>> to say why can't the minute you try to start to address the problems you have, why can't there be something that will boost your happiness? in that same vein empower you to start thinking why not versus y., and make these people in these immunities, agents of change in their own lives? so fast forward, i founded a company with whether coinventors named julius, and i now run an innovative play company where we produce fund products and services that address real-world issues. >> that's awesome. [applause] >> i am 25 years old. i am from california, and like

many of you, yes, i think like many of you i have made in political science in college and thought that the next it, the naturalness step was law school. somewhere along the way i came out to d.c. and i worked on the hill and i got this feeling in me, this age i kept wanting to scratch. i started to work on issues i really enjoy. enjoy. not in a glamorous way but i was part of a teen. i think i started to realize that when i had a moment that there was something else drawing me away from a natural path like law school. i was willing to take the leap of faith on an idea. i know that sounds generic but if you ever have those moments, all of us, us included, we are still young so don't shot away from taking something even if it doesn't sound as concrete or care indeed ask law school. i abandoned that path and came to d.c. to work for a couple of different politicians as well as political organizations, and

that's how i got to wear him out. i had to say every now and then my parents tried to send me articles from aol or and carter. i don't know why they're still using encarta, about the price differential and salaries and things like that about my career choice. i will say this. you're going to face moment with this difference and in terms of payment and make financial decisions. if you have that feeling, be willing to take a leap of faith on it. [applause] >> on i am really, really excited to be back. i used to work your and used to take naps in the back of this room here after working 24 sevenths shifts, leading up to the conference on happy to be back you. but i am natasha, 20 or so, based out of new york and i am a farmer. >> i am from new york. [laughter] [applause] >> sometimes i have to repeat

myself, what? on a farmer. i grow food. i am a female farmer. i am a brown farmer. [laughter] [applause] thanks. i put emphasis on those things because agriculture is so lost, so distant, so far from our minds. even though we all eat food, it's become a lost art. it's become a lost place of work. even recently there are discussions taking up speed about how we grow our food, with the organic food movement, local food movement. even food justice which is a fancy way of saying everyone should have a fair slice of the food movement pie. even within all of these movements they're still this niche of voices that are not being heard. there's still very old issues within the food system that makes people uncomfortable. like racism and food system when we talk about fair food

distribution, we are talking about who has access to farmers market, who is getting the loans, the same long as their neighbor farmer. all of these issues are sitting in the dark and if you really want to follow your food, i feel it's important to go right to the root of our food system. our ancestral farming traditions of our people. practices that were here way before the movement picked up, right? women farmers who make up 80% of farmers worldwide. and brown farmers, people of color farming who also hold the dual title of being in the majority of farmers worldwide, but also having the insidious end of the stick in his agriculture business. those are the issues that were calling to me. as an environmental activist, health activists and a person of color who wanted to get my crunchy on and get connected with the land. i was like where are all the brown people at? so that's kind of what i focus

on. their ascent growing food food on a day-to-day basis, upstate new york with a collective farming group we grow 108 different varieties of food on three and half acres of land. we do grow intensively and sustainably. but i do write about these issues, race and food. i write on my blog. i write for environmental and farming publications it and it's why i started this nation called the color of food where we are trying to raise the voices of farmers of color and food initiatives led by people of color. >> that's great. [applause] >> i want to ask you all, vikrum come you spoke to him directly, is where is that moment, what was that moment that kind of help you transition from made a traditional path whether it was law school, medical school? natasha, i know you're working have traditional environmental organizing. when was that moment? but more important how did you make the decision, like practically? i hear people talk about one

minute i woke up and i didn't do it. my brain doesn't work like that. my brain starts thing about how am i going to live, how am i going to pay my bills, what is my mama going to say? i want you to talk about how you make the transition number of how early it was, no, but how late it was, what was that moment like and what was the decision-making progress? >> i think for me it was, i will be realistic, so this fall it was a because i wanted to change the world. it was because i wanted to not fail my class. i want to live. okay? i'm sitting down, i don't even know, a junior at harvard and we first wanted to create a system of mobile health records and a professor during the midterm said no, and i was like we are going to figure this out. i walked in the room and we pushed, pushed, pushed and we came out with this crazy thing called the soccket. none of us were engineers. we said it will work, physics,

high school, it will work. no engineers believed us. so we literally had wikipedia, thank you jesus for the internet. and then build it ourselves. and then go to engineers and say, see? and all the engineers said oh. for me the moment i realized this is something i should do with my life came when i saw the change in people the minute i showed them the ball. i don't care if you're 50 or five, go to the committee and say i will give you a ball. not a bottle cap or whatever thing before, a solid ball. and eco-friendly ball, everything. and then by the way, after 50 minutes you get three hours. they just say what? on all of a sudden the way they feel function and the way they assumed the world should be just change. they start to question the status quo. within 20 minutes ago from off to your ball is great but i've all these other ideas. this inspiration that comes out of it i was like it's one thing

to say you want to be an innovator, it's one thing to inspire innovation. i believe this generates innovation and ip id of people imposing change versus someone coming out and being the change. when i realized i could do that and it was so much fun, and i love fun, i love and i love seeing people happy. i want the world to be a better place and if i have, let me be the first to get this done. to say that it was a moment of change, like i said i'm only 23. in 20 years am i still be doing a boring job by the time is now to get things done and see what i can do. >> i think that's important to talk because as we know and i'm sure as look at the entire agenda, we will be talking about the impact the recession has been on our generation, our job prospects, the availability. that's an interesting piece to think about what i look at both of you, vikrum and natasha, or other jobs around kind of what it is you want to do and when none existed or they didn't

exist how did you create them. vikrum, go back and talk about how you look at the landscape of your field. >> for me i think there were two defining moments. one was it's obvious we're at a time where you can communicate in 1 million different ways. so may different mediums i'm sure are most in the palm of your hands today. i noticed sometimes in high school if i would be out for a moment and talk to my friends passionately about some issue we're discussing on the debate team, if team, if i would talk to somebody who didn't care, they would say wow, where did you get the information, or how do all that? or stare at me blankly and he why are you such a nerd? but when i was thinking about those issues like these are everyday issues that are not that difficult to realize, they are just difficult to tackle. global warming, you can rap about it and explained the problem. abortion, the fundamental conflict there, you can pretty easily see to binary sight of the issue but once you start to address if it gets harder. sso expressing the issue and

getting people to care about those issues, i saw to be huge challenge. someone i would talk to some who didn't want to know about it. if i found compelling way to make them care that i got excited about the. i work in my job to frame the messages of the administration currently to talk about certain issues related to intellectual property rights and innovation and the trade that comes from the country about that. my desire to make sure that there was an easy identifiable and relatable way for people to just start caring about what i thought was really what drove me to a. i think the landscape is, it's interesting because as a speechwriter no one says i'm going to go to school for speech writing. there are many different paths to get there. there's no finite direction. you can look in the circle of communications jobs out there, or you can look in the circle of working on the hill as an assistant to maybe a press secretary, or you can start some were completely outside of the realm of washington and just

work to articulate a cause or a passion or an advocacy. i think whatever most and how where i got where i am now, is honestly to just keep hustling. like you have to talk to everybody around you that you think might be even remotely related to a passionate area, or even remotely related to what you want to pursue. that started by reaching out to speech writers but also started by looking out, okay, maybe there's an interesting ad i saw in the metro by the state of virginia, can i literally googled anyone over there and ask them how they got to where they were? there's a reason why rick ross' rap song is a chart topper but everyday i'm hustling because you cannot stop talking to everyone that is around you until you actually are able to tap the resources that you want. i feel like if you're going after jobs, he talking among one another, get my car. i'm happy to sit down with you, buddy begins really by identifying areas where you think people can be useful and

reaching out to them and not being afraid to actually talk to them about how they got to where they got and how you can get to where you want to go. >> natasha, can you talk about, your mobile you made the decision, can you talk a little bit about the economics of it? it has one of the most common concerns that i know many people have and that i even had myself was we don't all have parents that concerned us figure out what we want to do. many of us work multiple jobs in school. many go to commuting college. so there's often when you talk about innovation and to talk about social change, there's often this picture painted that is only for the privileged and that atone for those that can afford the luxury of living their dreams. so talk about the economics of your decisions. >> definitely. it's interesting you bring that up because for me my answer would be i was on this path of

going into for-profit industry. when i was in college i was not sitting here where you all are sitting right now. i was on my diploma, you know, it might take offense, get my mercedes track. because that was like, that was what was around the. that was what we are all driven to to confine into. so my moment -- i won't talk specifically about how i got into farming, just because we all have our issues and we can all say this is what is going to me and this is why i chose to go here, specifically this is a panel on careers and social change. choosing, taking that leap of giving into a field where it might be privileged to work for social change or you know you will not make no money working in social change, like getting the courage to go after that for me was just, a really simple question. i might be preaching to the choir by want to bring this up because i think it's something you have to keep in mind when doing work, social change work. it's getting, am i putting my

energy into, you know, building wealth for the handful of people at the top of the capitalistic food chain that we have? and i put my energy into building even my own resume? you know, there's that fear of not making money of what your mama going to say? it's not about your individual goals. and you have to remember that in working for social change. this isn't about how many needy hits i can get because i did this for these people. this is about the people. it's called social change for a reason. social is that people. if you're ready to jump for the people, the people will catch her every time. that's kind of like what keeps me warm at night when i'm like counting my pennies, particularly in farming, there's not a lot of money there. that there can be. if the people come together. and i know that sounds kind of pushy like put your heart into it and it will all fall into place, that may not be comfort for some. i really feel like having that

network, identifying your mentors, talk about hustling but it's really about building those relationships. because any social change movement that you are entering into right now, there were people there before you. you are not the first person to care about that issue. you are not the first person to invent something that will help people. there were people there before you and you have to find those people, talk to those people. and your cards will fall into place. as far as the economic piece, i hope i touched on that for you, but it's really just about finding your network and just like not being scared, you will not be alone. it's a hard world that you're not alone is your heart is in the right place. >> most of the questions have been pretending, i'm the head of someone who's afraid to take a step or taking the lead. but that's not this entire audience. i know campus progress people real well. there are some innocent or like

