could do is to extend all the tax rates to take that sense of uncertainty off the table. That is what Republicans are proposing.

Let's not increase taxes on any American at this point in time. Let's not threaten any kind of government shutdown. As much as fiscal conservatives do not like the Budget Control Act or those spending limits, we think it is reasonable policy to pass a 6-month continuing resolution so a responsible leader can come into this town and actually start fixing our debt and deficit situation.

That is what Republicans are all about, taking the uncertainty of a shutdown off the table, taking the uncertainty of what people's tax rates

will be over the next year off the table, and being responsible.

With that, I yield the floor.

I agree with Senator Levin's statement.

Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.

This is a pretty straightforward motion. It recommits the bill in the Senate back to the committee to have that committee report back to the full Senate two separate bills. It recognizes the reality that what we have in front of us is not really a farm bill but a food stamp bill.

The history is that in 1964 we made food stamps permanent. In 1973 we combined the food stamp portion with the farm bill to ease passage of both votes--to make it easier to spend money. That has worked pretty well because when the food stamp bill was first passed, it cost $375 million--million--per year. Really, 500,000 people were eligible. Since that point in time it is now going to cost $772 billion over 10 years. It is now 78 percent the size of this entire package.

Again, I think it is more than appropriate to split these bills in two so both bills, the food stamp bill and the farm bill, would get more scrutiny and there would be more debate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The bill the Senate adopted today passed the Banking Committee earlier this year by a unanimous bipartisan vote. Among its other provisions, this legislation will have important effects because it requires intensified targeting of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, sanctioning energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Iran, and mandating sanctions for those who supply Iran with weapons and other technologies used to commit human abuses, including those used to impose an electronic curtain of censorship on Iran's citizens. In addition, this legislation gives the President additional authority to sanction the Asad regime in Syria.

Today the Senate has shown that we can still act in a bipartisan way on important priorities. I thank every Member for supporting passage of this bill today. In particular, I thank all the members of the Banking Committee for their work, including Ranking Member Shelby and Senators Menendez, Kirk, Schumer, and Brown. In addition, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his determination to get this legislation through the Senate.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to quickly come together on a final bill the President can sign soon. It is important that the Congress act swiftly so that we can continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime to end its illicit and illegal nuclear activity.

Again, I thank all my colleagues for their support on the Iran sanctions bill today.

Exhibit 1

Tightening Iran Sanctions

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, the prospect of

a nuclear-armed Iran is the most pressing foreign policy

challenge we face, and we must continue to do all we can--

politically, economically, and diplomatically--to avoid that

result. The meetings here in Washington in March between

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama

underscored the gravity of these issues, and the importance

of an intensified, unified effort by the international

community to further isolate Iran's leaders and compel them

to abandon their illicit nuclear activities. Iran's

willingness to sit down again with the P5 + 1 group--the five

permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany--

and begin to re-engage on the nuclear issues is a hopeful

sign. But even after the first meeting, which both sides

called ``constructive,'' it remains to be seen whether Iran

will actually be willing to work towards progress on the

central issues at the negotiating sessions planned for

Baghdad

later this week, or whether these meetings will simply be

another in a series of stalling actions to buy time to enrich

additional uranium and further fortify their nuclear program.

As that process moves forward, today the full Senate is

finally acting on an important bill to confront this very

serious threat to our national security, to Israel and to our

other allies in the Middle East and Europe. S. 2101, the Iran

Sanctions Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, was

approved by a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate Banking

Committee. I am pleased that, with the help of ranking member

Senator Shelby and other committee colleagues, we are

presenting to the full Senate, as we did 2 years ago, this

bipartisan bill to expand and tighten sanctions on Iran,

along with a manager's amendment to address several issues

that required updating to take into account recent events,

and clarifications or additions that my colleagues sought to

expand the reach and effectiveness of the bill, including

changes requested by Senator Menendez to an amendment he

offered in committee, section 503, to narrow its application

while preserving his original intent to enable attachment of

assets in which the government of Iran has an interest, to

satisfy certain terror-related judgments against Iran.

In pressing this bill forward we recognize that economic

sanctions are not an end: they are a means to an end. That

end is to apply enough pressure to secure agreement from

Iran's leaders to fully, completely and verifiably abandon

their illicit nuclear program. The President has made clear

that his policy is not to contain Iran once it has a nuclear

weapon: it is to prevent Iran from achieving that goal in the

first place. He is deadly serious about that. At the same

time, he is moving forward diplomatically, in consultation

with our allies, to test Iran's willingness to come clean on

its nuclear program, and resolve the international

community's concerns on this front.

Let me describe where we have been on Iran sanctions, so

that Senators may better understand where we're going. This

has been the subject of heated rhetoric on the Presidential

campaign trail, so I want to describe clearly the

longstanding bipartisan approach we in Congress have taken.

Since here in the Senate we sometimes cannot even agree to

cross the street together, in today's hyper-partisan

environment bipartisan agreement on this bill is notable. On

Iran sanctions we have always worked in a bipartisan fashion;

I hope that will continue.

