can you? .. >> what is my reason to be concerned about that? and then they don't, well, you see, if the people start getting married, then all the straight people have to get divorced. [laughter]

because there's only so much marriage in america. [laughter] and they want it for themselves, and, i mean, these people, serious people. and i say, can't we just print up some more marriage licenses or something? [laughter] isn't that hard to do? i me, the last time i checked moving from in america wasn't that to me people want to make loving, lasting commitments to each other. that's not the main problem. i checked with the kardashians. that's not the main problem. [applause] i just don't get it. don't attack the diversity. the diversity of the country is not our greatest weakness. it's going to be the source of every solution that we have. it's because we have everything

here. is because we have every color, every class, every kind of human being in the world is right here in the united states of america. and we get along. not perfectly, but i've been to countries, they've got to ethnic groups, and they fight all the time. 2, 2, 2. [laughter] y'all can't make it with 2? [laughter] my kids in second grade. is in california. they have 36 languages in the elementary school. 36. and they don't fight over that. they don't break out the legos. they will fight like heck over the legos. [laughter] but they don't fight over ethnicity. we are getting better at that. as tough as it is where the best in the world at it right now.

30, 130. and we make it work. it is a miracle in human history when we do every day. in america. a miracle in human history. [applause] and we have a long way to go. but taking steps backwards, no, protect the diversity. restore the prosperity. that's the way forward. now, how do you restore the prosperity? well, one way you might want to restore the prosperity is stop dumping tons and tons of money, more money than any investor country in the world into a health care system that gives us very little back. that might actually come if he took some of those dollars and put them towards something else, we might be able to grow the economy. you see, this health care system is actually a check on the good

growth of the country. now, y'all know more than that than i do and i know a lot better than to talk to experts about the area of expertise but i was on the internet -- [laughter] i'm going to talk about it. i found it on the internet. that we've been, spent three times as much money on health care system as the entire gdp of india. now, if it's wrong, blame google, but i wouldn't be surprised. because the gdp of india, they're beginning to develop, still wrote to the small, in dollar terms, why do our insurance companies need just try to keep us from getting a pill, three times as much money as all the people in india used to live. there's something wrong. and it is this argument we have to have now about what is in the

way of us being able to reinvent and renew and rebuild the american dream in this country. now, when i see the american dream, some people react funny, and they should. i don't mean the american community -- you know what that is? everybody is going to be rich. i'm going to ride my credit card out to the suburbs, get me a mcmansion, and xbox, and i'm going to get a big flatscreen tv to cover up the holes in my life. and i'm going to be happy. that's not the american dream. that's the american fantasy that led to an american nightmare. that's an american fantasy that led to american nightmare. that deserve no dissent and will

get none. but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. the very first thing dr. king said about his dream, in that beautiful speech, 1963, by the way, he was 33. did you know that? he was 33 years old, march on washington. don't count out young people. we always think dr. king was like 97. [laughter] he was dead at 39. i'm 43. i would have to call in, you know kids. don't count out young people. somebody mentioned occupy wall street. i don't speak for occupying wall street. i will speak up for occupy wall street though. i will speak up for. [applause] they woke up the courage and hope people will stay awake. but the very first thing, don't

count out young people. for the very first thing that young man said about his dream, he said i have a dream, it is a dream deeply rooted in the american dream. he was not talking about consumerism. he was not talking about commercialism. he was talking about living in the country where everybody counts and everybody -- everybody's dreams matter. he was taught to living in a country where you didn't have to be born with a famous last name or with a lot of money and your parents bank account to build get somewhere. to be able to not be the biggest consumer, but have a productive life. to have a productive life. to be a contribution to the world. that shouldn't just be reserved for a few. especially attainable by all.

that's worth defending. we know it's worth defending because people were put in the ground, including that young man, because they wanted that dream to be real in america. think about the sacrifices that were made by that generation, many of you in this room. to continue the quest for that dream. and you think about the kind of vitriol, nastiness, dishonesty that these dream killers want to spew into our body politics and say that's what america is about. and you can see that this fight that you are having, to make sure that we believe that people are born equal, that's a part of what makes us americans, and that starting point record in life should include being able to see a doctor if you are sick. that fundamental commitment to each other so that this child

who's got a lot of money, and this child who has none, at least can bring a healthy body to kindergarten, some starting point equality. and that after contributing through a lifetime with a few hiccups along the way that late in life you don't have to worry about losing everything, that you build up for your family, just because you got sick. that you want to have some basic floor, some starting point equality so that people can rise and fly on their own. if that vision, that dream is to endure and to take another step forward, your heroism has to be grounded in something deeper than just an abstract technical policy debate. they are not treating you like a technocrat, because you are not.

that little policy that you're going back home to try to push through the city council, that state legislature, is a piece of the dream, a piece of the deeper vision year it's another thread in the fabric of a nation that we are becoming, it's another step towards being the land of the free, and the home of the brave. we have to be courageous. we had hope, we had to spare under w. we had hope with obama. we had feared with the tea party. we have had outrage and indignation, thank goodness, with occupy wall street. but now it's time for courage. just courage. just standing for what we believe, standing for who we are, and knowing that we are standing on the shoulders of

giants. giants who never gave up on the dream. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> in my enthusiasm, i neglected to ask for index cards. so we have 15 minutes. here's what we're going to do. we will have a couple of

questions from the floor to buy time. and if the rest of you would like to send some index cards up, we have 15 minutes. and for those of you who want to have further exposure, let me remind you that at 2:30 we will participate at the herndon annual meeting which will be in regency d., and you will have a second opportunity, including asking some questions. so, midwicket also has a life. it's going to be a lot easier to see hans van in the dark. so, if you will fill out some cards. but in the meantime, who would like to ask the first question? and we have some walking

microphones. >> hello. >> hello. you talk about standing on the shoulders of giants. >> very good. >> and patriotism your the utmost form of patriotism for which people have died, voting. >> you said voting? >> voting. voting. and there is so much activity, so much discussion about photos -- voter depression coming up. can you speak about that? >> yes. how many people are aware that in the equal number of states that it would take to elect the president, there are active efforts to make voting harder rather than easier for americans? are you aware of that? this is disgusting.

they aren't geniuses, reserve point. they say to themselves, my god, all of these young people voted for obama, two to one for obama. here's what we've got to do. we've got to go talk to those young people. we've got to find out what their issues are. we got to be some way to convince them to be a part of our party. nevermind. we will just keep them from voting. cheaper, easier. how do they do it? remember when you were in college and you went to vote? did you have to have a driver's license in the state you went to college in to vote? no, you just abroad your college id, maybe home state license. they say you can't bring your

college id, kids. you've got to have a drivers license in this state. they are doing all over the place to knock out young people. they're doing a whole nother thing to not get african-americans, a whole deal. and when you combine the two threats to democracy, big money and quiet bigotry, citizens united flooding in big money, and then this group called al that, have you heard of this group? ain't they terrible? i mean, and it's such a nice name, alec. can't trances come out for dinner? of course, dear. [laughter] you know they are smart aleck. the group alec comes up with all these terrible ideas and they spread them around in corporation give them money to do it. isn't that terrible? corporations you like and you get the money and you buy their products, they give money to alec to take away the right to vote. remember the white citizens

council a try to stop you from voting? remember that? this is like the white citizens council on steroid called alec. they are trying to stop americans from voting and that's wrong. >> we've already got one of the index cards. this comes from -- sorry if i miss pronounce your name. ted, thank you. question, do you feel that the american movement will expand to focus from the occupy movement, which has provided a necessary change in our nation's dialogue, to include a greater focus on changing our nation's laws to make a real positive systematic change for all americans? >> well, first of all, again, i don't speak for occupy wall street. i speak up for them because i that when young people, just like the student non-violent coordinating committee, were you