i know what i'm doing and i am i playing and have all the business cards and i've networked. so i want to talk on behalf of them for a second and ask, what are some other common mistakes common mistakes that i have heard you all made or you've seen people make your like, you're ready to do social change work, this is your mission and compassion. watch the mistakes? what's the pitfalls to avoid? >> i'm thinking about all the mistakes, you're never going to be able to avoid all of them but i would see the biggest thing i would tell people the difference between a great idea and an actual innovation is the execution. there has to be a certain sense of realism. do not live in a cloud sankai of good ideas, i'm going to change the world, look at me and my super not caring about myself. in the in sometimes you have to sit down and say this is the world that i live in. how can i work with the system a little bit so i can change this system. and in doing that a lot of times, having a business might come even if it's a nonprofit, a

successful nonprofit, sustainable nonprofit is a business. everything needs to be a business. if you assume you don't have to think about those nitty-gritty details to make your ideas sustainable than it will fall apart. what delayed our project when we first started was it wasn't a business. we sat down and we said we need to make this a sustainable idea we need to make sure how we are going to live in how we will pay people and how we are going to do the r&d that we know we want to do. that we start to make great strides in terms of our actual mission. so the only thing i can say is if you're working with the team, working with the group, you want the idea person but you also want the person who can sit down and think through actually what's happening at what needs to happen to get you from a to b. >> vikrum? >> i think a big part of it is that you need to understand that social change, we don't wake up overnight and think like i'm going to change the world. just like you said that you

want, or that you make this for any particular in other than for a class project. you have to realize even if you have, dream big torture. i'm sure, i didn't mean to don't wake up and think that you can't save the world. but know that that's not going to happen overnight. social change doesn't come overnight, but it does come and commitment. even by having good dialogues like this today. i know that sounds cheesy but think that's the first step because when you get those first job, i can only speak about kind of washington oriented jobs, but you might have tried we can best universities were really been the top of your class or feel that you are really, have a high aptitude and i grasp of issues but when you get there, you might feel downtrodden and say why am i not talking to the press right now about why we need a cap-and-trade legislation. realize that the change will come incrementally, both for the issues and they will also come incrementally for your careers. but they will come. so i think that's not to be a deterrent, that's just to make

sure you're going to hit walls along the way spike she said. but if you know this is what you want to pursue, and even if you don't butcher willing to take that leap in that moment, hit those walls running as fast as you possibly can. because you will learn from that. if you talk, you know, work on those networks as you talk about then you learn from other people that have been in that. i think the final thing i would just say about mistakes that could be made is that i did mention hustling. is my favorite word. i hope it trends on twitter right now actually. but be out there. i want to reiterate what she said. harness those relationships because i think sometimes you can be out there and meeting people and it can feel to transactional. this is not about racking up a certain number of e-mail addresses. it's about cultivating that relationship, growing it and wanted to strike a genuine and authentic tone with them in terms of how can i learn from you and made we can build something along the way you

learn from it. so that model is something that also doesn't, overnight. but if incrementally fed and nudged along can really blossom into something amazing. >> i just want to add to quick things. mistakes to me are good. if you're not making mistakes you're not learning anything but if you are flying through and you're trying to reach your ultimate for and you haven't made one mistake, there is something going on. if i'm farming and all my crops are perfect every year, and everything is coming up beautiful full, i'm getting around thanking someone axially sprayed some herbicide around the what's going on? you learn from all your mistakes so that's number one. and never to come like a -- sound like a broken record but it is again listening to the community. i think one big thing, it's still happening today even in the breakout session that i was in this morning, i kind of was hoping someone would bring it up but it wasn't brought up is being careful that you are not inserting herself into a

movement, into a community and speaking for the community without speaking to that community. that happens so much. [applause] >> when i got my crunchy food movement moving on and i was hopping around, i went to the choice of father in chicago and brooklyn. i was raised in the suburbs of florida and i was talking all the stuff that is learning about food deaths and food deserts. that was my kind of humble moment where you take a step back and really can i've heard this said before, when you're working in social change, you want to be working to herself out of a job. because you want to be empowering the community that you're speaking for and speaking about and these problems are working towards, and hope people of that community then take your place and find their own solution. [applause] >> can i add one thing? i think that along the way they might even be some in this room even though this is a highly

educated and interested concerned a crowd that you might have a job or you might end up taking a job that you really love, you are passionate about the falls outside of the parameter of this bubble we have been calling social change. but don't you like if you pursue that career, that like this room of people and the people that you want to associate with are no longer your family or you can no longer connect with them. like, it is incumbent upon all of us since we do all these resources and we can build faster than any way possible and farm anyways and we can communicate in new ways that you challenge yourself to leverage any resource around you to still hit on those passionate issues. if you end up becoming a lawyer or to end up becoming an investment banker, take a moment to think about and reflect about those issues that you once cared for and never let them die. because you have the resources to help on the site. the people in this room that continue on into those careers that we call social change will never shut the door on you. >> i think is a perfect way to

wrap up the i'm going to ask you one last question. the reason i like that is it ended some ways where we should have started which is what i would talk about we say social change. so may people have different definition. i don't any of us to limit how you will define social change. many of us appear will have different definitions of that but i think it's interesting for folks to be able to understand how you define issues that matter to you and how you choose to work on those using your gifts, your telecom to resources, your network is completed up to you. the sky is the limit. i'll as ask each of you for a closing remark to tell one final piece of advice to this audience, it does one thing you could tell it and you only had that one thing what would it be? >> how many of you know specifically how you want to change the world? that's what i thought. so, what i can say is that, you

know, before i came into this i'm trained in psychology and economics. let's define and understand who we are and what we can do. what people say is that we are really keen about leaving a legacy. we want to do something big and we believe that we can because our parents told us that we are the best of the best, whether or not it was true. for a while i thought i was a better singer than whitney houston. [laughter] you know, so what i can say for me is that if you were to ask me for years ago, do you know you're going to be an inventor and a social entrepreneur? go to these committees and find out how you can introduce these balls? know, what are you talking about? even now, what does it do? the fact that it's what's happening now, i would have never guessed it four years ago. i never would have thought of it until i was put, you know, between a rock and hard place

and had all these experiences traveling, you know, first generation, seeing exactly where the needless. all i can say is that don't be afraid, don't be afraid to go into the unknown as long as you have a very good idea of who you are and what you want to do. i knew that i wanted to do something. i did know how or what, but the how and what will come as long as you say you're going to do something, you make something happen. take every opportunity and you say you know what, i'm not an engineer, i suck at soccer, whatever, let's see what happens. and you will see what happens. i promise you it's going to be worthwhile. >> and i think that's a difficult thing to sometimes express. like you mentioned at the beginning, or sometimes we don't want to disappoint our parents. but i think social change, you can define it by on your own terms, but just don't end up disappointing yourself. and i think that you can recalibrate what social change means. if you don't end up in we the

career path traveled down the creek path that you think about doing right now, you don't have to see yourself or define yourself as a sellout. right quick social change is really just a moment, and understanding for you to go to sleep at night thinking like, i made just as much an impact somewhere in the world, right? that impact is going to constantly evolve and constantly be redefined. i work in democratic politics. i've already seen how i felt about -- change in weather are now. so my idea of social change are going to vary a little bit based on some of those experiences that if it. so like she said, know that they're going to be moments where you're not necessarily certain what path you want to travel down. but know that you're the one that gets to define how your going to pursue those things on your own terms. really remember that. and i know again, i don't want to keep saying it sounds cheesy, but if you keep that in my to constantly keep the change that you want yourself to be. >> i know we're running out of

time, but what jessica said, i think assuming people, like three hands of people who knew they wanted to do to change the world. that's completely normal. but i think it's a personal journey. so talking about community, talk about individuals, that's where it starts. you have to really like jessica said no yourself. it down. what affects you? what was your childhood? what's your history? where did you come from? what was going on back in the day from where you came from? and really dig through who you are and what kind of calls to you and everything else will fall in line, i really believe that. >> i was so excited when i saw the panel lined up and when asked me and all of us because i think a key take away for me here is we are all still on this path. this is not a panel of people in her 40s and 50s who have made a lot of money doing anything. or who have been in this you for a long time. this is a panel of young people

who will are still trying to figure it out, still trying to live our values and figure out how to do that in a way that is authentic and so as all of you all do that, know that we're here to support you and partner with you. and we hope you enjoyed it. i want to thank the panelists. [applause] >> the u.s. senate gavels in short to resume consideration of a nonbinding measure saying those earning more than $1 million a year should

contribute more to federal debt reduction. senators have been debating whether to bring up the bill for consideration and the vote to move the measure forward is set for about half an hour from now. off the floor leaders join house leaders at the white house for a meeting with president obama on debt reduction. that meeting gets underway at 11 eastern. the house continued work today on defense department spending for the next budget year. members going to amendments to the bill. live coverage of that debate on our companion network c-span. here on c-span2 now live coverage of the u.s. senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the earth belongs to you. at creation, you brought order

out of chaos and light out of darkness. we wait for you to renew our strength, enabling us to mount up with wings as eagles. today, reinforce our senators with the constant assurance of your presence. renew their energies and enlarging their vision. give them hearts that find peace in the knowledge that they are ultimately accountable to you alone. redeem their failures.

reward their integrity, and crown their day with the benediction of your peace. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 7, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye,

president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume the motion to proceed to s. 1323, which is a bill to express the sense of the senate on shared sacrifice in the resulting budget deficit, with the time until 10:00 a.m. this morning equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 10:00 a.m. there will be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1323. this could be the only vote of the day although there may be procedural matters that may arise. today the senate is calling on millionaires and billionaires to contribute to this country's effort to reduce our deficit. the poor, middle-class children and seniors have already been asked to make sacrifices to put our fiscal house in order.