In coordination with allies like the European Union, Japan,

South Korea, Australia, Canada, and others, the

Administration has taken its own steps to increase pressure

on Iran's petrochemical industry, oil and gas industry, and

financial sector. We acted in the Senate 5 months ago on an

amendment by Senators Menendez and Kirk to sanction the

Central Bank of Iran and other banks that deal with Iranian

banks involved in nefarious activities. Shortly thereafter,

Europe announced it will ban oil imports from Iran, starting

in July. This will further increase pressure on Iran's

economy and cut off other key sources of revenue for their

nuclear program. Almost $60 billion in energy-related

projects in Iran have been put on hold or discontinued. Oil

shipments have sharply declined due to sanctions. The Wall

Street Journal recently reported that Iran's crude oil output

has dropped to its lowest level in over 20 years, due largely

to the tightening squeeze of sanctions. And, in the last few

months, about half of the tankers booked monthly to load at

the country's largest terminal didn't complete the voyages,

according to brokers, company officials and ship-tracking

data. It is clear Iran is losing oil sales to key customers

in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, and is having some of its

biggest customers demand steep discounts to buy its oil. Some

estimate the losses in Iran's oil revenues are approaching 40

percent of daily sales. Iran's oil exports have the potential

to fall another 300,000 to 500,000 barrels a day or more when

the European Union's embargo takes effect in July, according

to a report this week by Barclays. That is a huge impact. A

senior IRGC official acknowledged the effectiveness of

sanctions recently, saying: ``The regime is at the height of

isolation and in the midst of a technological, scientific and

economic siege. We are not in a situation of imaginary

threats and sanctions. Threats and sanctions against us are

effectively being pursued.'' These sanctions have had a more

powerful effect than many thought possible.

Iran is also isolated diplomatically. The international

community is lined up against their nuclear program, with

progressively tougher UN sanctions imposed on them. Their

most important ally, Syria, is collapsing into civil war.

They are, as President Obama said, in a ``world of hurt.''

Many believe the recent shift by Iran's leaders on the

nuclear issue is the result of that pain, and the intense

pressure of heightened sanctions. But while it is clear that

existing sanctions are biting, they have not yet persuaded

Iran's leaders to drop their nuclear ambitions. We must not

let up now, as negotiations on these issues are continuing.

I believe that further progress in those negotiations

depends on intensifying that pressure on Iran's leaders, and

that's what this bill is all about. With these new sanctions,

including those targeted at the IRGC, we are forcing Iran's

military and political leaders to make a clear choice. They

can end the suppression of their people, come clean on their

nuclear program, suspend enrichment, and stop supporting

terrorist activities around the globe. Or they can continue

to face sustained multilateral economic and diplomatic

pressure, and deepen their international isolation.

Just as then-Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby did in

2010, Senator Shelby and I have incorporated ideas from many

of our Senate colleagues into one Committee bill, including

from S. 1048 sponsored by Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez

has been a leader on these issues, along with Senator Kirk,

and we acknowledge their many contributions. The bill also

borrows and refines ideas from legislation developed by

Senators Lautenberg, Gillibrand, Schumer, Kyl, Lieberman,

Brown, and others. I will now touch on a few of the

highlights of this bill and I will insert a more

comprehensive and detailed summary into the record at the end

of my remarks. Our legislation will: broaden the list of

available sanctions, require intensified targeting of Iran's

Revolutionary Guard Corps, require firms traded on US stock

exchanges to disclose Iran-related activity to the Securities

and Exchange Commission, sanction energy and uranium mining

joint ventures with Iran, penalize US parent firms for

certain Iran-related activities of their foreign

subsidiaries, mandate sanctions for those who supply Iran

with weapons and other technologies used to commit human

rights abuses, including those used to impose an ``Electronic

Curtain'' on Iran's citizens, and provide for other similar

measures designed to increase pressure on Iran's government.

All told, when enacted the bill will significantly increase

pressure on Iran's leaders, and that must be our goal as we

move forward in this process. I hope and expect my colleagues

will support this bill enthusiastically, and that we will be

able to reconcile it with the House bill and move it forward

quickly into law this year. I look forward to working with my

House colleagues, including Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking

Member Berman, who as former Foreign Affairs Committee

Chairman has led the sanctions effort against Iran for many

years, and played a key role in developing both CISADA and

the House version of this measure, to get a bill enacted this

year.

Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012

Section-by-Section Summary

Sec. 1--Short Title, Table of Contents

Sec. 2--Findings

Contains a series of findings about the threat posed by

Iran, the bipartisan understanding of the implications of its

achieving a nuclear weapons capability, steps taken thus far

by the US, its allies and the United Nations Security Council

to counter that threat, and the need to intensify those

efforts to counter that threat and deter Iran's nuclear

ambitions.

Sec. 3--Definitions

Provides that the definitions of key terms (``appropriate

congressional committees,'' ``credible information,'' and

``knowingly,'') will be those found in the Iran Sanctions Act

(ISA) of 1996, as amended, and that the definition of

``United States person'' will be that found in the

Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment

Act of 2010 (CISADA).