stand up? i know, i know, but -- [applause] i know, i know, but stand up. i was not going to make you that old, sister. [laughter] but i was going to brag on you for caring for the work. that's what was going to brag on you for. where it's hard. the student non-violent coordinating committee, sncc, were young people who were willing to put their bodies on the line. they occupied lunch counters. they occupied buses that went down south. some of them were killed. one of our great heroes who was carried that work forward, but here's the thing about those young students. nobody expected those young students who risk their lives to then turned around and produce comprehensive legislation just to end segregation. we tell these young protesters,

show year after processing, but what's your proposal for derivative reform? [laughter] i think, what are your demands after all? isn't that ignorant? this child slept outside. on the hard ground, pepper sprayed, chased around by the police saying i would like to have a job. i would like there to be a middle class. i would like for congress not to be for sale. but what are your demands? know, their job is to start the conversations of the rest of us can talk about something that makes some sense. and so they've done a great job, but i don't speak for them. now, what i will say is that they put us in an important and they've given us an opportunity to turn some of this energy that

they've kicked up into power. think about that. a lot of energy, september, october, november to december, no power. when the tea party, god bless them, have their protests, they turned to protest into some power. and they took over a big chunk of congress. and present their holding us all hostage on the debt ceiling step. that's power. you know what? if you go to a tea party rally or protest right now, it's about as many people at these two tables that will show a. they are not a bree big proteste but they have a caucus in the house. they have presidential debates that people have to come, they turned to protest energy into political power. we've got to do that. and the way we do that is to begin to election i some of the

issues they were talking about. standing up for their right to be free from the student loan oppression that they are suffering under. [applause] let me just say a few words about this because i am surprised that we've been as silent as we have been. in the face of this sort of abuse of our young people. first of all, you've got to understand why these young people are so mad, out there protesting, laying industry, getting pepper sprayed. why? because they can't get jobs, we know that, but you and i told them to go to college. they don't want to go to college. lo, i go anything i want to on the internet. that's not enough. you listen to me, young man. you're going to college. well, we will have -- and i have

a gap year? know. i want to see the world. you will see the world after you get out of college. and we made them go. and they went. some did well, some did badly, some four years, some five years, some five and a half. but when they got out, they graduate off a cliff into the worst economy since the great depression, and they wind up sitting on the couch next to their cousin has been playing on the xbox for four years, and he doesn't have any debt. and they do. they've got big debt because tuition was going up, up, up, up. and had to go get loans not just federal loans, but the private loans. and what you don't understand is that the bankers went into congress 2005 and they changed the law so that you can never go into bankruptcy court with your student loan, federal, which has

always been that way, or private. which means they can never get out from underneath the obligation, which means when they miss a payment and they miss another one, the bank has no interest in working things out within. they just get fees and a credit score is destroyed and the unemployable because they did what we told them to do. now, that's wrong. if i go get a bank loan and blow my money in las vegas, i go to bankruptcy court in be fun. if you get a loan and go to college and can't get a job, you're ruined. there's something about that. if we talk about bad along with health care, along with these underwater mortgages, and talk about an agenda that 99% of americans can agree with, then you won't have to have -- those people out there protesting, what? are going to give them something to vote for? that's the question. and about this young generation, let me say this.

do not underestimate them. they talk funny. they have piercings. [laughter] they make up genders. [laughter] i can't always relate. they talk with their thumbs. they get mad. [laughter] what are you doing, some? i'm having an argument. [laughter] they are strange. don't underestimate them. the biggest generation that we've ever had since the baby boomers, the baby boomers when they get there teams and 20s they turn the whole country around, just like that. 1959 looked like leave it to beaver. unless you're black.

[laughter] kind of like left out of beaver. but, you know, you get the basic point. 1959, leave it to beaver. 1969, totally different country. why? a whole bunch of young people got involved. broke the back of jim crow, women's rights, the war. 10 years, boom, different country. you've got a big wave coming out. every color in the skittles bag. they walk around with these little ipads and iphones and stuff. more computing power on their person in the u.s. government had when put a man on the moon. every one of them walking technological superpower. and they have an interest now in making sure everything we talk about comes true. don't underestimate them. they stood up in 2008 and made

history. it wasn't a landslide in the country except within. they made it into a landslide. they stood up in 2008 and made history. they sat down in 2010 and made history. the wrong kind. they lay down in the street, 2011. occupy wall street and made history. stand up, sydow, lay down, they make history. don't underestimate these young people. i think we're going to see a lot from them this year, and if we listen to them, they can tell us more about what's wrong and what could be right for this country. but the attack on the voting rights, the attack on african-american voting rights has gone unanswered. we talk about citizens united, that's only one edge of the scissor. the other is, is stop them from voting. we've got to be able to stand up to both of them and we will be able to get the job done. >> so, who would like to have the honor of asking the final brief question?

[inaudible] >> use the mic. >> what are your suggestions to help us move the message about supporting the affordable care act into community, no matter if their community with, or community that are diverse, whatever the committee, how can we build support? >> well, you know, you guys are more expert on that than i am. what i know for sure is that the tools that are emerging, both high-tech and high touch, give us the opportunity i think to do a much more effective job. see, part of what we are doing wrong when it comes to the people who want to keep building this dream is that, if we talk to somebody about our issue, health care in this case, green

jobs in my case, if they're not interested in our issue, we say well, we told them as nevermind. and we move on. and we don't actually aggregate data. attribute some is not interested in your issue but they're interested in other issues. if we had the kind of movement where all of us were trying to figure out not to will you support me, but what do you want to support, and then we could actually see that information back into something. we would be much stronger. something with rebuild the dream i've been trying to talk to leaders about. it doesn't make any sense, some poor person, not only for economically, progress is working in her neighborhood, and knock on the door for the union, knock on the door for environmental, knock on the were. worse, enough from the of our middle, enough from another environment, e-mail from women. and at no point to get

assistance -- the since people are talking to each other. i would like to see part of why we put together this contract with the american dream is to give us a basis to start cooperating a little bit better than that. the contract for the american dream, we got 131,203 people to write a document together. yes, it was hard. but we did it online and also in person. people were very impressed with the tea party when they did it. they had 50,000 people online. we did 131,203, almost tripled the tea party and came up with an agenda, health care is one of the template and program but we came up with an agenda that we have 70 organizations involved, afl-cio, moveon.org, planned parenthood, and there was not a common ground agenda for aggressors called the contract

for the american dream. and one other point was health care. it gives us a basis, and what we are just wanted to do right now is to get all the groups that are working on those issues to cooperate so we can begin to share data so that even if only, you know, 30% of the people you're talking a care about your issue, those others seven people you talk to don't get lost. i guarantee you very small things like that are going to create a very big outcomes for us in terms of power, not just in of your agenda, my agenda, his agenda, her agenda, but the whole agenda and the whole country. thank you very much. [applause] >> the senate is about to gavel in. senators will spend the morning debating whether to disapprove a $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase related to that motion

is planned at noon eastern time. the house voted last week to block the increase, the senate also voted to block the measure would go to the president he was likely to veto the measure. in that case, the house and senate would have to come up with a two-thirds majority to override the veto. senate also votes on temporary tax extension of federal aviation programs, fees and taxes, they run out at the end of the month. house and senate negotiators say they're close to a long-term agreement. the house passed a short-term extension earlier this week. the house is not in session today. democratic members are in cambridge, maryland, for the annual issues conference. live coverage of the senate begins momentarily here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by rerpbd james c. -- the reverend james c. smith senior pastor of mount zion missionary baptist church in pioneer, louisiana. the guest chaplain: let us pray. our almighty god says, "if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways; then will i hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place." lord, please grant our lawmakers the humblity to know that complete consensus on most of the moral, religious or political issues of these times is beyond their control.