this legislation would reaffirm the senate's commitment to ensure the extremely wealthy are asked to make sacrifices. this principle that all americans should contribute their fair share as we work together to reduce the deficit is so commonsense, it should go without saying. yet, republicans boast of their opposition of having the very affluent not pay their fair share. this is a simple, straightforward statement by my republican colleagues. "any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require those earning $1 million or more per year make a meaningful conviction to the deficit reduction effort." my republican colleagues reject that. democrats believe all americans, including those who can afford private jets and yachts, should contribute to the collective effort to reduce the deficit. the question is: why aren't republicans willing to do the same? they say it's because they're looking out for the people. that claim, mr. president, is

ridiculous. this claim is without foundation. it's really preposterous. let's talk about the millionaires and billionaires republicans are determined to protect above all else. less than one quarter of 1% of tax returns filed in the united states each year belong to the people making $1 million. 25% of 1%, a quarter percent of 1%. these same people are the 1% of americans who control 50% of this country's wealth. we're speaking of the warren buffets of the world. warren buffet is my friend. i have great respect and admiration for him, but he's traoepblgsly wealthy. -- he's extremely wealthy. what does warren buffet say about contributing his fair share? he welcomes it. in fact, mr. buffet criticized the system in which his secretary gives a greater share

of her income each year than this man worth more than $50 billion. here he says, in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. that's what he said. that's what warren buffet said about contributing his fair share. since the late 1970's incomes from the lucky 1% of america have risen by 281%. in the last three decades, the last three decades have been very, very good to the very, very wealthy. president george w. bush called these people the haves and have-mores. he also called them his base. and right now the republican party is putting what is good

with this very small base ahead of what is very good for this great nation. the legislation before us asks only this, that each american be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. in poll after poll, americans have endorsed this principle. they have said they believe we must impress our deficit by reducing the spending and ending tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens of corporations. we've heard that. democrats heard that. if warren buffet chooses to buy a private jet or whole fleet of them, that's okay. but the american taxpayers shouldn't give him a special tax break for buying his own jet airplane. our country is facing a crisis. we face mounting debt brought on by a decade of war and tax breaks for the wealthy. we face the prospect that republicans will force us to default on our financial obligations for the first time in our nation's history. difficult choices must be made.

together we should consider cutting programs to help real people in very real way. limiting tax breaks for oil companies, corporations that ship jobs overseas and the owners of private jets and yachts should be an easy part of this problem to solve. yet the republicans walked away from the negotiating table when a solution was in sight because they said no to fairness. democrats had already agreed to trillions in difficult cuts in order to prevent a default crisis and avert a worldwide depression. then republicans walked away from the table to help the 1% of americans fortunate enough to not need any extra help. how do republicans explain this to their constituents back home? very carefully. why? because as middle-class families struggle to make ends meet, my republican colleagues are risking the financial future of this country and the world for the sake of people who own private jets and yachts that

can't imagine that kind of conversation. asking millionaires and billionaires to continue to help solve this nation's economic crisis is not unreasonable. mr. president, we're going to have a vote in 20 minutes or so. and probably what my republican colleagues will do is to vote to allow us to proceed to this. now, that would be great if there was some sense that they agreed with what we are trying to do. that is, if they want millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share. the rules will only allow us to move to the next step and be actually on the bill. when we actually get on the bill, i'll tell everyone here that we would like to have fixed amendments and work on it. i'll be happy to do that, how we used to do things around here. if this means a free-for-all and offering amendments on abortion and war fighting and all this kind of stuff, we can't do that.

we need to devote these next few weeks to the problems we have on the debt. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, later this morning we'll have a vote on whether to proceed to a tpho*pbl binding resolution on whether or not we should raise taxes at a time when 14 million americans are out of work. i oppose the resolution, but i'll vote to move to it so we can finally have a real debate about the economic crisis we face. that's what we were supposed to be doing this week, and that's what we'll do. this is an important debate to have as discussions continue over at the white house this morning in connection with the president's request to raise the debt ceiling. americans want to know where their elected officials stand on these issues. today we'll have an opportunity to show them where we stand on entitlement reform, where we stand on government spending, where we stand on balancing the budget, where we stand on our

unsustainable deficits and debt. for too long democrats have tried to evade these questions. it's been 799 days since democrats passed a budget. 799 days. they've presented no plan to reduce our debts so today is an opportunity to offer real ideas for addressing our debt and jobs crisis to, make our positions clear. for our part, republicans intend to offer more than a vague, nonbinding resolution. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1323, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed do the consideration of s. 1323,

a bill to express the sense of the senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. tkoeupl pending is s. -- mr. durbin: pending is s. 1323. this will not be a law if passed. it is merely an expression of sentiment by the senate on an issue. it can be summarized very quickly with the sense of the senate clause which reads, it is the sense of the senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a meaningful contribution to the deficit-reduction effort. why are we even talking about

this? wouldn't everyone in america concede that everyone needs to make a sacrifice if we're going to make this country stronger? and those who can make a greater sacrifice, those who are well off, with an income of $1 million or more each year should do a little more. why is that such a bold and controversial suggestion? because in fact when we look at the actions taken by congress over the last ten years, we have found a sentiment, a political sentiment primarily from the other side of the aisle which says you cannot ask sacrifice of the wealthiest people of america. i can tell you students of american history know when we've had a tkphaepblg this nation -- had a challenge in this nation, particularly during war when our very existence was being

challenged, people stepped up from every income level in america and said i'm willing to fight for this country, i'm willing to die for this country, i'm willing to sacrifice for this country. so why would this be a matter to be debated on the floor of the senate? because in fact the policies of this country over the last ten years have said that the wealthiest among us should be spared time and again from sacrifice when it comes to the future of our nation. that's just plain wrong. those who are fortunate enough to be well off, to have a strong income, to enjoy the blessings of liberty, to live in what i feel is the greatest nation on earth should be prepared to give back something. and i've spoken to something in our walk of life here in the senate. we spend time with those who are well-off, who finance our campaigns. that's a reality i'm not happy with, but a reality. and so many of them have said for goodness sakes, senator, why

do you even hesitate to ask me for more tax stph-s i'm prepared to pay those taxes because i feel blessed to live in this country. the idea of raising taxes among the wealthiest among us won't change their lifestyle a bit but will help solve some of our problems. if we don't change the tax cuts that were put in under president george w. bush, people making $1 million-plus a year will get a $200,000 tax break. $200,000 tax break every year. in order to pay for that tax break, some other americans have to sacrifice. for example, it would mean that about 33 seniors will have to pay $600 more a year for medicare under one proposal in the house republican budget so we will generate enough money to give a tax break to a person who is a millionaire. 33 seniors paying $600 more a year so a millionaire can get a tax break. that's wrong.

it's just plain wrong. i believe that we need to ask for shared sacrifice, and that's what this resolution says. senator mcconnell who was here moments ago said this week it's about making washington make tough choices. it's about washington taking the hit this time. well, the people who are taking the hit in america are not washington. they are all across this country. it's low and middle-class americans who are taking a hit in the current economy. there are still almost 14 million americans out of work, and those who are working have seen the bulk of income growth go to the highest income categories. we have the greatest income disparity in the history of the united states since the great depression. over the past ten years, the median family income has declined by more than $2,500. what it means, mr. president, whether it's new mexico or illinois is that people who are working hard, going to work every single day, making sacrifices fall further and further behind, live paycheck to paycheck, and that is the

reality of life for hard-working middle-class americans. so those of us who come to the floor and say spare them if you're going to spare anyone from further taxation, give them a helping hand, understand it so they can keep their heads above water, barely. so many americans live paycheck to paycheck. it's the only way they survive. that is a reality. my colleague from kentucky is right that in washington we need to make the tough choices and we need to face them with a sense of consensus and compromise. an all-or-nothing approach to the budget isn't going to work. in about an hour and 15 minutes, i am going to be honored to represent with senator reed, our majority leader, the senate democrats in a meeting with president obama. we will sit down in the cabinet room, as i have before, and we will talk about what we're going to do with this deficit crisis. i would say -- i will say to the president and those assembled we have plenty to work with. it was six or seven months ago when the bowles-simpson

commission, the president's commission on the deficit gave us a blueprint and said here is a way to reach $4.5 trillion of deficit reduction in a fair way. put everything on the table. democrats, suck it up. put the entitles on the table, make sure that at the end of the day, these are still programs that serve the public. social security is still there making its promised payments. make sure that medicare covers the health care of elderly americans and do it in a fiscally responsible way, but don't run away from it, don't ignore the problems that you face. and similarly, the bowles-simpson commission said to those on the other side of the aisle be honest about revenue. we are facing the lowest federal revenue against our gross domestic product that we have seen in 60 years. is it any wonder we're in deficit? 15% of our gross domestic product comes to the federal government revenue each year. we spend 25%.

so the 10% difference is our deficit. it is time to bring the spending down and the revenue up. oh, critics will say, you can't raise taxes in the midst of recession. well, we need to be careful, i agree. raising taxes in the wrong places could hurt our recovery. here are some places where it won't hurt, as this resolution says, at the highest income categories. these americans can afford to pay a little more. they certainly don't need a tax break. secondly, take a look at the tax code. up to $1.2 trillion a year in tax spending, tax earmarks, credits and deductions that the special interest lobbyists put in the tax code. many of them are absolutely indefensible, and we can't afford them anymore. if we're asking sacrifice across the board from america, we should ask sacrifice for those who are benefiting from these tax loopholes and tax benefits. we can do that. in fact, we may be able to do it if we follow bowles-simpson and at the same time reduce the marginal tax rates for all

americans. it can be done. let's take a hard look at the tax code. and remember, mr. president, 70% of americans do not itemize, which means they do not take advantage of the tax code except in the rare situation where they have a refundable tax credit. these people are not using the tax code. those who use it are in higher income categories. they are using it. they are following the law and they are avoiding their taxes. warren buffett had a great quote which we should remember while we debate this. said it november 26, 2006. "there is class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." warren buffett is a man of few words and is listened to carefully because of his wisdom in business and in life, and he hits the nail on the head. he said to me and many others and publicly it is unconscionable that using our tax code today, he, warren buffett, pays a lower marginal

tax rate than the secretaries in his office. that is absolutely wrong. why should a hard-working person in a business at a lower level pay a higher marginal tax rate than the person owning the business, making millions of dollars each year? that's where the tax code's wrong, and that's where we can change it, save money, use it to reduce the deficit and reduce marginal income tax rates. that's what this resolution is all about. it is nothing short of amazing that we're debating the question of whether those who make make $1 million or more each year should really pony up and contribute more when it comes to deficit reduction. mr. president, the newspapers this morning talk about what may be included in any final agreement. i don't know what will be included. i hope there is an agreement. but one thing i want to make clear, i just left a meeting with people who do forecasting, standard and poor's, moody's,

fitch and the like. they talk about what's going to happen if we do not extend the debt ceiling. now, let me lay my cards on the table. the debt ceiling vote every year is a political football. those who are not in the president's party just don't want to vote for it. why should you? go home and get slapped around for having voted to extend america's debt. and in years gone by, there have been times i didn't vote for it, but in all honesty i knew in the back of my mind it was going to pass. but here's the reality. if we reach a stalemate on the debt ceiling now because the president's party doesn't control the congress, certainly not the house and barely in the senate, if we don't extend the debt ceiling, what's going to happen is very obvious. the full faith and credit of the united states is going to be called into question, and that's never happened. we have never in our history failed to extend the debt ceiling and to say that we stand behind our debts and will make good on payments. if there is any question about that, you know what happens. it's the same thing that happens when you default on your home mortgage.