Sec. 101--Statement of Policy

Defines US policy to be to prevent Iran from (i) acquiring

or developing nuclear weapons and advanced conventional

weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, (ii) continuing

its support for international terrorism, and (iii) engaging

in other activities designed to destabilize its neighbors in

the region. It also outlines the US policy of support for

full implementation of all sanctions against Iran as part of

multilateral efforts to compel Iran to abandon its illicit

nuclear program.

Sec. 102--Expansion and Implementation of Multilateral

Sanctions Regime

States the sense of Congress that expansion and vigorous

implementation of bilateral and multilateral sanctions

against Iran, and vigorous enforcement of all U.S. sanctions,

is an effective way to achieve the goal of compelling Iran to

abandon its efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.

Sec. 103--Diplomatic Efforts to Expand Multilateral Sanctions

Regime

Urges efforts by the US to expand the UN sanctions regime

to include (i) imposing additional travel restrictions on

Iranian officials responsible for human rights violations,

the development of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile

programs, and Iran's support for terrorism; (ii) withdrawing

sea- and airport landing rights for Iran Shipping Lines and

Iran Air, for their role in nuclear proliferation and illegal

arms sales; (iii) expanding the range of sanctions to which

Iran is subject; (iv) expanding sanctions to limit Iran's

petroleum development, imports of refined petroleum products

and reduce its revenue from sale of petrochemical products,

and (v) accelerating US diplomatic and economic efforts to

help allies reduce their dependence on Iranian crude oil and

other petroleum products. Requires periodic reporting to

Congress.

Sec. 104--Imposition of Sanctions with regard to Iran

Declares the sense of Congress that efforts should be made

to maximize the effects of sanctions and to preserve

information-sharing.

Sec. 201--Sanctions with respect to Energy Joint Ventures

with Iran

Extends ISA sanctions to persons knowingly participating in

petroleum resources development joint ventures established on

or after January 1, 2002 anywhere in the world, unless such

ventures are terminated within 180 days of enactment, in

which Iran's government is a substantial partner or investor,

or through which Iran could otherwise receive energy sector

technology or know-how not previously available to its

government.

Sec. 202--Expands Sanctions on Providers of Goods and

Services to Iran's Energy Sector

Requires imposition of ISA sanctions on persons who

knowingly sell, lease, or provide to Iran goods, services,

technology or support (including refinery construction or

repair), or infrastructure predominantly used for the

transportation of refined petroleum products, that could

directly and significantly contribute to its petroleum

resources development or refining programs, in single

transactions of $1 million or more or multiple transactions

aggregating to $5 million or more in any 12-month period.

Requires imposition of at least three ISA sanctions to

persons who knowingly sell, lease, or provide to Iran goods,

services, technology or support for its petrochemical sector

in a single transaction of $250,000 or more, or multiple

transactions aggregating to $1,000,000 or more in any 12-

month period. In so doing, codifies the President's decision

to extend US sanctions to Iran's petrochemical sector,

adopting the standards, thresholds and petrochemicals list

contained in Executive Order 13590.

Sec. 203--Sanctions with respect to Uranium Joint Ventures

with Iran

Requires ISA sanctions to be imposed on persons who

knowingly participate in joint ventures with Iran's

government, Iranian firms, or persons acting for or on behalf

of Iran's government in the mining, production or

transportation of uranium anywhere in the world. Exempts such

persons from sanctions if they withdraw from such joint

ventures within 6 months after the date of enactment.

Sec. 204--Expansion of Sanctions Available under the Iran

Sanctions Act of 1996

Expands the current menu of sanctions, available to the

President under the ISA, to authorize exclusion from the

United States of aliens who are corporate officers,

principals or controlling shareholders in a sanctioned firm,

and permits applicable ISA sanctions to be applied to the CEO

or other principal executive officers (or persons performing

similar functions) of a sanctioned firm, which could include

a freeze of their US assets.

Sec. 205--Definitions

Defines ``credible information'' and ``petrochemical

product.'' ``Credible information'' includes public

announcements by persons that they are engaged in certain

activities, including those made in a report to stockholders,

and may include announcements by the Government of Iran, and

reports from the General Accountability Office (GAO), the

Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Research

Service, or other reputable governmental organizations.

Defines ``petrochemical product'' consistent with Executive

Order 13590.

Sec. 211--Sanctions for Shipping WMD or Terrorism-related

Materials to or from Iran

Requires the blocking of assets of, and imposes other

sanctions on, persons who knowingly provide ships, insurance

or reinsurance, or other shipping services, for

transportation of goods that materially contribute to Iran's

WMD program or its terrorism-related activities. The

sanctions apply to parents of the persons involved if they

knew or should have known of the sanctionable activity and to

any of their subsidiaries or affiliates that knowingly

participated in the activity. Provides for Presidential

national security interest waiver; requires a report to

Congress regarding the use of such a waiver.