only you, almighty god, can move this body to seek your wise counsel and live to honor you above all else. as apostle paul says, "endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. there is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling" may god bless america. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the 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., january 26, 2012. 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: the guest chaplain, from the state of louisiana, is my understanding senator vitter would thraoeubg say a few words. -- like to say a few words. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. it is my true honor, joy, to help host reverend smith today. he is the senior pastor of mount zion missionary baptist church in pioneer, louisiana. he's from rayville, louisiana. all of this is in northeast louisiana, the monroe area. reverend smith is very distinguished and has brought real hope to so many people in so many communities in that

area. first of all, as a spiritual leader, a leader of his congregation and so many others. secondly, as a true leader in fighting truancy, fighting dropout rates very effectively and also developing good jobs in the area through many school systems in the area. but the third point i really want to make, mr. president, is i'm most joyful to help host him today because he is a true and a good and a tremendously supportive friend. and i know that from personal experience, from personal counsel and encouragement. and so do so many other louisianians know that. and we cherish the reverend in that very personal way. so i'm truly honored and delighted to be able to introduce the senate to reverend

smith. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks this morning the senate will begin consideration of the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 98, a joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the president's exercise authority to increase the debt limit. the time between noon will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. i designate whatever time we have on this saoeupl to the chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus. at noon we'll vote on the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 98. mr. president, in 1946, president harry truman delivered his first state of the union message. this was the first state message since the end of world war ii. truman laid out a vision for not only how america could survive those challenges but describe. he said our basic objective

toward which all others lead is to improve the welfare of the american people. that's what he said. that meant economic prosperity. it meant social security and unemployment insurance. it meant opportunity for higher education, access to medical care and the dream of homeownership. the goal he wrote, was -- quote -- "that we become a well-housed people, well-nourished people, educated people, people socially and economically secure and alert and responsible." in the three decades that followed that vision, that was reality. the middle class was never larger, never stronger. it has never been easier to become part of that middle class. that's the way it was. through hard work and ingenuity, americans prospered together. for three decades after world war ii, the rungs on the ladder of success grew closer together. but in the three decades that followed, something changed. the goal was the same: to be

well housed, well-educated, a nation of economically secure people, but for many reaching that goal became very difficult, certainly more difficult. incomes skyrocketed for the rich but stalled for the rest. the middle class lost more and more ground. today the rich% hold -- today the rich is 1%, based on a quarter of all the wages, income, personal income. 1% takes 25% of that. and i preet, the richest -- i repeat the richest 1% holds nearly half of all the wealth in this country. americans are working hard, just as hard as they worked 60 years ago. that hard work is paying off for fewer and fewer people. what does that mean? for the last three decades the rungs of the ladder to success have grown farther apart instead of closer together. the farther apart these rungs

grow, fewer americans climb that ladder. the farther apart those rungs are, the fewer americans make it into a disappearing middle class. we weathered the worst recession since the great depression but the financial collapse of 2008 wasn't the cause of the problem. it was a symptom of the problem. it was the symptom of a system that's rigged to pay off for a few but leave many behind. it's time to even the playing field. as we rebuild our economy, let's rebuild it to last, to work for every american regardless of the size of their bank account. this week president obama laid out a vision to do just that. the president's plan will spur manufacturing. it's time to reward companies that make it in america and end giveaways to companies that ship jobs overseas, it will reduce our rely ons an foreign oil. in spite of the fact, mr. president, that president obama said that just less than

ten years ago we were importing 60% of the oil, now it's less than 50%. we're producing more oil than we have in about a decade. that's good but we need to make sure the future is one of renewable energy. the plan will ensure today's students have the skills to become tomorrow's workers. that's the only way to keep pace in a competitive world economy. and it will return this country to the core values that always made it a great country, a country of fairness. everyone must share the prosperity as well as the responsibility. and every person and every corporation must pay -- must play by the same rules. that value incurs three decades of growth after world war ii and make america grow again. as i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this vision of fairness a reality.

mr. president, i would -- did the republican leader coming down? -- is the republican leader coming down? well, what we'll do here is senator baucus will be happy to give the floor to the republican leader when he shows up. he's here? okay, great. would the chair announce the business of the days. -- business of the day. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i want to discuss briefly a trip i took recently to a country that for much of the past 350 years is ranked among the world's most isolated and

oppressed by its own government. many ofe of us wondered if thins would ever change in burma, but after my virveghts you'll pleased to say that change is clearly in the a. it appears that they've made some progress towards democracy in the past six months, made more than it has in the last decades. as one who has taken a strong interest in burma for over 20 years and assed lead author in this chamber of an annual sanctions bill aimed at encouraging the burmese government to reform, i can tell you this is welcome news. on this trirntion i had the opportunity and the privilege to meet with a woman who for over two decades has embodied the struggle for peace in her oppressed country. after aung san suu kyi's country won 80% of the vote back in 1990, the burmese government dismissed the results and kept her under house arrest for the past 22 years, confined at home.

scores of other political reformers during that period were jailed or tortured an the regime waged a brutal campaign against ethnic minorities driving many of them out of their homes and into refugee camps. but by her courage and her patience that justice delayed would not be justice denied, aung san suu kyi has kept the hope of freedom in her country alive. i've long admired her from afar. she once took a great risk to struggle out of burma a letter thanking me for my support, a letter i have proudly kept to this day. but never did i think i would get to meet the nobel laureate in person and, mr. president, it was quite a moment. following an election in 2010 that was widely thought to be unfree and unfair, the new civilian government in burma, to the surprise of many of us, has

made undeniably positive steps towards reform. in addition to releasing suu kyi from house arrest, the scores of other political prisoners have been freed. during my visit last week, i spoke with two who had just been released days before my arrival. and one of the longest-standing armed conflicts of the world, the burmese stand against the karem has apparently been brought to close. many karem people who have fled burma now call kentucky home. i had the chance to meet with many of them and other refugees from burma, now resettled in kentucky, at louisville's crescent hill baptist church. i enjoyed meeting with these folks and was pleased to relay to them the same message i share with my colleagues today, that change is indeed in the air in their country. because of all these positive

developments, i applaud secretary clinton's recent decision to exchange ambassadors with burma for the first time in 20 years. of course the government of burma still has a substantial way to go to achieve real and lasting reform. i would not support and i don't think the administration would support lifting the sanctions that have been imposed unless there is much further progress. the next test will be elections to fill 48 seats of the national parliament on april 1. suu kyi intends to run as the representative of the district with a significant karen population. this election will give the new government an opportunity to hold the first free and fair elections in burma since 1990. and also demonstrates the seriousness of its recent reform efforts. the government must also fully and peacefully reconcile with bur pa's ethnic minorities. this is vital. reports indicate that the military continues to engage in hostilities with the kachin, and

that is certainly troubling and questions about burma's relationship with north korea must be answered. as the new government enacts reforms, we should respond with meaningful gestures of our own in hopes of encouraging further positive developments from burma's leaders. reform is like new president tansane are strengthened when they show positive results. steps like exchanging ambassadors with the united states would enable them to do just that. so my trip to burma has filled me with hope for its people, hope that they will one day be free to elect their own leaders, and hope that every person, regardless of ethnic group, can enjoy equal rights and full protection under the rule of law. it also reaffirms to me the desire to be free is absolutely universal and that the patient yet persistent leadership of one woman can make a tremendous

difference. these are indeed exciting times for all who care about the future of the people of burma. i know that includes a great many of my colleagues here in the senate. burma has quite a long way to go, but it is certainly moving in the right direction. now, mr. president, on another matter, a few weeks ago president obama asked congress to raise the nation's debt ceiling. today virtually every republican in the senate will oppose that request. washington needs to start spending less than it takes in, and our future will be uncertain and our economy in danger as long as the president fails to lead on this crucial issue. president obama's record on the issue is absolutely clear. on the day he took office, the nation's debt stood at $10.6

trillion. today it's $15.2 trillion. more spending, more debt, fewer jobs -- that's what we've gotten from this administration. and now they want to make it worse. look, we should be working together to lower the debt, not having votes to increase it. but the president must be willing to face this crisis head-on. he must be willing to acknowledge how serious this issue is. most americans understand that we can't keep spending money we don't have on programs we don't need. unfortunately, the president doesn't seem to be one of those americans. he's got no plan to get this crisis under control, and he continues to act as if it really just isn't a priority. has he noticed how that's working out for europe? americans are worried and think you're frustrated. middle-class families are doing without. why can't washington? well, we believe it can.