it becomes increasingly difficult to ever get another mortgage, and if you do, you face higher interest rates than ever. that's what america will face if we don't extend the debt ceiling. so these people from these rating agencies came to us and said it will be disastrous if you allow the debt ceiling not to be extended on august 2. that is the reality of the world that we live in. so i would say as we go into these important and difficult negotiations, as we move toward the moment when we are going to have, i hope, an agreement, let's make it very clear to the world the united states understands its obligations, will pay its debts, and that we won't face the dire consequences of the opposite being true. that's the reality of what we face today. i will say one last thing here before i yield the floor. as we structure this deficit, rescue or deficit project, let's remember two things that are essential. there are vulnerable people in the united states of america who

through no fault of their own struggle each day to live. some of them suffer from physical and mental disabilities. some of them have been poor their entire lives and come from poor families and have a difficult time and limited education. some of them are elderly in nursing homes. these people, the most vulnerable among us, need a helping hand. we have never failed to do that in modern times, and we shouldn't in this time of trouble, time of deficit. we can keep our word to the poor among us that we are going to stand by them because we are caring people, and we can do it by making certain that the medicaid program which provides health insurance for one-third of the children in america which covers more than 40% of the medical costs of children -- pardon me, covers the medical costs of birth of more than 40% of the children in america and literally provides for millions of seniors to be able to stay in

nursing homes and in senior settings so that they can do so, these are the things we need to take care of in the midst of this deficit reduction. i see my colleague from tennessee on the republican side has come to the floor and there is time available on your side. i didn't know if anyone was coming. i'm going to yield the floor. well, i'm wrapping up. i thank my colleague from tennessee. but i will wrap up to say we can take care to make sure the safety net is protected, to make sure as well that we address all levels of spending in our government. that's every one of them. to make certain that whether it's the defense budget or the budget for programs not related to defense, whether it's entitlement programs, all of these need to be carefully, carefully scrutinized. we can cut spending in a responsible bipartisan way and show that we can bring our deficit down, strengthen this economy, and i think in the process if we do it on a bipartisan basis, we are going to launch an economic recovery

that inures to the benefit of all of us. if we don't and this ends up in finger pointing, i don't know who will take the fall for it, no one does, but the best thing we can do is to ignore that political aspect and deal with the reality of the challenge that we face. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: i would -- i appreciate what the senator from illinois said, and i would congratulate him. not necessarily for the specifics of what he just said, but for his general misdemeanor and attitude throughout this entire discussion about the deficit and the debt. he has been one of those senators -- there have been some on both sides of the aisle -- who have made some difficult choices and some difficult decisions, have recognized at a time when our country is -- washington is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, that we have got a serious problem, and that we have to look at our entire fiscal condition in order to -- in order to solve the problem.

and the people of this country expect us to do that. so senator durbin has by his willingness to make some hard decisions set a pretty good example for all of us in the united states senate. my hope is today that the meeting that the president has with our congressional leaders on both sides succeeds, because if they succeed, our country succeeds. the country expects us to do that. i hope they think big. i hope they swing for the fences and get a result and bring it back to us and let us consider it and hopefully -- hopefully enact it and get on to other things. we -- the debt is a major long-term problem, not just for our grandchildren but for us today. we have a bigger issue facing us, and that is the fact that we have had persistent unemployment in an economy that's not growing, and that's hurting too many people. so the sooner we swing for the fences and get a result and get our debt under control and deal with it in a bipartisan way, the better for the country and the quicker we will be able to get

on to the larger question of jobs. of course, economists have made it clear to us that getting the debt under control has a lot to do with jobs, that when our total debt is as high as it is today, nearly 100% of our gross domestic product, that that probably costs us a million jobs a year. we can't solve all that in one day or one month, but we can take a big step in the right direction, and that's really what our country men and women want us to do. so i -- i'm glad i got to hear the part of the senator's speech and i'm glad i have a chance to commend him for his leadership on this vexing and important problem that we need to deal with. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is

recognized. mr. durbin: if it meets with the approval of the senator in leadership of the republican side, i suggest we yield back all time and ask unanimous consent to begin the roll call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 93, s. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the senate on shared sacrifice and resolving the budget deficit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 22. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the time until 6:00 p.m. today on the motion to

proceed be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. further, that at 2:00 p.m., monday, july 11, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1323, with the time until 5:30 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. and at 5:30 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed to s. 1323. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: there will be no more roll call votes this week. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call be: quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. will senators please take their conversations from the chamber. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, we have been here this week -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from texas is recognized. mr. mccain: will the senator from texas yield for a question? mrs. hutchison: i will, mr. president. mr. mccain: the senator from texas, i'm just wondering the view that you might have that we've been terribly overworked

this week. i understand that we canceled our 4th of july recess in order to get back here and get to work and do the people's business. is it correct that that was the second vote this we have take? one was the instruction of the sergeant at arms, and this one another highly controversial issue that was taken up. i guess my question to the senator from texas: has this week been a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollar? mrs. hutchison: well, i would respond to the distinguished senator from arizona that the resolution that was just passed was to go to a sense of the senate resolution, which, of course, has no force of law. it is indeed our second vote this week. i will say that there's one thing on the minds of the people

today. one thing on the minds of the people of america today, and it is what on earth is -- mr. mccain: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is corrected. the senate will come to order. the chair asks senators to please take conversations off the floor. the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: americans are saying what on earth is congress doing? what on earth is the president doing? what are they doing to address the looming debt crisis? and we were called back in not to recess so that we could do something meaningful. when i saw the senator from arizona on the floor, he was ready to talk about our international situation and the commitments that we are making certainly. many people said, no, wait a

minute, we've got a debt crisis and we can't wait till august 2 to fulfill it. i would just respond to the senator from arizona and say when does the -- when do the american people get the answer that they deserve, which is congress and the president are working together, and we are being productive and we have a budget resolution on the floor, and we're debating it, and we're talking about our differences on taxes and spending. you know, i don't think we can tax our way out of a recession. i don't think we can tax our way out of the budget deficits. i would just ask the senator from arizona if he thinks that we can make meaningful progress staying in session and debating, and if in fact that might be an option in the future? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i see the distinguished majority leader waiting, so i will make my

comments brief. i know that his agenda is very busy. i would just say that, to my friend from texas -- and i understand a lot of the inner mechanisms and hidden workings that's going on behind the scenes. but when i go back and tell my constituents that we canceled a week of recess and we had two votes, one to instruct the sergeant at arms, and the other on a sense of the senate resolution, i would have liked to have taken up other business that was rejected by members on this side because they wanted to focus on the deficit. but if we're focusing on that, maybe we should have taken up some issues that directly affect the deficit, such as ethanol subsidies, such as some of the other tax breaks and loop homes and other -- loopholes and other issues that surround the whole bankruptcy of this country. i see the majority leader is

there waiting, so i will yield to my friend from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i would just ask unanimous consent that following the majority leader, i regain the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: and i have just a brief comment. i've known my friend, the senior senator from arizona, since 1982, when we were both elected to congress. and his record of public service speaks for itself. but i would say to him and to everyone within the sound of my voice, we didn't vote on libya, this important resolution that we had been working on so hard, by the distinguished senator tpwr arizona -- from arizona and chairman of the foreign relations committee because i was told we wouldn't get any votes from republicans because they wanted to focus on the deficit. my friend also recognizes, as he said, there is work going on

behind the scenes, and that's true. there's been a lot of work that took place as a result of our being here that would not have taken place but for the fact that we're in session. now we know a lot of the work we accomplish here is not with votes. one reason we're not having a lot of votes in recent months is because we can't get things on the floor. we're stopped by my republican friends. there's meetings going on at the white house and the speaker; a multitude of meetings there. meetings going on between members of the senate, democrats and republicans, and the house of representatives. i would say to everyone here, it's good we were in session this week. i haven't heard a single person who is not in congress complain about our being here. it's important we're here. and as a result of that, we've been able to move down the road much further on the problems we have with the debt than we would have had we not been in session, because there's all kinds of meetings going on around town

dealing with how we do this. we have a meeting right behind us today, starting at 9:00. we had the head of the chamber of commerce. we had people from moody's financial services. they were there to tell us what they're doing, focus on republicans being able to help us with this problem, getting through the debt. we have to do something about this staggering debt that faces us. and what this resolution we voted on earlier today is all about is making sure we have equal sacrifice in our country. that is we know we're going to have to make some cuts. we also recognize that we need to do something about revenue. that's what's going on. what we do here in the senate every week is like solving a math -- isn't like solving a math problem. there is no perfection. that is the way the government was set up by the tpoufgs. we're going to continue to work to solve the nation's problems. number one on the list is doing

something about our staggering debt. hutch mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas -- mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i appreciate what the majority leader said. there is a lot going on and there is the beginning of coming together, hopefully with the president and the leadership of the house and the senate. i just hope that we can establish why it is that there is such a divide on how we accomplish the issue of raising the debt ceiling with real reforms that will assure that we will not have to raise the debt ceiling again, that we will cut deficits so that the debt will also be cut in this country. we cannot sustain the level of debt that we have now. it is the highest that we have ever had in the history of this

country. and, mr. president, let's face it. we have two basic problems here. we have this looming $14 interest debt that is about to hit the ceiling, and we have to raise the ceiling. now, it would be irresponsible to do that without significant reforms that will assure that we're not going to hit it again. but, the second problem is we have 9.1% unemployment. so it's not like we're in a vacuum here and we can just start taxing our small businesses, when small business has already had the looming hit of the health care plan that was passed, that is going to cost every business in this country significant increases in their

cost of doing business. when people are out there saying, well, why is unemployment still so high? why is hiring lagging? i think it is because businesses are trying to prepare for this big hit that they're going to get in 2014 when the obama health care plan takes full effect. and they're trying to figure ou are they going to pay more for insurance or are they going to take the fine and pay fines for every employee who doesn't have insurance, which is going to cause chaos in this country. so they're trying to decide. on top of that, people on the other side of the aisle of washington, d.c. keep talking about increasing taxes, and the president keeps talking about increasing tax.