Sec. 212--Imposition of Sanctions on Subsidiaries and Agents

of UN-sanctioned Persons

Amends CISADA to ensure that US financial sanctions imposed

on UN-designated entities reach those persons acting on

behalf of, at the direction of, or owned or controlled by,

the designated entities. Requires the Treasury Department to

revise its regulations within 90 days of enactment to

implement the change.

Sec. 213--Liability of US Companies for Violations by their

Foreign Subsidiaries

Requires the imposition of civil penalties under the

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of up to

twice the amount of the relevant transaction on US parent

companies for the activities of their foreign subsidiaries

which, if undertaken by a US person or in the United States,

would violate US sanctions law. Subsidiaries are defined as

those entities in which a US person holds more than fifty

percent equity interest or a majority of the seats on the

board, or that a US person otherwise controls. Covers

activities under the current US trade embargo with Iran and

would apply regardless of whether the subsidiary was

established to circumvent US sanctions.

Sec. 214--Securities and Exchange Commission Disclosures on

Certain Activities in Iran

Amends the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to require

issuers whose stock is traded on US exchanges to disclose

whether they or their affiliates have knowingly engaged in

activities (i) in section 5 of the ISA (energy sector

activity); (ii) in 104(c)(2) or (d)1 of CISADA (related to

foreign financial institutions who facilitate WMD/terrorism,

money laundering, IRGC activity, and other violations); (iii)

in 105A(b)(2) of CISADA (related to those who transfer

weapons and other technologies to Iran likely to be used for

human rights abuses); (iv) with persons whose property is

blocked for WMD/terrorism and; (v) persons in the government

of Iran. Provides for periodic public disclosure of such

information, and conveyance of that information by the SEC to

Congress and the President. Requires the President to

initiate an investigation into the possible imposition of

sanctions as specified, and to make a sanctions determination

within 6 months.

Sec. 215--Immigration Restrictions on Senior Iranian

Officials and their Family Members

Requires the identification of and denial of visa requests

to senior officials, including the Supreme Leader, the

President, members of the Assembly of Experts, senior members

of the Intelligence Ministry of Iran, and members of the IRGC

with the rank of brigadier general or higher that are

involved in nuclear proliferation, support international

terrorism or the commission of serious human rights abuses

against citizens of Iran. Also includes their family members.

Provides for Presidential national security interest and UN

obligations waiver; requires a report to Congress regarding

the use of such a waiver.

Sec. 216--Sanctions with respect to the Provision of Certain

Financial Communications Services to the Central Bank of

Iran and Sanctioned Iranian Financial Institutions

States the sense of Congress that the President should

intensify current diplomatic efforts to ensure that global

financial communications services providers such as SWIFT

terminate services to Iranian financial institutions

designated for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA.

Requires the Comptroller General of the United States to

submit a list, within 60 days of the date of enactment, of

entities that provide financial communications services to or

facilitate access to such services for the Central Bank of

Iran or financial institutions described in 104(c)(2)(E)(ii)

of CISADA (i.e., institutions whose property is blocked in

connection with Iran's proliferation of WMD or its support

for terrorism). Requires reporting by the Secretary of the

Treasury within 90 days of enactment on the efforts of SWIFT

to terminate the provision of services to the Central Bank of

Iran and Iranian financial institutions designated for

sanction. Authorizes the imposition of sanctions under CISADA

or IEEPA with respect to a financial communications services

provider, and the directors of, and shareholders with a

significant interest in, a provider, that has not terminated

such services to the Central Bank of Iran or designated

Iranian financial institutions.

Sec. 217--GAO Reports on Iran's Energy Sector

Mandates regular reports from GAO on foreign investment in

Iran's energy sector, exporters of refined petroleum products

to Iran, entities providing shipping and insurance services

to Iran, Iranian energy joint ventures worldwide, and

countries where Iranian petroleum is produced or refined.

Sec. 218--Expanded Reporting on Iran's Crude Oil and Refined

Petroleum Products

Amends section 110(b) of CISADA to require additional

reporting on the volume of crude oil and refined petroleum

products imported to and exported from Iran, the persons

selling and transporting crude oil and refined petroleum

products, the countries with primary jurisdiction over those

persons and the countries in which those products were

refined, the sources of financing for such imports and the

involvement of foreign persons in efforts to assist Iran in

developing its oil and gas production capacity, importing

advanced technology to upgrade existing Iranian refineries,

converting existing chemical plants to petroleum refineries

and maintaining, upgrading or expanding refineries or

constructing new refineries.

Sec. 301--Sanctions on Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps

Officials, Agents, and Affiliates

Requires the President to identify, and designate for

sanctions, officials, affiliates and agents of the IRGC

within 90 days of enactment, and periodically thereafter;

designation requires exclusion of such persons from the

United States, and imposition of sanctions (related to WMD

under IEEPA, including freezing their assets and otherwise

isolating them financially). Also, outlines priorities for

investigating certain foreign persons and transactions in

assessing connections to the IRGC. Requires the President to

report on designations and waivers.