so today republicans will send a simple message to the white house: no more blank checks. democrats have been in charge of the senate and the white house for three years. they've had the time they need to figure this out. they've chose the path of blame instead. they've had their chance. they've made it worse. we must do better. with that, mr. president, i now move to proceed to h.j. res. 98. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 2k 94, h.j. res. 98, joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the president's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit as submitted urchedz section 3101-a of title 31, united states code, on january 12, 2012. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their

designees for debate on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the snr from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the following staff of the finance committee be allowed on the floor for the discussion on the

debt limit, ama did a summers, yohanas, sarchson chin, irene doga, daistled schar, and amanda barton. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: benjamin franklin said, nonperformance will turn friends into enemies. we should be clear about what the debt limit means and when it does not mean. raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. let me make that clear. raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. it does not mean an increase in future spending. what does it mean? it simply means that the united states will be able to meet its obligations. increasing the debt limit only permits the treasury department to pay the bills we have already incurred.

it does not authorize new spending. it says -- it permits the government to pay the bills that ihave already been incurred. they've been incurred. we owe the obligation. it says, okay, we owe that. it's in the law. it's in the past. it's history. we've glot to pay the bills. it alloit allow the louse our cy to meet our obligations to our citizens and it provides the money to provide the benefits to millions of seniors and veterans and families that depend on them every day to make ends meet. we should remember why we're taking today's vote. last august congress enacted the budget control act of 2011. we all remember. this legislation reduced spending by $2.1 trillion. that was a budget action taken by the president and the congress together that reduced federal spending by $2.1 trillion.

it's a reduction. that's not commonly understood, not widely known, but that's a fact. and it provided a plan to raise the debt limit by the same amount. it did so so that the federal government could meet its financial obligations, so we could keep our promises. today's vote would reverse that agreement in modest. voting to disapprove an increase in the financial limit is unusual. it would be very much like your bank increasing your line of credit unless you tell them not to. nonetheless, that is the issue we're debating and voting on in the senate. passing this resolution would mean that there would be no money to keep our promises. the united states would default for the first time in its history. it would send a message to the world, the united states does not keep its promises. with all the uncertainty in the world, especially in europe,

that could have disastrous consequences. it could be a contagion, a reaction, it could pirl in the t could spiral in the wrong direction. an interaction on the two, the united states faulting on its debt and in europe, some countries dwawling on ers this, perhaps greece. this is clearly the long time to take an action which would lead the united states to place it in default. it would be disastrous consequences for our economy alone, irrespective of the repercussions around the world, especially europe. our gross domestic product would shrink by as much as 1% and more than $150 billion. we would be defaulting. that default would compromise our credit rating. what would happen if our credit rating is in jeopardy? it would cause interest rates to skyrocket. just think what would happen, mr. president, if the united

states, as we're struggling to slowly get our economy going, would be faced with a big spike in interest rates. that would stop the recovery dead in its tracks. it would do more than that, it would plunge us probably back into recession. that's what would happen. yearly prices for food, gas and utilities would increase by hundreds of dollars for american citizens. americans could lose thousands in retirement savings. that's if we default in interest rates as we go up so much. we have to go up so investors would want to invest in the tpupbs we default -- in the united states if we default. millions of americans would not be paid. millions more would lose their jobs. we're trying to get the unemployment rate down. this would cause it to go dramatically up. that is default would cause it to go up. if this resolution of disapproval pass, that would mean the united states would be

in default and that would mean jobs would be harder to find and unemployment would rise. americans would be unable to access credit to buy a home or a car, take out loans to attend college. the housing market would plummet again. the economy would fall into another recession or even a depression. at a time when our economy is starting to show signs of recovery, now is exactly the wrong time to risk a contraction. american workers, families and small businesses can't afford it, to say the least. and if today's vote succeeds and causes default, the federal government could not have fund to pay troop salaries. what about the seal team 6 that took on osama bin laden? seal team 6 we read about in the last couple days who rescued

americans out of somalia, there wouldn't be a seal team 6. security benefits would not be paid. just think of that. medicare bills not paid. think of that. these programs would all be in danger if we were to default, and a vote here would cause default. that is a positive vote. a motion to disapprove should clearly not be granted. that would hurt families and seniors who rely on it. that is these programs i just mentioned. we need to do all we can to help families make ends meet, not putting their paychecks and jobs in danger. there is no doubt we need to work together to reduce the deficit. how do you get the deficit reduced? by working together to get it done. we need clearly to make changes in revenue and spending sides of the budget. that's clear. we need to do so in a way that doesn't put jobs and our economic growth at risk, and we need to do it obviously in a

fair and balanced way. that's why our people in our state sent us here. and as we do that, there have been many efforts to reduce the budget deficit, whether it's the deficit commission, the so-called super committee, many budget proposals submitted and talked about, the simpson-bowles and domenici, a lot of efforts getting closer and closer, we keep working at it, we're finally going to get the job done. but as we work on that, we can't refuse to meet our country's obligations. we have to make sure we pay the bills we've already incurred. we need to show the world the united states does keep its promises. we've got to show people we live up to our word. i urge my colleagues to keep our promises and urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the motion to proceed. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i would like to express my disapproval of the president's request of the debt limit

increase of $1.2 trillion which would place the total limit just below $16.4 trillion. the requested increase amounts to nearly $4,000 of additional debt for every american man and woman and child. and the total debt limit being requested works out to over $50,000 per person. this would be a terrible burden to impose on our children. for many in washington, including this president, this debt limit increase is just a matter of fact necessity as we've just heard. watching the mainstream media, many americans might be surprised to even know that it was set to happen. but this is no small matter, and this is not an inconsequential increase in federal spending. federal spending is already out of control. we all know it. our total debt is already greater than the size of our

entire economy. i'm going to repeat that. our total debt is greater than the size of our entire economy. and the debt sealing increase being requested amounts to nearly 8% of our entire gross domestic product and the amount being replaced amounts to 108% of g.d.p., which would place us in worse shape than many of the euro zone countries currently confronting their devastating fiscal crisis, or this devastating fiscal crisis. given the recent experience in europe, it is disconcerting to hear repeated calls by the grow government at all costs crowd to double down on failed government initiatives to stimulate the economy by pwor borrowing even more. let's continue riding this debt bubble as far as we can. mr. president, we should have learned from the housing bubble

and the european sovereign debt bubble that bubbles pop rapidly and with great devastation. it was not long ago that the grow-government crowd was mocking concerns about indebtedness in the euro zone. taunting what they called -- quote -- "bond vigilante" and saying there was nothing there to say. interest rates won't go up, don't worry. rates are low so borrow and spend. it was not long we saw housing participants lured by the promise of an ever bigger mcmansion being told don't worry rates are low, and house prices never fall, and the government backs your mortgage, so there is no risk. as highly speculative activities took place throughout the housing and financial sectors, federal regulators ignored all warnings, failed to use existing

authorities to promote safety and soundness and, frankly, failed to do their jobs. today it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single name of a regulator who lost a job. in fact, many in the top slots got promotions. meanwhile everything bad that exists in the housing market and in mortgage finance is blamed on the evils of private business. that's a great way to deflect regulatory failure, but a terrible way to get private activity back into the housing area and arena. the fact is the housing bubble was caused by too much borrowing and the folks that egged it on. the results were not pretty. global investors struggled against mortgage-backed securities issued in the united states leading ultimately to a precipitous global strike on financial mediation and massive government bailouts of financial

institutions. the experience with the housing bubble caused by mortgage debt is being replicated with the explosion of sovereign debt. the bond shraeupblg tees did -- vigilantes did strike against profligate euro zone countries and they precipitously demanded higher and higher interest rates to protect lenders from risks of default. this effectively shutdown entire countries or shut entire countries out of the debt market. entire countries face an inability to borrow at rates that they can sustain. absent an ability to roll over debt, those countries have been forceed to quickly and violently, they have been forced to quickly and violently into fiscal restructuring, immediate austerity and sometimes even default. the president's most recent request to take on more debt