and so, no wonder our employers are not saying, oh, yes, let's just open the floodgates and bring people back to work, because they don't know what to expect. we must generate economic growth, not stifle it. we need businesses to feel confident in the future, that they're going to be able to make a profit on top of all the added costs of new taxes and a health care reform that is going to hit business the hardest. so, we don't have a tax problem in this country. we're not being taxed too little. this government is spending too much. that's the problem we're facing right now. that's why we have a $14 trillion debt. we have a $1.6 trillion

shortfall between spending and revenue. so, you know, i'm reminded of what ronald reagan once said, we don't have a $1 trillion debt because we haven't taxed enough. we have a $1 trillion debt because we spend too much. let's look at the spending side of the equation. we can't continue business as usual in washington and fix this problem. when president obama was sworn into office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. it was too much then. i think we all agree. now it's $14.3 trillion. we are weeks away from officially hitting that $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. now, we have had a monumental addition to the unprecedented

number of spending dollars that was the stimulus that passed in february of 2009. today the president's council of economic advisors has said that 2.4 million jobs were created at a cost of $666 billion. that's about 3/4 of the stimulus. that is a cost to taxpayers of of $278,000 per job. now, mr. president, that's just not reasonable. this is the kind of spending that we cannot continue in this country. you know, i think they say they want to increase taxes, and i hear the president say we must increase taxes on the oil companies, increase taxes on

corporate jets. well, you know, i think if we are fair and across the board and we tax oil companies like we tax every business, sure, i think let's even the playing field. if we're going to take away the the -- the business deductions that every business gets in this country, then sure, let's take it from every business, including oil. but it's not going to help the deficit because it's not enough to help the deficit. they say they want to increase taxes in order to reduce the deficit, but what they really want is to increase taxes to permanently increase spending so that the big government that we have seen grow in the last two years, two and a half years, will be permanent. that's why they want to increase taxes. so, mr. president, i say there

is a way to fix this. first of all, we could pass a balanced budget amendment. a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution would put us on a budget that we would have to meet like most states in this nation and every business and every family. we would set the limits. i believe the appropriate limit would be that total federal expenditures would be limited to 18% of the gross domestic product. then congress would also have to have caps on spending, about same, 18% of gross domestic product. now, this would be a spending reform that we could adopt that i believe the states would also agree to ratify that would give us a trajectory that would eliminate this deficit and the debt in this country, and we

would be on a fiscally responsible path. second, if we're going to do this, we have got to look at entitlements. now, that's the reality. that is the reality. we have a nearly bankrupt entitlement system that is ongoing regardless of what the revenue coming in is. the debt limit and the ongoing deficit reduction negotiations need to put entitlement reform on the table. until yesterday, they had refuseed to do it, but now it seems that perhaps some entitlement reform might be on the table. for instance, one that i have introduced a bill to correct is the social security system. social security will account for 1/5 of all federal spending this year, 1/5.

the time for reform is now, and we can do it in a reasonable way. the amount of social security benefits being paid out exceeds the revenue that social security payroll is collecting, and we're start to go draw down on the social security reserves. when the reserves run out in 2036, social security will only be able to pay out 70% of the benefits to current and future retirees. that is the law today. it would force a 23% cut in benefits. that's the law today. the social security board of trustees reported earlier this year that one way to shore up social security's assets is to immediately and permanently increase the combined payroll tax on employees and employers

from 12.4% to 14.5%. in other words, increase payroll taxes by 1/6 during our jobless economic nonrecovery. i don't think that's really feasible. the trustees also noted that the shortfall could be eliminated by an immediate and permanent 13.8% cut in core benefits. that retirees are getting right now. an immediate $150 per month cut in every social security benefit check right now. that was what the social security trustee suggested was a possibility. now, that is something i think we would unanimously in this united states senate reject. no one is going to cut benefits benefits $150 right now per month, nobody. nobody would do it. so if we are going to address

this, i have proposed a plan. senator kyl and i introduced senate bill 1213, the defend and save social security act. first, everyone knows we're living longer than when the social security act passed. we have a higher quality of life. people want to work longer in most areas. so why not gradually raise the retirement age without impacting those who are about to retire? under my bill, anyone who is 58 years of age or older will see no change. for everyone else starting in 2016, the normal and early retirement age would increase by three months a year. so the normal retirement age would reach 67 by 2019, 68 by

2025, and 69 at 2027, and it stops there. early retirement would be gradually three months a year increase to 63 by 2019 and 64 by 2023, and it would stop. secondly, currently social security recipients receive an annual cost of living adjustment, a cola. under my plan, the cola would be computed as it is in current law , reduced 1%. so the average rate of inflation and cola has been 2.2% every year of an increase. so if we have a 2.2% rate of inflation cola, it would be a

1.2% increase in social security benefits. so what i'm saying is that a 1% decrease in the cola, is just a 1% increase in the -- 1% decrease in the increase, so that you would have the gradual raising of the age that would be much more in line with our actuarial table at the reality today where people are living much longer, and you would also have a slight decrease in the increase in social security benefits according to inflation. if we have rampant inflation, then you would have the cola, just 1% less. so if it's 2.2% inflation, then you would get a 1.2% cola. doing that saves the social security system, and it closes the 75-year gap. it doesn't raise taxes on

anyone, and it doesn't cut a core benefit for anyone. that is the way we could fix social security right now. and what would that do for our deficit? here's what it would do. it would achieve a $416 billion reduction over the next ten years of our deficit, and a a $7.2 trillion savings by 2085. so that means we're on the track. that means in 75 years, social security will be solid and secure without a tax increase on anyone and without a cut in core benefits to anyone, and no one who is 58 years of age or old letter have any adjustment whatsoever. so in the -- any age whatsoever.

so, madam president, we have a chance to do some things. now, i -- i have gone out and said here is a proposal. my colleague, senator corker, has proposed a limit, a cap on spending that is a reasonable limit. other colleagues, senator lee, senator paul, have suggested and senator toomey have suggested other ways to cut spending across the board, just a level goal. they are not cutting specific things but they are cutting the discretionary spending at reasonable levels. many republicans are offering ways to cut back on spending. my colleague, senator cornyn from texas, has put forward a cap on spending and a balanced budget amendment. there are proposals out there

that are responsible ways to deal with this deficit that include entitlements and discretionary spending both. it is time, mr. president, for the president of the united states to sit down at the table and understand that tax increases for kind of a photo op, p.r. are not going to fill the void. the public relations of cutting back on corporate jet benefits, whatever they are, i don't know what they are, don't have one, but i think we would probably all agree. if you could afford a corporate jet or private jet, you know, fine, whatever prompt -- the president wants to do, we'll do it, and it will do nothing to

help the deficit. so why don't we do meaningful things, which is make meaningful cuts in discretionary spending. let's attack what everybody knows is the case, and that is social security is going bankrupt as we speak, and if congress and the president will speak responsibly about it, we can put that on a glide path that is within the reasonable actuarial table estimate. so that people will work longer, very gradually increase starting in 2016, ending in 2027 at 69, that's gradual. so, mr. president, we can't procrastinate, we can't wait, we can't hope the crisis will pass, and we cannot delay the inevitable. this is the united states senate we were elected to make the

tough choices. it is time for us to do it. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the senate's upcoming trade agenda and its impact on pennsylvania workers and pennsylvania jobs. like so many of our states, pennsylvania has always played a critically important role in america's manufacturing and commercial heritage. the coal and waterways of our state help make the commonwealth legendary for steel making and help turn the united states into an industrial powerhouse. during its heyday, 60% of the domestic steel production in the united states came from pennsylvania. during world war ii, almost one-third of the nation's steel came from pennsylvania, which

was a full 20% of global production at the time, but then pennsylvania governor arthur james put it this way. pennsylvania was truly the arsenal of democracy and the arsenal of america. given its dominance in the steel industry, it's no surprise that the commonwealth was sixth in the nation in total work production during the second world war, leading in shipbuilding and munitions production. more money was spent to expand production capacity in pennsylvania than in any other state during the war. we know at the time that it didn't stop there. it didn't stop at the end of the war. after -- after the war was over, these manufacturing facilities were used to make american products and fuel the growth of a thriving middle class. today, so many of these plants have gone away, due in part to our failed trade policies.

over the last 30 years, we have seen trade deficits soar, currency manipulation go unchecked, lavish subsidies by foreign governments go ignored, and exploitation of workers in other countries overlooked. that's why i'm very concerned that today the finance committee is moving forward with the pending agreements with south korea, colombia and panama. for the last several weeks, senator brown and i have persistently asked the tough critical questions about the impact of these agreements before they're considered. a review of the impact of past trade agreements offers very little comfort. in 1994, congress passed the north american free trade agreement, creating the world's largest free trade zone. we know it as nafta. and since nafta's passage, u.s. trade policies have steadily

chipped away at pennsylvania's manufacturing base, a critical sector for our base and so many others. according to a recent study -- and the chart on my left depicts it -- by the pennsylvania industrial resource centers, from 1997 to 2010 -- just 13 years -- manufacturing went from 16.4% of our state's gross state product to 12.1%, a remarkable drop in just 13 years. and what does that mean for the total number of jobs? in total, pennsylvania lost nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs. and you can see it from the chart. starting in 19 e9, the drop to 12.1% in just those 13 years. 300,000 jobs in 13 years. despite these alarming numbers and statistics, advocates for the trade deals, including the

pending agreement with south korea, promise significant economic benefits, from exploding export potential to direct job creation. proponents argue -- they argue -- a signet positive from these agreements every time they're considered. in reality, instead of creating opportunities for pennsylvania, our trade policies did little more than offshore good-paying jobs while giving our trading partners unlimited access to our markets. so we must take the time now to ask the tough questions. specifically, as the senator from pennsylvania, i must ask three basic questions about any trade deal. number one, will the agreement protect current pennsylvania jobs and create new jobs in pennsylvania and across america? number two, will the agreement help create a level playing field for american businesses and workers? and, third, does the agreement provide new opportunities for

american manufacturers to export? today i'll focus on the south korea trade agreement and the context of each question. first, will the agreement protect and create jobs in pennsylvania and across the nation? in these uncertain times, job creation must be our top priority. in pennsylvania, the manufacturing sector is critical. manufacturing remains the commonwealth's largest source of good-paying jobs, with chemical, primary metal products, fabricated metal products, food products and machinery making up the top five areas. these benefits extend beyond individual manufacturing businesses in our state. in fact, the economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector experienced throughout pennsylvania's economy. according to a research commercialed by the pennsylvania industrial resource centers,