Sec. 302--Sanctions on Foreign Persons Supporting IRGC

Subjects foreign persons to ISA sanctions if those persons

knowingly provide material assistance to, or engage in any

significant transaction--including barter transactions--with

officials of the IRGC, its agents or affiliates. Requires

imposition of similar sanctions against those persons who

engage in significant transactions with UN-sanctioned

persons, those acting for or on their behalf, or those owned

or controlled by them. Provides for additional sanctions

under IEEPA as the President deems appropriate. Requires the

President to report on designations and waivers, as

applicable.

Sec. 303--Rule of Construction

Clarifies that section 301 and 302 sanctions do not limit

in any way the President's authority to designate persons for

sanction under IEEPA.

Sec. 311--Extension of US Procurement Ban to Foreign Persons

who interact with IRGC

Requires certification by prospective US government

contractors (for contract solicitations issued beginning 90

days from the date of enactment) that neither they nor their

subsidiaries have engaged in significant economic

transactions with designated IRGC officials, agents or

affiliates.

Sec. 312--Sanctions Determinations on NIOC and NITC

Amends CISADA to require the Secretary of the Treasury to

determine and notify Congress whether the National Iranian

Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company are

agents or affiliates of the IRGC. If found to be IRGC

entities, sanctions apply to transactions or relevant

financial services for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum

products from the NIOC or NITC only if the President

determines that there exists a sufficient supply of petroleum

from countries other than Iran to permit purchasers to

significantly reduce in volume their purchases from Iran.

Provides for an exception to financial institutions of a

country that has significantly reduced its purchases of

Iranian petroleum or petroleum products within specified

periods which track those provided for in section 1245 of the

FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Sec. 401--Sanctions on those Transferring to Iran

Technologies for Human Rights Abuses

Imposes sanctions provided for in CISADA, including a visa

ban and property blocking/asset freeze, on persons and firms

which supply Iran with equipment and technologies--including

weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot control

equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance

equipment--which the President determines are likely to be

used by Iranian officials to commit human rights abuses.

Requires the President to maintain and update lists of such

persons who commit human rights abuses, submit updated lists

to Congress, and make the unclassified portion of those lists

public. Requires the President to report on designations and

waivers, as applicable.

Sec. 402--Sanctions on those Engaging in Censorship and

Repression in Iran

Requires imposition of sanctions as in section 401 against

individuals and firms found to have engaged in censorship or

curtailment of the rights of freedom of expression or

assembly of Iran's citizens.

Sec. 411--Expedited Processing of Human Rights, Humanitarian,

and Democracy Aid

Requires the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the

Treasury Department to establish a 90-day process to expedite

processing of US Iran-related humanitarian, human rights and

democratization aid by entities receiving funds from the

State Department; the Broadcasting Board of Governors; and

other federal agencies. Requires the State Department to

conduct a foreign policy review within 30 days of request

submission. Provides for additional time for processing of

applications involving certain specified sensitive goods and

technology, and requests involving novel or extraordinary

circumstances.

Sec. 412--Comprehensive Strategy to Promote Internet Freedom

in Iran

Requires the Administration to devise a comprehensive

strategy and report to Congress on how best to assist Iran's

citizens in freely and safely accessing the Internet,

developing counter-censorship technologies, expanding access

to ``surrogate'' programming including Voice of America's

Persian News Network, and Radio FARDA inside Iran, and taking

other similar measures.

Sec. 413--Sense of Congress on Political Prisoners

Declares that the United States should expand efforts to

identify, assist, and protect prisoners of conscience in Iran

and intensify work to abolish Iranian human rights

violations. Directs the Secretary of State to publicly call

for the release of political prisoners, as appropriate.

Sec. 501--Exclusion of Certain Iranian Students from the US

Requires the Secretary of State to deny visas and the

Secretary of Homeland Security to exclude certain Iranian

university students who may seek to come to the U.S. to study

to prepare for work in Iran's energy sector or in fields

related to its nuclear program, including nuclear sciences or

nuclear engineering.

Sec. 502--Technical Correction

Reaffirms longstanding US policy allowing the sale of

certain licensed agricultural commodities to Iran by amending

section 1245(d)2 of the National Defense Authorization Act to

allow for continued payments related to such commodities.

Sec. 503 Interests in Financial Assets of Iran

Deems blocked assets of Iran seized or frozen in the US,

and property interests of Iran in the United States, to

include property held in book entry and related indirect

forms, property held by securities clearing agencies and

other intermediaries, and inchoate interests in funds

transfers in the payment process through intermediary banks,

regardless of federal or state law that might otherwise

apply, if that property is an interest held for the benefit

of Iran or if any intermediary holds the interest for the

benefit of Iran and the status of the property is relevant to

any attachment or proceedings in aid of execution, whenever

issued, on judgments against Iran for damages for personal

injury or death caused by torture, extrajudicial killing,

aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking, or material support for

such an act. Defines various terms used for purposes of the

section, including ``blocked asset,'' ``clearing

corporation,'' ``financial asset,'' ``security,'' and

``securities Intermediary.''