follows the same bubble pattern we know will lead to devastation and losses. i for one do not wish to continue flirting with catastrophe by encouraging bubbles with the fool's gold that because rates are cheap, we should borrow more. we are on the edge of the cliff, and it is time to carefully, to deliberately take a few steps back. rates may be low today, but they can turn on a dime. and when they do, the outsized current federal government that we have will suddenly be skproesed as un -- exposed as unaffordable. when that day comes our creditors can go on strike as quickly as they have in europe. last summer we got a taste of what it is to come when we receive the first downgrade of u.s. sovereign debt in history from a major credit rating agency. americans can never be allowed to forget that this downgrade occurred under and because of

this administration's fiscal stewardship. we cannot risk what we are likely to -- what we are likely to be -- what are likely to be further downgrades in the near future by raising the debt limit. mr. president, it is time to resist the siren's song of cheap krepd and put our focus back on the job at hand which is to allow the private sector to create jobs to get rid of the $1 trillion-plus deficits of the obama presidency, to get rid of our mountain of debt that surpasses the size of our economy and to bring the size of our federal government back to its historical norms. federal outlays is a share of our entire economy averaged 18.6% over the past 40 years. under the current administration, federal outlays represent 25% of g.d.p. in 2009, 23% -- 23.8% in 2010, and we're

estimated to have been 25.3% in 2011. the current administration has engineered a federal government whose outlays represent 25%, one-quarter, of our entire economy. the last time federal spending represented such a large share of our economy was back in 1946 as the world began rebuilding after the ravages of world war ii. i guess this is what one of my kphraoepbgtz when he said -- colleagues meant when he said the other day that america is in good shape. economic and job growth remain weak. but washington and government jobs that funds is doing just fine. the economic likes to talk about economic fairness, about the haves and have-nots. but ultimately the people in the best shape in this economy are those who owe their livelihoods

to the federal governments and federal taxpayers. wh-t 99% are being tacked to fund an ever growing bureaucracies we have what the president might call economic justice and there is no end in sight after federal spending spiked until world war ii as the entire nation mobilized to dwight the axis powers, it quickly ratcheted down with federal spending afrpbling 16.5% of g.d.p. in the ten years that followed. yet, with president obama, the ratchet only moves in one direction, and that is up. equally of interest is the behavior of federal spending relative to the size of the economy and those clinton years which many look back on as the golden age of fiscal correctness. while democrats focus solely on the budgetary bliss, despite higher tax rates under clinton they typically failed to mention how the budgetary bliss was

generated. it is difficult to deny the facts and the facts included reductions in federal outlays relative to g.d.p. from 21.4% in 1993 to 18.2% by 2001, a 3.2 percentage point reduction. during those years, government receipts relative to g.d.p. did rise from 17.5% to 19.5%, a 2.0 percentage point increase. but it is impossible to deny that the budget bliss was largely generated by reducing a share of the economy accounted for by federal spending. my friends on the other side of the aisle pledge allegiance to tax and spend economics. they wish to maintain a federal government whose spending amounts to one quarter of the size of the entire economy. to them, federal spending and big government are not problems. they are virtues from which good things trickle down from government to preferred classes

of people. they decry that a deep recession has caused government receipts as a share of g.d.p. to fall below 15% and argue in panic that the decline has proved that taxes must be raised while refusing to acknowledge that nonpartisan, that the nonpartisan congressional budget office projects that revenues as a share of gunpoint will rise with economic recovery. revenues as a share of g.d.p. will rise with economic recovery. federal revenues have arnlged 18% of g.d.p. over the past 40 years. they are projected by our congressional budget office to reach nearly 19% of g.d.p. in 2013, 21% in 2021 and 23% by 2035. under current law, that's what

they say, and i think that's crazy. that has never been the case in the past. even under the c.b.o.'s so-called fiscal scenario, c.b.o. puts revenues as a share around 18.4%, higher than the long-run average. congress and the president should focus on the things that they are capable of controlling. mr. president, federal revenues come from the economy. and as the economy recovers, c.b.o. expects revenues to recover and rise above historical norms relative to the size of the economy. the president and his allies are putting the cart before the horse. they want to increase revenues by raising taxes, but the real way to increase revenues is to promote economic growth. federal spending is something that congress and the president have full control over, however.

every federal dollar spent comes because congress and the president decide to spend it. our deficits and debt are on an unsustainable path because of unsustainable spendin spending. yet the president and his allies are confirming that they are comfortable with our government consuming an ever-increasing share of the economy with this debt limit increase. the president has made clear before that in the name of class warfare he is comfortable raising taxes regardless of whether those tax hikes or decrease deficits and debt. he has shown again that he is willing to ignore the fact that the -- the clear fact that we have a spending, not a revenue problem. to tackle our spending program, unsustainable government promises embodied in entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security must be reformed. there is no budget analyst on

this planet who does not identify entitlement reform as key to getting the federal budget back on track. yet over the three years of the obama presidency, there has been no plan. no plan. no plan from the administration to deal with entitlements. the entitlement can is simply being kicked down the road and to deflect attention from our real fiscal challenges my friends on the other side of the aisle resort to the politics of division. tax the evil banks and all will be equal, justice, and fair -- just, and fair, they suggest. tax millionaires and billionaires bs no matter whether they are fat cats on yachts or small business owners and all will be equal, just, and fair, they suggest. this politics of division bears no fruit. it is an economic dead end. yet it is elevated to the top's

president's agenda to divert attention from our bloated federal government. the faxe taxes on the so-calledh have been promoted in the interest of fairness and equality. reducing income and wealth inequality is a laudable goal. yet my friends on the other side of the aisle have not -- and i repeat, have not proposed new tax measure to generate greater income equality through the tax code. the numerous permanent surtaxes on the so-called rich have not been offered with corresponding permanent reductions for others with lesser means. rather, they have been offered to promote more government spending and a permanently larger government. they are permanent tax hikes used to pay for temporary stimulus or taxes on business to fuel more spending or bailouts

or government jobs. of course no mention is made of what effects those taxes have on businesses or private-sector job creation. no mention is made about the effects those taxes have on the returns, on refiermt portfolios of seniors which contain stocks and bonds of thevill vilified bankers and insurance companies. the message to seniors in sandy, utah, is clear. you have been suffering for years from near-zero returns on bonds but a of federal reserve policy. now you will just have to take it on the chin when the value of your pension falls because the federal government needs to tax business to get more revenue for union construction jobs or bailouts of mortgages of speculative housing investors. mr. president, my friends on the other side of the aisle say they

want more equality and jobs but do not offer tax proposals that would generate more equality through the tax code or a better environment for job creation. instead, they want to tax the so-called rich 10 get money for things like hay-paid infrastructure contractors while fighting tooth and nail to retain and even expand davis-bacon and contract service coverage which we know costs taxpayers money and stifles job creation. these types of schemes have nothing to do with equality. they have nothing to do with promoting as much job creation as possible. they have everything to do with the politics of division and with cronyism. i just chatted with one of the major contractors in this country who basically is out of business right now because banks aren't lending, can't borrow for projects, and that contractor said, a never going to go with

union -- he's never going to go with union again because it costs 25% to 30% more and the work is not as good. the workmanship is not as good. that's hard for me to believe because i was raised in the union movement. i learned a skilled trade as a young man. i worked as a building contractobuilding contractconst. i was a metal lapper. that no longer exists. i remember fellow union members coming up to me, saying hey kid, slow down. we're not going to have any work if you keep working as hard and as fast as you do. those trades aren't in existence anymore except in very, very small specialties. a number of contractors have told me that they have to pay a lot more for union work that isn't any better than nonunion work and yet we're stuck with

davis-bacon that requires basically union pay in certain areas. and they've broadened those areas way beyond the initial intentions of the bil bill. these types of schemes have nothing to do with equality, they have nothing to do with promoting as much job creation as possible. they have everything to do with the politics of division and with cronyism. i don't mean to stand here and demean my fellow union members, many of whom are really good artisans and really good, skilled workers. there is a real question whether the work is any better than nonunion work that costs a lot less. we know who this administration wants to support. i look at this indiana situation with the super bowl and the union is threatening to shut down the super bowl? my gosh, how stupid can you be? if they do that that'll irritate

everybody in america. but nevertheless, they want the publicity that comes from shutting down the super bowl. well, i hope my union members will think it through and realize that's not the way to do it. the best way to do it is to be better, to do better work, and to do it at less cost. fofor instance, in the recent tax-the-rich surcharges offered by the other side, each corresponding spending idea has been directed to apiece democrats' constituencies, mostly unions again, and to build up campaign-season talkingpoints that say the only thing standing in the way of democrats s. do-gooderry is to demonize some group. this is no way to run a country.