every $1 demand for products manufactured in our state leads to an increase of $2.50 across all industries. so $1 in activity can lead to $2.50 in value. the manufacturing jobs that are created support middle-income families, and the creation of those jobs and the support they provide to those families in 2008 meant the following: irk the average annual compensation of a boark in the manufacturing -sector -- the average pay was $10,000 less. each good-paying jobs in this country allows for more money to flow back into the economy. buff given the importance of manufacturing jobs in pennsylvania, we must ask ourselves, will the korea trade agreement create jobs, especially in the manufacturing

sector? i believe it will not create a substantial number of new jobs in this critical sector. looking back over the last 20 years rs trade-related job expansion has been an unfulfilled promise for pennsylvania and the nation. we need look no further than nafta. in 1993, when the agreement was signed, nafta promised to deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across the united states. leading economists at the time projected nafta would bring 170 tho new jobs in the near-term alone. these gains were not realized. instead, since nafta was signed into law through 2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under nafta, according to the department of labor. and i am a sure that number has grown since that 2002 datapoint. furthermore, when nafta was negotiated, leaders suggested

that american porters would expand greatly to meet the newfound demand of open mexican market. the opposite has occurred. in 1993, the united states had a small trade surplus. we have a surplus with mexico. according to the official census bureau statistics, by 2010, 17 years later, we were running a trade deficit with mexico of $66.4 billion. so a surplus in trade with mexico became a huge deficit. trade with canada also saw a widening trade deficit from $10 billion in 1993 to $28 billion in 2010, so there a deficit got bigger whereas in the case of mexico it went from surplus to a massive deficit of $66 billion with mexico. the impact of these policies is plainly seen in employment data. pennsylvania has seen a dramatic

decline in manufacturing employment since nafta was implemented. losing a total of over 300,000 jobs, as i said before. with this rosy prediction for nafta in mind, a close look at the government's projections for the south korea agreement should be viewed with a great skepticism. with the international trade -- while the international trade commission predicts our bilateral trade with korea will improve, the total u.s. trade deficit is predicted to get larger. while the proponents of the agreement argue that u.s. exports to korea will increase, they are neglecting to tell the whole truth. companies will shift -- simply shift from exporting to creating current customers in other places to korea rather than increasing total exports. second question i ask is will this agreement help create a level playing field after

enactment? i believe that this agreement, the south korea agreement, will fail to create a level playing field for our workers and our companies. modern trade agreements do more than cut tariffs. these agreements contain hundreds of provisions that make substantial changes to nontrade policies and the korea agreement is no exception. according to the group public citizen, these nontrade provisions limit the authority granted to elected representatives of the american people over product and food safety, financial regulations, health care and energy regulations, patent terms, and even our textilers can be spent by the government. the agreement allows korean exporters to take investment disputes out of courts and into unaccountable and secretive international tribunals through a process known as "investor-to-state dispute system." it is similar to nafta's.

additionally, the investment chapters are signed -- that were signed prior to the current financial crisis back in 2007, these specific chapters include rules that prohibit either country from imposing fire walls between the sorts of financial services one firm may offer to limit the spread of risk, for example. important protections put in place after the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 could potentially be challenged under the pending agreement. even more troubling is the issue of korea's currency. south korean currency manipulation remains an unaddressed problem. as we've seen in china, an intentionally weakened currency leads to a fundamentally unbalanced trade relationship and brutal conditions for u.s. companies. in the june 17th rorkts the economic policy institute calculated that if asian currencies were strengthened to

appropriate market-determined levels, if they had -- if that were done, u.s. gross domestic product would increase by as much a $287.5 billion, creating up to 2.25 million u.s. jobs. that's if -- if -- asian currencies were strengthened to those appropriate levels. unfortunately, as with other nafta-style free trade agreements, this south korea agreement is silent on currency. this is unacceptable because south korea devalued their currency twice, once in 1998, once in 1998. both devalued their currency by 50% or more. south korea was one of the first countries cited as a currency manipulator by the treasury department in 1988. south korea continues their long

history of manipulating their currency. in fact, the most recent treasury report to congress on international economic and exching rate policies from may 27, 2011, noted that south korea intervened -- quote -- "heavily" -- unquote -- in its currency market during the financial crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. treasury urged south korea to -- quote -- "adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility unless intervention" -- unquote. currency policy has played a central role in china's mercantilist trade policies and has cost the united states thousands and thousands of jobs. we shall not be cutting -- we should not be cutting tariffs with a country with south korea's heavy history on currency manipulation. without language to deal with protecting us in a competitive

environment and in the devaluations that they have undertaken before. additionally, several groups have raised the possibility that the agreement could be used to weaken u.s. trade laws. the free trade agreement creates a bilateral commission on trade laws. while our trade representative argues this will not change any existing u.s. trade larks this avenue could be used by advocates of weaker enforcement in the future. finally, i turn to the last question: does the agreement provide new opportunities for pennsylvania manufacturers to export their goods? like and like nafta, the benefie south korea deal have been, in my judgment, overstated, while the risks have been largely ignored. rather than opening a new market for pennsylvania farmers and manufacturers, i'm concerned that the benefits to the united states are minimal at best. there are specific reasons this deal fails to deliver for pennsylvania exporters. first, most of the benefits are

based on an overly optimistic projection for agriculture. these projections compiled by supporters of the agreement assume that a cut in tariffs will immediately equal a growth in market share. we know from past experience that asian markets, including south korea, have come up with a host of unjustified, nontariff restrictions to keep united states beef out of their country. these barriers to free trade are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed in the agreement. other troubling clauses dealing with the beef century exist. the south korea agreement will allow american beef packagers to use canadian or mexican cattle and then export the passaged mexican and/or mexican beef as "american beef." this policy, while great for beef packagers, undercuts united states ranchers.

given our difficulties in gaining a foothold in these markets, we should rely solely on u.s. cattle, which we know is safe. second, for -- one of pennsylvania's most important sectors, darely -- yo dare rirke competing agreement with south korea could inhibit our ability to compete in the south korea market. certain times of cheese including mozzarella must come from specific regions. as a result, european exporters could challenge -- european exporters could challenge u.s. producers selling cheese in south korea as -- quote -- "mozzarella or" -- -- quote - ." this gives european companies an advantage over american cms. another problem with the agreement is which goods qualify

for -- quote -- "made in south korea" designation. the sticker, so to speak. and are allowed to therefore enter the united states duty-free. under the rules of the -- under the rules of the agreement, in annex 6-a, 65% of the value of many goods, including automobiles shipped duty-free to the u.s., can come from south korea and still be considered -- quote -- "made in south korea."r than the european union agreement. the european agreement has a 55% content standard, where con taepbt can be -- content can be foreign and once again places our companies at a comparative disadvantage in international competition. 35% korea plus 56% china would equal made in korea. i don't think that's what the american people bargained for

when they expect to us get trade policies right. in a sense this opens a back door for products primarily made in places like north korea or china to enter the united states of america duty-free. that is wrong. it should be changed, and we should not vote for an agreement that has that in it. so let me conclude, mr. president, with the three questions that i started with. first, will the agreement create a substantial number of new jobs? i'm concerned that it will not. in previous agreements like nafta, if they are any uko to job losses, especially in the critical manufacturing sector. second, will the agreement help create a level playing field? it will not. the agreement fails to address critical issues like currency manipulation that have already hurt american businesses and cost us jobs. does the agreement provide new opportunities for american manufacturers to export?

proponents have overstaeutd the benefits. -- overstated the benefits. certain firms and industries will likely benefit while many others will not. what is clear is that in its failure to address nontariff barriers to trade, the agreement leaves american firms unprotected and on a playing field that is not level. instead of moving ahead with a broken model, we need to focus on the bigger picture, formulating a strategy that helps american manufacturers, that leads to job creation and helps middle-income families, help us create the jobs of the future. to make real sustained progress, washington needs to have a plan arcs strategy. we must develop and commit ourselves to a national manufacturing strategy that includes job-creating trade policies as well. recently i convened a round table in pennsylvania, with the leader of several southwestern

companies at the universal electrics corporation in cannonsburg, washington county to listen to their ideas about what i can bring to washington, d.c. i heard a number of common themes, first, develop a national trapblg. second, make the r&d permanent. third, crack down on china's currency manipulation and other unfair trade policies so that pennsylvania companies and our workers have at least a fair shot. legislation i recently introduced gives us those tools to hold countries accountable for manipulating their currencies. fourth, extend trade adjustment assistance to help workers who lost their jobs to build new skills. finally, invest in science, technology, engineering and math, the so-called stem

discipline, which we know will create many jobs in the future. manufacturing is the heart and soul of pennsylvania and our nation's economy. our future depends on developing policies that help our workers and our businesses compete in the global production of goods. our workers and our businesses can outcompete anyone in the world, any country in the world. we just need to give them a fair shot. we need to give them a strategy. and these agreements don't do that. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. i would observe you have the misfortune of being in the chair whenever i end up coming down speak lately, but i appreciate your patience. mr. president, today congressional leaders are meeting with the president of the united states to discuss what can be done to reduce the nation's out-of-control deficit, to deal with our unsustainable debt, and to get america back to

work and help grow our economy. i want to congratulate the president for convening this meeting which will be probably one of the last chances we will have to deal with this deadline of august 2 to deal with the debt limit where we've maxed out our nation's credit card while spending 43 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends today is borrowed money, making that deficit worse, not better; making the debt worse and not better. this is the chance to kick the habit of out-of-control spending here in washington. i appreciate the fact the president has moved from his initial position when he advocated that congress simply raise the debt limit without putting washington and congress on a spending diet. i appreciate the fact he has moved in his position and read

today in the daily newspapers that he is putting a lot of things, including social security reform, on the table together with other entitlements. i hope this represents a change of position, a change of attitude and that the president and our negotiators will seize this opportunity to do the kind of grand bargain that will put america back on to a more solid fiscal path where every child born into the world in the united states today, while being one of the luckiest people in the world being born in the united states of america, but at the same time being burdened. every child born today will be burdened with $36,000 in their share of the national debt. and that's simply wrong, and we all know it. unfortunately, there has been a lot of discussion about the white house and some of our

democratic colleagues wanting to raise taxes as part of this grand bargain. indeed, i think that's the notion behind this sense of the senate resolution that the majority leader has introduced, which is targeted at millionaires and billionaires. and the sense of the senate resolution that the majority leader wants us to vote on is that it is the sense of the senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to deficit reduction. unfortunately, this is not real legislation. this won't change anything. this is a sense of the senate. this is a resolution which i think is a missed opportunity to actually deal with the issue rather than just pretend like we're treating it seriously.