Sec. 504--Report on Membership of Iran in International

Organizations

Requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to

Congress listing the international organizations of which

Iran is a member and detailing the amount the US contributes

to each such organization annually.

Sec. 601--Technical implementation; penalties

Provides the President with the necessary procedural tools

to administer the provisions of this new law, drawing on

relevant provisions of IEEPA, including ensuring that the

Administration can require recordkeeping of certain persons,

and has subpoena and enforcement authority for certain

specified provisions of the bill.

Sec. 602--Applicability to Authorized Intelligence Activities

Provides a general exemption for authorized intelligence

activities of the U.S.

Sec. 603--Termination

Provides for termination of some provisions of the new law

if the President certifies as required in CISADA that Iran

has ceased its support for terrorism and ceased efforts to

pursue, acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction and

ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology.

Sec. 701--Short Title for Title VII

The ``Syria Human Rights Accountability Act of 2012.''

Sec. 702--Sanctions on Those Responsible for Human Rights

Abuses of Syria's Citizens

Requires the President to identify within 90 days, and

sanction under IEEPA, officials of the Syrian government or

those acting on their behalf who are complicit in or

responsible for the commission of serious human rights abuses

against Syria's citizens, regardless of whether the abuses

occurred in Syria.

Sec. 703--Sanctions on those Transferring to Syria

Technologies for Human Rights Abuses

Requires the President to identify and sanction persons

determined to have engaged in the transfer of technologies--

including weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot

control equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance

equipment--which the President determines are likely to be

used by Syrian officials to commit human rights abuses or

restrict the free flow of information in Syria. Provides for

exceptions where a person has agreed to stop providing such

technologies, and agreed not to knowingly provide such

technologies in the future. Requires the President to report

on designations and waivers, where applicable, and to update

the list periodically.

Sec. 704--Sanctions on those Engaging in Censorship and

Repression in Syria

Requires the President to identify and report to Congress

within 90 days of enactment those persons and firms found to

have engaged in censorship or repression of the rights of

freedom of expression or assembly of Syria's citizens, and

impose sanctions under IEEPA on such persons. Requires

periodic updating of the list, and public access via the

websites of the Departments of State and Treasury.

Sec. 705--Waiver

Provides for Presidential national security interest waiver

for Syria provisions; requires a report to Congress on the

reasons for the waiver.

Sec. 706--Termination

Provides for termination of the Syria provisions if the

President certifies that the Government of Syria is

democratically elected and representative of the people of

Syria, or a legitimate transitional government of Syria is in

place. Certification required must stipulate that the

government of Syria has released political prisoners, ceased

the abuse of citizens engaged in peaceful political activity,

ceased the practice of procuring sensitive technology to

restrict the free expression rights of its citizens, ended

support for terrorist organizations, ceased development of

missile programs, is not engaged in the development or

acquisition of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, and

agreed to allow the UN and international observers to verify

such claims. Provides for suspension of sanctions for 1 year

if a transitional government is in place, to provide time to

develop the more detailed certification above.

I yield the floor.

Not more than 10 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, before I start talking a bit about the budget of my friend Senator Lee, I want to respond to the comments of the Senator from Iowa in terms of interest rates.

Instead of talking about student rates, let me talk a little about America's average borrowing cost. Certainly, what I have done is delved into the budget and taken a look at the history, and from 1970 to 1999--over that 30-year period--the average borrowing cost in the United States was 5.3 percent. By the way, that was when America was a far more creditworthy nation, when our debt-to-GDP ratio ranged from about 40 percent to 67 percent. Now our debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100 percent.

Over the last 3 years our average borrowing cost has been kept artificially low, at 1.5 percent. So my concern is by not seriously addressing the problem, by not actually passing a real budget that starts reining in the growth in government, we are going to go from that 1.5 percent and revert back to that average mean borrowing cost of 5.3 percent. If we do, that 3.8-percent differential would add $600 billion to $700 billion per year to America's interest expense, and that would crowd out 60 to 70 percent of all discretionary spending. That is the interest rate that I am concerned about.

That is the day of reckoning I am concerned about, when global investors look at the United States and say: You know what. We are not going to loan you any more money. Or what is more likely to occur, they will say: We will loan you money but at a far higher rate.

Having made that statement, I would like to talk a little about the budget of my friend, Senator Lee, and the things I like about it. One of the things I like to do is take a look at history. I know a lot of us say we don't have a tax problem, and we don't. It is not that we tax the American public too little, it is that we spend too much. And this is some pretty graphic proof.

This reflects our 10-year spending levels. From 1992 to 2000, the Federal Government spent a total of $16 trillion over that 10-year period. Over the last 10 years, from 2002 to 2011, the Federal Government spent $28 trillion.

Now, the debate moving forward is--according to the just released Obama budget--the President would like to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years. The House budget would spend $40 trillion. I guess what I like about Senator Lee's budget is that he would come in and spend about $37 trillion and put us on a more aggressive path toward fiscal sanity. While we hear about Draconian cuts all the time, one doesn't have to be a math major to realize that moving to $37 trillion, $40 trillion, or $47 trillion is not a cut from $28 trillion. All we are trying to do is reduce the rate of growth.