at first to pay for a massive new stimulus plan of the president's, the democrats wanted to limit deductions for people earning $200,000 or more, which in some temper of last year is how democrats defined who is rich. next came a proposed surtax of 5.6 123-rer p. on people who earned $1 million or more. i am guessing that the earlier definition of rich at $200,000 did not poll too well in places like new york and california. next came a surtax of 0.5% on those earners to give funds to states to help pay mostly union workers. next came a surtax of 07% on those earners to help pay for a new fannie and freddie-like government enterprise called the infrastructure bank. next came a permanent surtax of

3.25% on those earners on a preferrable payroll tax preference which gives more to richer earners than it does to poor earners and gives nothing at all to the unemployed. next came a long-term surtax of 1.9% on richer earners, again for the allegedly temporary payroll tax preference. mr. president, the pattern is clear. democrats settle on her to stimulus spending plan of the week, find out how much it'll cost rs and then find out what surtax to slap on high earners, including business income recipients. that is how we get tax proposals with rates of 5.6%, then 0.7%, then 1.9%. who knows what's going to come next. never mind the businesses across this country have been clear that massive uncertainty from the current administration'spologieses rndz proposals is holding back job

creation and the economy. yeah, it's holding back job creation and the economy. given the past few months of tax rate roulette, is it any wonder that families and businesses lack the confidence to take risks, make significant purchases, and grow the economy? and never mind that the joint committee on taxation has told us that approximately 34% of flow-threw business income which tends to be small business income, would be subject to democrat surtax proposals. our friends ask us not to mind the affects on job creators. if we abide by the recommendations of the editors of "the new york times" who are in lock step with the democratic party, we should not care about more taxes on businesses. indeed, in a december 9

editorial last year those tax policy experts told us that. quote -- "for any savvy business owner, a surtax would have no bearing on hiring decisions. if new workers are profitable before tax, they will be profitable after tax, even if the employer has to pay slightly is more of the taxes." this view encapsulates the understanding of the economy held by those who have never created a private-sector job or worked to turn a profit. by the way, which includes most all of those in heavy positions at the white house. by this view, these rich business owners won't even flinch if you increase taxes. after tax profitability, if hiring does not matter evidently, especially when you view business earners as those evil rich. mr. president, i knee in certain circles it is fashion to vilify business and hold the profit motive as the root cause of

megawealth. but the notion that business decisions including hiring will not be affected in the least by higher taxes is truly bizarre. the ongoing vilification of private businesses in america is shameful. hardworking americans who are by no definition rich but who work in mortgage markets a understand real estate markets and securitization markets and energy production markets and in financial markets have been hit about a blanket indictment from this administration that they are wrongdoers. of course if they do wrong, they need to go to jail. but my experience with the american people is that by and large they play by the rules, seek to offer useful products to their buyers, look only for fair rewards for their efforts. they do not deserve to be vilified by the president and painted as purveyors of tricks and traps to abuse their neighbors in order to buy yachts. again, anyone who breaks the law

should go to jail. any federal regulator who fails to do their job should be fired. but the vast majority of americans who operate and work hard and honestly in businesses should not be shamed for their work. it would be far more appropriate to shame lawmakers who set trips and traps in the tax code in order to get more money for the federal government to spend while falsely selling their schemes as paths toward equality. mr. president, while t obama seeks to take attention away from his historically record-high budget deficits and federal spending that accounts for 25% of the economy and his jobs deficit and his congressional relations deficit by identifying some sort of -- quote -- "trust deficit" that he has with financial institutions, it is imperative that he and democrats in congress do not spend the rest of this year plague election-year politics -- playing election-year politics. people need jobs and the nation cannot afford to wait for the

president and democrats to get past november. we need to stop the tsunami of job-crushing regulations and the run-away regulatory agencies which stretch their authority in order to intervene into the economy and crush job creation. we need to reduce the time need ford private-sector projects to clear the forest of regulatory and permitting red tape. we need to proceed immediately with known shovel-ready job-creating and environmentally safe projects like the keystone pipeline. despite having cleared years of reviews and oversight and despite support from virtually all interests, including unions, but excluding radical environmentalists, it is inconsistent for the president to say that he cares about american jobs while he prevents them from being created by approving the pipeline. while the president needs to approve the keystone pipeline, i wish to again express my disapproval of the administration's federal spending pipeline.

the administration has lacked for three years -- three years -- any serious and coherent budget plan. the administration has refused to deal seriously, if at all, with tackling unsustainable entitlement spending. it wishes to continue to practice the politics of division in order to permanently enshrine a european-sized federal government that absorbs over one-fourth of the entire size of our economy. americans do not want this oversized government. americans do not want or need job-stifling tax hikes. americans do not need the federal government running their lives and making their choices. allowing the debt limit to rise would only serve to promote things that americans do not want and that americans do not need. therefore, mr. president, i disapprove of the president's request for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit which would place the total limit at nearly $16.4 trillion, and i

urge my colleagues to similarly disapprove. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request. the senator withhold his request? mr. hatch: i withhold my request. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i allow the senator from aa for allowing me to move in front of him. i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks -- a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i speak immediately following the senator from iowa. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me say, first of all, that senator hatch in his remarks, there's never been anyone that i recall who has been so relentless in trying to stop all this deficit spending that i associated with and served with here in the united states senate. and i -- i would also say that a month ago we were standing here trying to pass a balanced budget

amendment to the constitution, and senator hatch was right in the middle of that and providing the leadership. we wanted that to be a reality. i recall my activity with the balanced budget amendment goes all the way back to the 1970's when then-united states senator carl curtis was trying to preratify an amendment to the constitution. i was a state senator at that time, and we were the first state to preratify the constitution. so, it's been a real uphill battle. it's been very, very difficult. i think this' important, though, one thing that hasn't been said in this debate is why we have this deficit, why we have this debt. it's important for people to understand, and i know most people don't, but to overly simplify it a little bit, the debt is the responsibility of the president. it's not the republicans, not the democrats, not the house, not the senate. it's the president that puts together a budget every year. we have a president who put it

together, his first budget, the obama first budget had a deficit of $1 trillion. $1 trillion. his first was -- the second one that he had, the second budget that he had, the 2011, was $1.3 trillion. then last year his budget deficit was $1.1 trillion. but for the -- if you stop and think about what's happened in the past, that 2011 deficit was going to be much more than that because they now upgraded that to $1.65 trillion. so we're talking about a president who's going to have over, in excess of $5 trillion in deficit in the four years he has been in office, by his own budgets. the interesting thing about this because i remember back in 1996, when senator clinton came out with the first $1.65 trillion budget, and i was outraged that we can't sustain that kind of spending. and yet, that was to run the entire country of the united

states of america. and this is just the deficit alone. so, it's estimated that the president will have presided over $14 trillion in spending by the end of the year. and by then our national debt will be over $16.3 trillion, making this president accountable for increasing the national debt by about $6 trillion. now, mr. president, that is more debt than all presidents from george washington to george w. bush combined. one president in a four-year period. so over the last couple of years the president has been warned and warned and warned that we have to do something about it. he has ignored these warnings and instead, after the single-largest contributor to the deficit and to debt that this government is having, and that is government-sponsored health care. did he this with the passage of obamacare, a bill he talked about was going to be fiscally responsible. in reality the bill in the --