when the white house proposes that working families and small businesses, among others, suffer a $400 billion tax increase over the next ten years, it strikes me that in one sense this is like a diet where you say i'm going to give up dessert. i'm not going to eat dessert. but then you binge on the buffet. in other words, it's not real. it's not going to work. to put this in perspective, the federal government is currently borrowing $4 billion every day this year. so actually raising taxes in this amount while this only amounts to ten days of what washington spends, raising taxes by $400 billion over ten years. and while we can see that that is not a -- won't make a serious dent in the deficit and the debt, they are very serious

job-killing proposals. it strikes me as just common sense to say if you want more jobs that you make it easier to create jobs. if you want less jobs, you make it harder to create jobs by raising taxes, by excessive regulation and other obstacles to job creation. the irony is that our friends on the other side who propose tax increases as part of this grand bargain, i'm not confident they actually want to use that increased revenue to pay down the deficit and the debt. to the contrary, i fear what they want to do is continue spending at the current levels. so it's really kind of a shell game, saying we're going to cut $2 trillion but we're going to raise taxes by $2 trillion. what does that mean? unless that $2 trillion in additional revenue is used to pay down the debt, it means it's a wash.

and government and washington continues business as usual. well, i don't think the american people want us to continue doing business as usual. i think they want us to listen to them and amend our ways. but let me just give you a context for what, how nonserious some of the proposals coming, including from the president of the united states. all of a sudden he focused last week on this depreciation schedule for corporate jets. now, deeing appreciation is a -- depreciation is a normal part of the tax code. if you use something in a business, you can basically write it down over time t. won't surprise you to find that if you did that, if you did what the president said, eliminate depreciation of corporate skwrerbgts it would generate -- corporate jets, it would generate about $3 billion in revenue to the federal treasury

over ten years. $3 billion over ten years. but just to get a sense of what a minuscule contribution that would make to solving the problem, consider what our annual deficit is. this is in one year. this is what $1.7 -- excuse me, $1.5 trillion looks like. it's got 12 zeros. one, five, 12, 11 zeros after the five. that's the annual deficit. the president says to solve this annual deficit you need to raise $3 billion in additional revenue from corporate jet owners. obviously a drop in the bucket. it's even worse when you look at the debt. the deficit is the difference between what congress brings in, whats federal government brings -- what the federal government brings in and what it spends. right now it's spending about $1.5 trillion more each year than it brings in in revenue. that's the deficit. but the accumulation, accumulation of those deficits

represents the debt. this is how much red ink that our federal government is spending, or where we find ourselves. and that's $14 trillion. this is the number that the president wants us to raise, $14 trillion. that's like the max on your credit card. and if you're spending too much money, you bump up against the credit card limit. the president in essence, rather than cutting back on spending, making sure you're paying your bills that you already owe, he wants to raise it so the federal government can spend more money. well, as i mentioned, this $14 trillion in debt boils down to $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. so when the president gives a press conference -- and i can't remember how many times he mentioned chartered jets, but he talks about $3 billion in revenue over ten years.

but it's a drop in the bucket dealing with a one-year deficit -- or deficit each year, currently this year $1.5 trillion, or a $14 trillion debt. so the fact of the matter is you cannot get there from here. even if you did what the president said, it's not serious. it's not honest. it's not candid in terms of what we need to do to get our country back on a solid fiscal pathway. so let's talk about federal tax reform. there's been a lot of discussion about that, where we want to take the tax code with all of its multiple provisions and get it on the table and take a look at it to make sure it's in my view, flatter, fairer and simpler. but right now, mr. president, the fact of the matter is that according to the committee on

joint taxation, 51% -- that's a majority of american households -- paid no income tax in 2009. zero. zip. nada. no income tax paid by 51% of the households in america in 2009. actually to show you how out of whack things have gotten, 30% of american households actually made money from the tax system by way of refundable tax credits, the earned-income tax credit, among others. so, 51% of american households paid no income tax in 2009, but 30% actually made money under the current system. according to the internal revenue service, the top 10% of wage earners in america paid 70% of total income taxes. the top 5% of income earners in

america pay nearly 60% of income taxes. and the top 1% pay 38% of income taxes. so what is the president talking about and what is the majority leader -- what point are they trying to make when they suggest we pass a sense of the senate resolution saying that millionaires should make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit-reduction effort? what are they -- what's their point? is their point we ought to raise taxes on people who are already paying taxes? is their point that people who don't pay taxes, that we should expand the pool of people who do not pay any income tax? or should we perhaps expand the pool of people who actually benefit from cash transfers, payments, as a result of a

refundable tax credit? well, i think it's pretty obvious that we need tax reform. i am skeptical that we have time between now and secretary geithner's stated deadline of august the 2nd to do what we need to do and to repair and to fix our broken tax system, but i think this helps put in context the, frankly, cynical suggestion that somehow we could solve the problem if we just go after the fat cats and the corporate jet owners. if we just mapping make l millionaires and billionaires pay more money, it'll all be all right. well, i think the american people are smarter than that. and when confronted with the facts, i think they can readily conclude -- and will readily conclude -- that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and we don't need a bunch of smoke and mirrors and phony

arguments about class warfare. that's not going to solve the problem. and we need to solve the problem. well, let's look at the president's economic record. you know, i know there's been some press reports about the president said we're making a comeback. i think he called this summer the summer of recovery, if i'm mott mistaken. but in fact we know that the president's policies are actually mawing things worse. all you need to do is look at the number of people who are unemployed in america -- 12 million unemployed on inauguration day; now it's almost i 14 million, almost 2 million more americans unemployed. is that making things better? no. it's making things worse. and we know that there are a lot of people who are taking

minimum-wage jobs and other jobs not up to their full potential because they want to provide for their families, so we call those underemployed. that would make that number even higher. when the president was inaugurated on -- in january of 2011, the unemployment rate was 7.8% -- 7.8%. today it's 9.1%. that should be a 1.7% -- it needs a decimal point there -- a 1.7% increase. in other words, unemployment is worse today than it was when the president was sworn in. gas prices -- we all know what's happened to gas prices, they've gone through the roof. people are having to deny themselves other discretionary expenditures because they simply have to have the gasoline to be able to drive to work, drive the kids to school, or to take care

of their daily business. the fact is, when the president was sworn in, gasoline prices were $1.85. well, wouldn't it be great if gas prices were $1.85 today. instead, they average $3.58. that's almost 100% increase in gasoline prices since president obama put his hand on the bible and was sworn in as president of the united states. a 94% creassments-- --a 94% increase. and then we were talking about the federal debt. the federal debt when the president was sworn in, some people will till, oh, it's all about president bush and fitti fighting two washings it's about the bush tax cuts and other -- well, i agree there's bipartisan blame when it comes to our national debt. but we ought to link arms and work together to try to solvent problem rather than continue to make it worse. the federal debt when the

president -- when president obama was sworn in was $1.6 trillion. today it's $14.3 trillion, 35% worse. the debt has gone up by 3w5% since president obama -- by 35% since president obama was sworn in. and i mentioned this factor earlier. this is the -- what every american citizen owes in terms of their share of the national debt. when president obama was sworn in it was $34,000. today it is $46,000. so, congratulations, everyone within the sowntdz o sound of me owes $11,000 more dollars of the national debt since president obama became president of the united states. then there's health insurance. we've had a lost debate about health insurance costs. we were told if we'd just pass this giant health care bill that health insurance costs would go down, that we would fix

problems, we'd make sure more people had access to health care. well, since president obama became president, health insurance premiums have gone up by 19% -- 19%. did he make if better or did he make it worse? well, mr. president, we need to unburden the economy from higher taxes, excessive regulation, and all the sorts of obstacles that get in the way of small businesses, the primary job-creating engine in our economy, from doing what it does best and that is growing the economy, creating jobs. if our friends across the aisle want more tax revenue, well, the best way to get more revenue to get more americans back to work, so they pay taxes, rather than remain unemployed, losing their home because they can't pay

their mortgage. that's how we ought to increase ref niewrks not by raising rates, not by some of these silly class warfare arguments that seem to target unpopular sectors of the economy. and, yes, we need to increase exports to create more jobs. and we can do that by ratifying the outstanding trade agreements without adding more spending to them. and the high price of gasoline, gone up 94% since president obama became president of the united states, we could open up more domestic energy reserves, more american natural resources rather than continue to have to import it from place places abrd that are not necessarily our friends, or which may be in political turmoil or even war, like libya. so if we had a rational national energy policy where the e.p.a., rather than looking for excuses

to deny us access to things like the natural gas discoveries that we have found in texas and around the country, if we had a way to take advantage of and did in fact take advantage of more domestic energy production that could help us put more americans back to work and help us reduce our dependency on energy from abroad and help bring down this price, the one that doesn't break the back of the average working families. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to rescind the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. cornyn: and i have a correction. my staff told me that i actually -- actually, i undercounted $14 trillion. i was worried about that since i -- and you asked ahead of time. but we actually got the number wrong. this is actually three zeros too few. so just to make sure the record is correct ... so that's 12 zeros after "14." that reflects our national den . i would like to have said it was much lower but it actually was much lower. which i think reinforces my point. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: while the senator is still here -- mr. president, i recall -- senator cornyn is a member of the budget committee and knowledgeable about these issues. we have had one budget actually presented to the house, and

that's the president's budget -- to the senate here. and scored by the congressional budget office, it shows is that the debt of the united states in ten years under the president's budget would increase $13 trillion. that's $13,000 billion dollars. i don't know if the senator is aware of it, but i would ask him, is he aware of how much additional revenue would come to the government if the president's proposal on corporate jet taxation were to be imposed and would that make a difference in the $13,000 billion dollars that would be added to the debt in the next ten years?