The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget can be illustrated in terms of this chart, which shows the total Federal debt. I started this chart in 1987, the tail end of Ronald Reagan's administration, when our total Federal debt was $2.3 trillion. I want to point out that it took us 200 years to incur $2.3 trillion. Of course, last year, in the debt ceiling agreement, this Congress gave the President the authority to increase our debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. We will go through that in less than 2 years. That is a problem.

Of course, if we take a look at President Obama's budget, we can see how quickly our national debt has increased. But according to President Obama's budget, in the year 2022 our total Federal debt would be $25.9 trillion, up $10 trillion from what it is today. Senator Lee's budget would result in a total debt of about $19.1 trillion. Even more importantly, he stabilizes and then reduces a very important metric, our overall debt-to-GDP ratio. That is what investors take a look at in terms of our creditworthiness.

The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget is by 2022 it will reduce Federal spending to 17.8 percent of the size of our economy. If you are like me and you think the root cause of our economic problem is the size, the scope, and all the rules and regulations, all of government's intrusion into our lives and the resulting cost of government, this is the key metric: How large is the Federal Government in relationship to the size of our economy?

Currently, the Federal Government takes 24 cents of every dollar that is generated by our economy. If we add in State and local governments, total government in the United States consumes 39.2 percent. Put another way, 39 cents of every dollar filters through some level of government.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find government particularly effective or efficient. To put that in perspective, for example, the cost of government for Norway last year--one of the European-style socialist nations--was 40 percent. For Greece, it was 47 percent. Anybody hear of Greece recently? That economic model is collapsing.

This is why Senator Lee's proposal is important. If we take a look at spending and revenue generation over the last 50 years, we can see spending from 1959 through 2008 averaged 20.2 percent. Over the last 3 years we have increased that to 24 percent. Revenue generation has been 18.1 percent over that same time period.

By the way, as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle want to punish success and increase the top marginal tax rates, the problem with that is it simply doesn't work. During my lifeline, the top marginal tax rates have been 90 percent, 70 percent to 50 percent to 28 percent, 35 percent, 39.6 percent, and now back to 35 percent. In all that time period the average tax receipts--the maximum amount the Federal Government could extract from our economy--has averaged very tightly around that mean of 18.1 percent.

If we ever have any chance of living within our means, we better get Federal spending down to about that level. That is what Senator Lee's budget does.

So, again, I thank my friend Senator Lee, as well as Senator Toomey, and Senator Paul for putting forward serious proposals. I thank all Republicans in Congress who are actually voting for something because, Mr. President, Republicans are proving we are willing to be held accountable to the American people by putting a plan on the table and showing the American people what we would do to try to get our fiscal house in order.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, by now, it should come as no surprise that the Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years. I believe it has been 1,111 days. When I go to back to Wisconsin--and I think it is probably true of my colleagues--the people of Wisconsin, and I think the people all over America, want us to work together and solve our debt and deficit issue. Since I have been here, the Republicans have fulfilled the responsibility to show what the plan is for stabilizing our debt and deficit. The House passed a budget in the last 2 years, but the Democrats in the Senate have not. It is because they simply refuse to be held accountable. That is a real shame.

I realize the American public wants us to work with each other, but my suggestion is that the first individuals who need to work with each other, the first compromise that needs to be done is with our Democratic colleagues in this Chamber. They have 53 percent, and they only need 51 to pass a budget. They need to get together and work together, and they need to hammer out a compromise and pass a budget. The way that we get together and compromise in the entire process is the House budget would be presented with the Senate budget, we would do a conference, and we would have a process for being able to compromise. That is the basic minimum of what I think needs to be done in the Senate.

One point I want to make is that President Obama has made a number of promises during his administration, and one I will talk about now is on February 23, 2009. In his opening remarks to the fiscal responsibility summit, the President stated:

Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half

by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy.

It will require us to make difficult decisions and face

challenges we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our

children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means

taking responsibility right now in this administration for

getting our spending under control.

I point out that when he made those remarks, the most recent estimate for what the deficit would be in fiscal year 2009 was put forward by CBO on January 7, 2009. They were estimating that the deficit for that year would be $1.186 trillion or 1.2 rounded up. Half of that amount would be $593 billion. That is the promise President Obama made to this Nation in terms of the work he would put in and what he would deliver to our Nation in terms of deficit control.

The facts are far different. In 2009, largely because of the very partisan stimulus package the President passed, the deficit wasn't $1.2 trillion, it was $1.4 trillion. That was followed in 2010 by $1.29 trillion. Then in fiscal 2011, it was $1.3 trillion. The latest CBO estimate for deficit for this year will be $1.253 trillion, almost $1.3 trillion. That is double what the President promised he would be delivering to the American people in terms of deficit control.