will increase federal expenditures by $2.5 trillion in the first ten years, following the law's full implementation. after that it will only skyrocket. their own estimate on obamacare is after the first year, after the first ten years it will go up $4.4 trillion in addition to the $2.5 trillion. we're talking about trillions here. every time i hear a projected cost, i know it's going to be a lot more than that, because i recall back in 1967 when the house ways and means committee projected what medicare was going to cost -- medicare was put in in 1966, and they said by 1990 medicare is going to cost $12 billion. well guess what happened, mr. president? in 1990 it wasn't $12 billion. it was $110 billion, ten times more than what they were expecting. so i know that the -- that this

is going to cost a lot more than the $4.4 trillion that they're projecting after the first ten years. now the president convened groups, gangs, commissions to figure out why is our nation going to far in debt. if we're going in debt because we have a president whose budget reflects over $1 trillion of deficit each year. that's for four budgets. yet they talk about forming these commissions. they come out with recommendations. some of the recommendations, by the way, were good, but the president rejected all of those recommendations. in fact, i would say the only cuts, the only cuts in the, that he's willing to go along with are cuts that are in our national security spending. he's decimated our military. and right now we're looking at something, a reorganization that's going to be even more difficult thing to recover from after this president is gone. by the way, when the president says that he inherited deficits, it's interesting that when president bush went into office,

he took over a military that had been cut down during the clinton administration by about 40%. that was back when the chant that the cold war is over, so we don't need to have a military anymore. so they did that. and yet, right after that we know 9/11 came. so this president did have deficits. i'm talking about george w. bush. his deficits averaged $240 billion a year for eight years. add that up, that's $2 trillion. but this president in four years will have done nearly $6 trillion what the other president, president bush, had done, three times as much as he did in eight years. we have still got the problem. the unemployment is sticking around 8.5%. the labor market's very weak. the regulatory train wreck. the regulations right now. people talk an awful lot about the deficit spending. that's what we're talking about this morning. i don't want to confuse this issue but i want to tell you that the overregulations we're having, here we have a president who is now trying to invoke a

cap and trade through regulation that he was not able to do through legislation. there's another cost that would be somewhere in excess of $300 billion not once, but every year. so the regulations, the train wreck is on its way. it's alive and well. and we've got to do everything we can to try to stop it. anyway, they came up with a deal. they said let's put together something where over a period of ten years we're going to try to come up with $1.5 trillion. keep in mind, that's over ten years, when this president does that much in deficit each year. they came up with a program. the first phase of this grand program that they have was to increase the debt limit by $900 billion to the current level of $15.2 trillion. now, it was matched by discretionary spending cuts, or was supposed to be in the same amount. then the super committee went to work to find the $1.5 trillion. keep in mind we're supposed to have $1.5 trillion to reduce as

a justification for increasing the debt limit, which we did before. that was over a period of a decade. so they're trying to find $1.5 trillion over ten years that this president has been accountable for increasing the deficit, the same amount every year for the last -- for what will be every year for the four-year period. but because we all know that it failed, we're facing additional automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion in exchange for this, the president is going to be allowed to increase the debt limit by $1.2 trillion to a staggering level of $16.4 trillion. now, it's a lot of money. it's hard for people to really understand. i think the best way to do it, though, to explain it is what he is doing is he is administrating an increase in the debt of more than this country has sustained since the country's beginning. in the president's first state of the union message, he promised to cut federal deficits in half by the end of the first

term, but we know what happened. now, before we agree to any of the increase in the debt limit, i really think they're going to have to have some kind of reforms that actually reduce spending to levels that can put our nation in a fiscally sound position. you know, if we really want to, if we really are serious about this and want to do something about the debt, want to do something about the deficit, you know how we can do it? it would be very simple. all we really would have to do is repeal obamacare. that's all we have to do. as i already mentioned, the law is a fiscal nightmare and it hasn't even really started yet. but as things stand, our $15 trillion debt is weighing us down, and now the president wants the authority to add another $1.2 trillion to it. we can't allow this to happen. mr. president, i know that the president thinks that he has us over a barrel. what he's done now three times in a row, he's planning to do it again, say if you don't increase this debt, he goes on increasing

the deficit. and if you don't do something about increasing the debt limit we're going to go into default. he talks about the horrible things that are going to happen. when would that end if we don't make any sincere effort to stop the spending of the obama administration? here's the last time we have -- the first chance really is this resolution of disapproval that will be voted on. if we can do this, that's going to shock the president into knowing he's got to be fiscally conservative. i'm not really speaking on my behalf. i'm speak on behalf of my 20 kids and grandkids who are going to have to pay for all this fun that we're having. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, as the chairman of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, i want to respond to some of the shrill rhetoric and outright misinformation regarding president obama's recent recess appointments to the national labor relations board and to the consumer financial protection bureau. when all of the political grand standing is done, at the heart of this dispute is the ability of these two agencies to carry out their congressionally mandated function. one is charged with defending

the rights of consumers, and the other defending the rights of workers. republican partisan obstruction and filibusters prevented confirmation of nominees to lead both of these agencies which would have prevented their legal authority to act. with the rights of millions of american workers and consumers on the line, the president did what was his duty, to preserve the functioning of two critically important agencies, agencies that are essential cornerstones of our effort to rebuild and restore our struggling middle class. at a time when our nation seine gaged in soul-searching about the demise of the middle class, the consumer bureau and labor board have become particularly essential. these agencies are tasked with the vital responsibility of standing up for consumers and workers against wall street and powerful corporations. indeed, the true significance of the debate over the president's

recess appointments is not about legislative or executive power or the meaning of a pro forma session, but the true significance is about whether we will let the powerful and well-connected use the political process to rig the system or if, instead, we will enact and enforce laws that give workers a fighting chance at a decent middle-class life. as a centerpiece of the dodd-frank bill to rein in the recklessness on wall street, the idea behind the consumer bureau is simple: we need a cop on the beat looking out for the best interests of dishiewrms use financial products -- interests of consumers that use financial products you just as we have regulators looking out for the banks, the f.d.a. looking out for the safety of drugs and food or the consumer product safety commission that looks out for -- and protects our kids from

harmful tais. a strong consumer financial protection bureau will ensure that consumers are not lured into debt by hiding fees, will reduce paperwork so consumers are not faced with mountains of paperwork they can't understand. it would oversee providers of consumer credit, such as payday lenders, which have not faced any kind of bank regulation. as student debt surpasses credit card debt as the largest source of consumer debt in america, the bureau can play a critical role in helping families better understand the increasing challenges of financing a college education. as well as as bringing some sanity to the private student loan marketplace. despite these laudable goals, republicans refuse to confirm richard cordray, the president's nominee to lead the agency,

unless the president would agree to water down the law and weaken consumer protections. 44 republican senators served notice they would not confirm anyone. let me repeat that. 44 republican senators said they would not confirm anyone to the position of director unless structural changes would made to the tbhiewr would effectively gut its ability to stand up for consumers. when the president refused, they filibustered and prevented an up-or-down vote on this nomination, leaving the consumer bureau unable to fully interpret and enforce the law. as a congresses, americans across the country were left in limbo, with limited ability to stand up to big banks and financial scam artists, leaving the bureau so powerless was unacceptable. so the president had no choice but to use his constitutional

authority to ensure that those critical agency can continue to perform its legislative -- legislatively mandated mission. now, the ramifications of republican obstruction are even more dire at the national labor relations board, where the impending loss of a quawrm of members meant that the board would become totally inoperable if the president didn't step in to fill the vacancies. like the consumer bureau, the nlrb, as its tion known, is a government agency tasked for standing up for working fails. in its very text -- the very text of the law that created the board, it established that the policy of the united states is to encourage the process of collective bargaining. to encourage the process of collective barring.