mr. cornyn: well, mr. president, responding to my friend from alabama, the number is roughly $3 billion in additional revenue to the treasury, and that would be over ten years. but, as you can see, it's a drop in the bucket when it comes to the deficit for one year, which is $1.5 trillion, and the national debt of $14 trillion, and i apologize that i was -- the number -- i'm not used to dealing with numbers that big, and which demonstrates that these numbers have really lost their meaning here. i remember everett dirksen being quoted, "a million here, a million there, pretty siewrn a talking about real money." we're not talking about millions, we're not talking about billions, we're talking about trillions. i think most people's minds have a difficult time conceiving of how big a number that is. mr. sessions: well, i thank the senator. i would ask unanimous consent

that i be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: and, senator cornyn could join us, we'd be pleased. mr. president, the debt situation that we're in today is the most serious our nation has ever faced. a lot of people don't understand it and don't understand how serious it is. even after world war ii, we had growth, we had the baby boomers just becoming of age, we had more young people and fewer older people, and the situation was even though we had debt after the war, it was more positive than it is today. that's just a fact. i have tried to look at creation

of a budget that would balance in ten years, bring us into balance in ten years. it's hard to do. it absolutely can be done. it takes some real effort. but it can be done, and we could do it -- we've got to do it. but we double the debt -- president obama during his four years as president is on track to doubling the entire debt of america in four years. with four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, the highest deficit we've had previously was a $450 billion deficit that president bush had. we've had $1.2 trillion, $1 $1,200,000,000,000, $1,300,000,000,000. this year as of september 30, when the fiscal year ends, it's estimated to be $1,500,000,000,000 or so.

debt -- extra debt. we take in $2.2 trillion. we're spending $3,700,000,000,000 this year. 40 cents of every dollar that we spend this year is borrowed. it is a an unsustainable course. president obama appointed a deficit commission. he chose erskine bowles, who was former chief of staff to president clinton. he chose alan simpson, former republican senator. they submit ad -- submitted a statement to the budget committee. that statement was this country faces the most predictable economic crisis in its history. we've got to act, they told us. and they said when could this crisis happen? mr. bowles said it could happen within two years. not our children and grandchildren. he said two years, maybe a little sooner, maybe a little

later, and alan simpson popped up as cochairman of the committee and he said i think it could be one year. in other words, some sort of economic crisis like we had in 2007-2008 or something that could put our economy in a tailspin. it's that serious. and the debt trajectory path we're on is unsustainable, and tomorrow i have to say tomorrow will mark the 800th day that this senate has not had a budget we're spending -- we're borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and we have gone this long without a budget. there is no plan apparently to present one. a chairman of the budget committee where i'm ranking republican tells us that he has got one, that he has talked to his colleagues and they have agreed on it, but it remains

secret. the congressional budget act explicitly says we should have a budget by april 15. it said the committee should begin markup april 1. well, we have not called the committee and not had a markup, and apparently there is no plan to. we're just going to wait and see if secret negotiations could produce something. that's not acceptable, at a time in which the debt is the primary threat to the health, security and welfare of our nation. there is no doubt about it. admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. secretary of state clinton, hillary clinton, said a very similar thing. they are exactly right. there is no dispute about this. and so we have had nothing on the floor of the senate except now a resolution saying we should tax the rich.

a sense of the senate that has no power, no binding authority, no numbers, no how much we're going to tax the rich. just that kind of thing. so, mr. president, we are in a serious condition. i think the american people if they understood how little has been done in this body this year on the most important issue facing this country, they would be even more dissatisfied with the united states congress than they are, more dissatisfied at least with the senate, because i will have to say my colleague, our new senator from missouri, is not new to congress. he was a republican whip in the house of representatives, and the house has passed a budget this year, an honest budget, a budget that changes the debt trajectory of america in a solid way and would put us on a new path for prosperity. everybody doesn't have to agree

with everything in it, but they met their responsibility by april 15. so it's great to be with senator blunt. we are so pleased to have him in the senate, but i would just ask him to -- if he would share his thoughts at this time. mr. blunt: i would, senator, and i am going to ask you about your sense of this budget situation. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: i think we're in a colloquy, so do we need to be recognized or can we recognize each other? the presiding officer: the first time you stand up, the chair should acknowledge, but it's not necessary from now on. mr. blunt: i thank the chair. the presiding officer and i were secretaries of state together some time ago and have known each other a long time, and i'm glad to be serving with him and glad to have him in the chair as we have this discussion, but the -- i don't think the house until the last congress ever failed to pass a budget. i'm not sure the senate didn't

always pass a budget until the last congress although there were times when the house and senate couldn't agree, but at least each side had a plan. there is that old adage when you fail to plan, -- when you fail to plan, you plan to fail, and it sure looks like to me that's on the trajectory we're on right now. members are more and more talking about well, maybe we'll have another continuing resolution this year. that will be the appropriations process because we have no plan. and, of course, as you pointed out, as a person who knows as much about the budget process as anybody in washington, we -- we passed the april 1 deadline and then we passed i guess a may 1 date and then we passed a june 1 date and now we passed a july 1 date and we're up to that 800th day since the senate passed a plan, since the senate had a plan of any kind, and we're waiting for a plan to move forward with the other work of

just funding the government. and clearly that's not acceptable. it's -- we see the economy i think continuing to wait for some signs of certainty from the federal government, certain about what our budget is going to be, certain about what our tax structure is going to be, certain about regulations and utility bills, and we're just not seeing that happen. in fact, things are getting progressively worse and worse and worse. gas prices have almost doubled now in the last 30 months. unemployment is up 17%. in fact, i -- there is no statistic i know of that's better than it was in january of 2009, and i don't know, senator. was there ever a -- has the senate in the past until the last three years now, has there ever been a time when the senate didn't even attempt to have a budget? >> there is, to my knowledge, no time since i have been here that the senate did not attempt to

pass a budget. the first two years under the -- the last two years, even when our democratic colleagues had 60 votes, the largest majority i guess almost in recent memory in the senate, they did not attempt to bring a budget to the floor last year. a budget did go to committee. it was marked up by senator conrad, it came to the floor, but majority leader reid decided not to bring it up. this year i think at his decision, probably -- nobody, it seems to be so -- senator conrad was told not to have a markup, not to even produce a budget in committee. and it seems to me, senator blunt, that that indicates a lack of willingness to lead, because wouldn't you agree a budget sets your priorities, it demonstrates what your vision for the future of the country is and what we should spend and

what we should tax and how much debt we can afford to run up, and those are the fundamental responsibilities. and how would you evaluate the fact that for two years, tomorrow 800 days without a budget, what does it say about the leadership that we have seen here in the senate? mr. blunt: well, we have had 800 days without a budget, but basically we have 800 days without any structured process of how we spend the people's money. 800 days. this is the last time we could come up with an appropriations process and we'll modify that a little bit and move forward, and that clearly is not good enough. and in that 800 days, as you pointed out, in that 800 days, we have gone to where we're now -- we have added 35% in a little over 800 days, 35% in two

and a half years to the federal deficit. this is not defending anybody else's effort to make the revenue and the expenditures of the federal government balance, but you can't continue to spend more than you have, and if you don't have a plan, if you don't have a blueprint, if you don't have a budget like families have to have a budget set down, if you don't have a budget at the very least you're managing your money, you sit down once a month, write the checks until your money runs out and you can't do much more than that. we're at a point now where we're spending $3.7 trillion, $3.8 tri llion, we're collecting collecting $2.2 trillion. i'm sort of like senator cornyn on this topic -- and by the way, everybody else is, too, including the secretary of the treasury. nobody knows how much money this is, but we do all know if you're making $22,000 a year and you're spending $37,000 a year and you

have already borrowed more money than probably anybody should have ever lent you, you can't continue to do that. at some point, there has to be a moment when you say we're going to have to get real here and we're making $22,000, we better start spending no more than than $22,000, and that includes paying off the money that we have already borrowed when we were spending $37,000. there are so many zeros and so many numbers here that if any of us really understood how much money we're talking about and how long we'll take to way it back, we would all be more scared than we are, and certainly the people we work for would be more scared than they are because we're doing irresponsible things, and as irresponsible as any of those things is not having to plan. and i know all the years you spent on the budget committee and your leadership on that committee now, you don't know what to do if you don't have a plan, and the appropriations process doesn't move forward

unless we agree first how much money we're going to spend in that process. and so eventually you just go back and say let's go back to last year, modify slightly the terrible job we did last year and borrow that much more money again, and that is not acceptable. mr. sessions: well, i'd like in a moment to share some thoughts from your extensive experience in the leadership of the congress about the appropriations process just briefly make sure that the american people and our colleagues know what's happened. but i see our colleague from wisconsin, senator ron johnson. newly elected. he had i think you could say an upset victory, a popular, big victory. he went out and campaigned all over his state, talked about the issues we're talking about today. senator johnson, as a new member of the senate, i'd love to hear

your comments about where you think we are today and how you feel about it. mr. johnson: well, senator sessions, first of all, thank you for your leadership on this issue. i know you have been talking loud and clear about the fact that we should not have recessed this week. and i know president obama tried to claim credit for that, but it's because of your leadership and really the members of the republican conference here in the senate who said no, we're bankrupting america. we need to stay here and we need to start debating this issue. and unfortunately, that is not really what we have been doing this week. it's sad. one word that i -- i use all the time now that i have come here to washington is unbelievable. i mean, it's simply unbelievable that tomorrow will mark 800 days that we haven't passed a budget. that's unbelievable. my background is in business for the last 34 years. i have had to produce budgets on time. i have had people produce budgets for me on time. in business, i don't -- even a small little business, it's

inconceivable that you would tell accounting, make sure your budget, we ned to have that on our desk on april 15. i would say 99.9% of those accountants, those controllers would have a budget on time on april 15. and we're dealing with the united states of america. we're talking about our financial future here, the fate of america and the democrats here in the senate have failed to meet that obligation two years in in a row. i mean, it's simply unbelievable. it's so incredibly irresponsible. i think the senate has been guilty of willful neglect. i think the phrase i have been using, the senate has been fiddling while america's going broke, and that's sad. and now i think as you pointed out as well, what does the financial future of america rest on? some secret talks. talks between a few individuals

going on behind closed doors far from the view of the american republic. rather than an orderly process where a plan is presented that can be viewed by the american public, that can be debated in open the way our founders envision it on the floor of the senate, this historic floor, instead of using the process that we should have been using, what's going to happen? are we going to have a result, a negotiated settlement dropped in our lap what? a couple days before this deadline date? is that what's going to happen? is that really -- is that really how the financial fate of america is going to be decided? i mean, personally i find that process disgusting. that's why i stood up last tuesday on the floor of the senate and said unless we start seriously addressing this problem, the bankrupting of america, in the open, in the bright light of day, i was g