Moving forward, this President in his budget is projecting increasing our debt from $15 trillion to over $25 trillion. I am not sure that is believable. The other quote of his was on September 26, 2011, in remarks at a DNC fundraiser in San Diego when he was trying to sell his Americans Job Act. He said the following:

What I have said is that this is a very simple principle

that everybody should understand. Warren Buffett's secretary

should not pay a lower tax rate than Warren Buffett. A

teacher making $50,000 a year, or a firefighter making

$50,000 a year, or $60,000, should not be paying a higher tax

rate than somebody making $50 million a year. And that basic

principle of fairness, if applied to our Tax Code, could

raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs

bill--

And here is the key quote:

--we would also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next

decade.

Mr. President, I don't know what you call that last statement, but I think it could be called a doozy. I think the President has a very serious responsibility not to mislead the American public. I think that statement was a gross violation of that duty.

I have one chart here, a simple one. It shows the 4-year deficit figures for the last 3 administrations. Here's Bush's first 4-year administration, which is a $.8 trillion total deficit in 4 years. In the second 4 years, it is $1.2 trillion in deficit spending. This President will accumulate $5.3 trillion in deficit spending in his 4 years. Four years of the Buffett rule--that tax President Obama said would stabilize the debt and deficit--would be $20 billion. I realize the people in the gallery probably cannot see that line on the chart, but it is obviously not enough to stabilize the debt and deficit.

I think the President has the obligation and duty not to mislead the American public. That is what he did in this case.

Senator Corker has been a real leader on this issue in terms of being a real hawk in trying to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. I wonder if he has any comments.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I came prepared with charts, and a number of things that have already been mentioned by my colleagues I am ready for.

We are talking about the true cost of the health care law. When this was passed--and I actually grossed up these figures because they actually netted out--the savings of Medicare with new spending in Medicare, the way ObamaCare was originally going to be paid for was about $1.3 trillion to cover about $1.1 trillion in outlays. That was split up in basically two ways: about $590 billion in taxes, fees, and penalties, and then $665 billion in reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage.

Now, we have not imposed the $208 billion of the doc fix, the sustainable growth rate formulas, because even Washington realized if we reduce payments to providers, there will be less access for seniors. So I guess I don't have any reason to believe those cuts in Medicare will actually occur.

If we move the budgetary window forward to the timeframe when ObamaCare truly kicks in--because, initially, by the way, we had 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outlays. But really we only had 4 years of full outlays. If we move the budget window forward, the true cost of ObamaCare over a 10-year window is $2.4 trillion, and that is a very minimal estimate. That is very conservative. If we don't impose Medicare cuts, and we only grow the taxes, fees, and penalties--about $816 billion--that leaves a $1.6 trillion deficit risk over 10 years.

We are talking about these deficits now that for 4 years have been $1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion. We are trying to close a $1.3 trillion deficit with about $1 trillion worth of discretionary spending. The other graph I had--and this plays into what the earlier part of the conversation was--reflects the 1960s, when 68 percent of our expenditures were appropriated. They were under some control in Congress. And 32 percent were the mandatory programs and interest. Currently, about 36 percent of government expenditures are appropriated and 64 percent are basically off-budget, on automatic pilot.

As the Senator from Texas pointed out, 10 years forward, only about 25 percent of our Federal budget will be appropriated--will be discretionary spending. Everything else is on automatic pilot. That is simply not sustainable.

The last graph I want to put up--and we haven't talked about this yet--reflects what I really fear. If we take a look at the average borrowing costs for the United States from 1970 through 1999, when we were a far more creditworthy nation, our debt's GDP ratio ranged from about 40 percent to 67 percent. Our average borrowing cost as a nation was 5.3 percent. Over the last 3 years, from 2010 to 2012, our average borrowing cost has been 1.5 percent because we have held rates artificially low.

If we just revert to that mean, that would actually be a 3.8-percent differential. Applied to our debt, that would be $600 billion to $700 billion per year in additional interest expense. Compare that to $1 trillion worth of discretionary spending, and that would totally wipe out the defense budget, for example, or if we maintain the defense budget, it would wipe out all discretionary spending.

That is what we need to be concerned about. That is the day of reckoning I am concerned about: when creditors from around the world take a look at the United States and say: You know what. I am not going to loan you any more money. What is more likely to occur is they will say: I will loan you more money but at a far higher interest rate.

I know the Senator from Tennessee is fully aware of these types of figures.

The Senator from Wyoming looks as though he might have another concluding comment.

I appreciate those comments.

I will conclude.

There really are two plans on the table right now. One is from the House Republicans. It actually passed the Chamber. Republicans were willing to put their votes to a budget. Republicans are willing to be held accountable. Of course, the other plan would be the President's budget, which last year lost in this body 0 to 97, and his current budget lost in the House 0 to 414. So I guess you can say that is a plan that doesn't sound like a particularly serious plan.

So I join my colleagues, and I thank the Senators from Texas and Wyoming and Tennessee for joining me. I would join them in asking this body to please exercise your responsibility, own up to your duty, and let's pass a budget.

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