senator robert wagner of new york, the act's author in 1935, explained that collective bargaining would increase the purchasing power of the american workers and aid our economy from the great depression. this law was one of the cornerstorn stone that created the greatest middle-class and brought economic security and a better life to generations of americans. unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this mission. some very powerful interests think that a few at the very top should have a monopoly on power and our economy, that they should be able to set all of the rules. these interests have lined up allies in congress to wage a relentless crusade against the national labor relations board. in all my years in public office, i've never seen anything like it. last year republicans in the

house held at least eight hearings specifically addressing it the nlrb. they passed two bills to amend the national labor relations act to strip workers of their rights. republican-elected officials have tried to defund the agency. they've threatened the professional credentials and livelihood of nonpartisan career employees. and even called on a republican board member to resign in order to incapacitate the agency. agency. and now on the campaign trail, republican presidential candidates have raised against the nlrb and its employees. what are the great crimes that these dedicated public servants at the nlrb are supposed to have committed? first, they start add new initiative to maisch make sure that workers are aware of their rights and the law.

in april -- in april of this year, employers will have to post a notice about the national labor relations act rights on the office bulletin board next to other long-standing notices about the minimum wage, workplace safety and other basic worker protections. this hardly seems like an unreasonable burden. secondly, the nlrb prosecuted a case against a company that allegedly -- allegedly -- retailiated against its employees for going on strike. i spoke at length about this case last year on numerous occasions on the floor of the senate because there was so much misinformation about it. while the case was brought against a powerful company, it became very controversial as a result, prosecuting retaliation cases is unquestionably a necessary and important part of the nlrb's responsibility.

and after all the fire and brim stone and all of the threats from republicans against this agency and governor of a certain state, well, as has happened in the past, this dispute was resolved by the company and the union, which has happened so much times in the past without us having to do a thing about it. third, the national labor relations board enacted a rule to standardize time lines for union elections. under the national labor relations act, after workers petitioned for an election, the nlrb holds a hearing to decide who should be in the bargaining unit and who should not be. now, many employers have started in recent years flooding that hearing with frivolous litigation to stall the election for months or even years while arguing and appealing over every

minor detail. the nlrb decided to fix this problem and ensure that workers get a vote in a reasonable period of time. the workers should get a vote and if necessary the bullets would be scefters while the litigation continues. the new rules don't encourage. they give workers the ability to say yes or no in a reasonable periods of time. workers shouldn't have to wait until lawsuits are disposed of before they get a chaiens to vote. so in response to these i think eminently reasonable and fair proposals, republicans have attempted to shut the board down by blocking all nominations. senator graham from south carolina vowed publicly to block all nominees to the labor board even if it meant that the agency would seas to function. in his opinion, and i quote,

senator graham said, "the nlrb as an operable could be considered progress." end quote. to the thousands of american workers every year who rely on the nlrb to enforce the law and defend their rights, that must sound pretty coldblooded and a direct attack on middle-class americans. in practice, disabling the nlrb would mean that american workers would have nowhere to turn. thousands of american workers are fired every year for trying to organize a union in the workplace, their legal right, by the way. with the labor board out of commission, these workers might never get their jobs back. if an employer for a union refused add here to a contract, there would be in nlrb to resolve the dispute. the labor board also ensures that unions do not step outside the law in their interactions with workers or employers.

those cases would be stuck in limbo, too. perhaps that's why a senior counsel for the national federation of independent businesses told congressional quarterly that -- quote -- "to have the board totally shut down would be a travesty." end quote. so the president averted this travesty by appropriately exercising his recess appointment authority. indeed shall the president showed restraint by only appointing nominees to agencies that would lose their ability to function due to republican obstruction. acting to ensure the continued smooth functioning of government under these circumstances is a president's -- a president's -- whether it is president obama or any other president -- a president's constitutional responsibility. as constitutional scholar laurence tribe has explained,

the constitution consider the possibility that congressional squall lores would lead to per paralysis. "the constitution has guided our republic for centuries and is not blind to the threat of congress's extend its internal squabbles into a general paralysis of the entire body politic rendering vital regulatory agencies headless and, therefore, impotent. preserving the authority, the president needs to carry out its basic duties rather than deferring to partisan games and gimmicks is our constitution's clear comndz." that's a quote from lawrence drib. as i say, if my completion don't like the national labor relations act or dodd-frank, they can introduce a bill, try to get support to change the law. of course, republicans know that such a bill would fail miserably. instead, they're trying to short-circuit the process laid out by the congress to pass

legislation. under their theory, under the republicans' theory, just 41 senators could effectively repeal an existing law by simply denying an up-or-down vote on the president's nominees. think about that. we pass a law by majority vote, might even get through overriding a filibuster with 60 votes. the president signed it into law. a couple years later the minority says, well, wep we wano change t we don't have the votes to change it but we can block a nominee -- nominees to the agency and effectively shut the agency down with only 41 senators. that's what's going on here. that's what's going on. well, president obama took a bold but necessary step, stepping in to protect ordinary americans from the consequences of congressional dysfunction is hardly an intrusion on

congress's authority. this is the essence of leadership. i might point out, i think facts will show that the last president before president obama, president bush,exercised his authorized to appoint recess appointees 171 times. 171 times. president obama i think is right now around 20 or 21 or something like that. well, mr. president, since president obama was elected, republicans have openly stated that their number-one goal is not to gone or legislate. it is to prevent the reelection of president obama. republicans in congress may have the luxury of playing these political games but any president does not. americans are counting on this president to do what's right for the middle class and that is unquestionably what he did by making these recess appointments

to the two vital consumer protection agencies, the consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from fairfax is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i am going to speak about the debt disapproval resolution that is before us because i feel so strongly that it is time to send a strong message to the president and give the people of america some confident that we're not going to continue -- some comfort this we're not going to continue to raise the debt ceiling again and again without doing something that shows we understand the crisis that we are in and that we are going to take the steps necessary to whittle down our debt and do the responsible thing. however, i do want to respond to what has just been said about the appointment, the recess appointment of mr. cordray, it

the director of the new consumer agency, which was done by the president when congress was out of session, depriving congress of the ability to advise and consent to this appointment. and i think to put it in the context where it is proper, it is very important to know that this consumer agency was created by a democratic president that had complete democratic control of congress and gave this agency unprecedented power. unprecedented is that the agency has no congressional oversight. none. we don't control the budget. in fact, no one controls the budget of this new agency that was created with complete democrat control of impress and

the presidency. -- of congress and the presidency. this agency was created in the dodd-frank bill with no oversight by any entity whatsoever other than the democratic president, who signed the bill that was given to him by the completely democratically-controlled congress. so mr. cordray now is the -- the head of an agency without congressional approval and congress has no control over its budget and we have now the possibility that we're going to have a burgeoning new federal bureaucracy that is going to put more regulations on probably the most overregulated industry in america today which is the

banking industry. and if you talk to anybody out there trying to get capital a small business, they will tell you the banks have shut down. so now we're going to give them more regulations that is going to put just a freeze on the capability to have sciewrp small loans even be made.the banking industry has plenty of regulation. and the controller of the curp say doecurrency does a great jo. and the fdic has done certainly a great job in trying to make sure that the reserves and all of the requirements of the law are met for banks to be stable because we're want going to be mailing out banks. however, now we've got another overlay with -- you know, i heard the president of the united states talking at his state of the union message. i heard him say, we are going to go through this government and we're going to cut back on

regulations because we know regulations can hamper the ability for our small businesses to get up and go in and get out there and hire people and make a profit. we think profit is good because we think profit makes people able to hire more people and get this economy going. so there is a constitutional issue at stake that the president just decided that congress was out of session and appointed mr. cordray. now, in any other instance, congress would have some say because we would be able to set a budget for this agency and we would be able to curb some of its overreach if we feel that it is there. but not this agency, because there is no congressional oversight of this agency. so we're in a position where we

have mr. cordray and let me just say there's nothing personal against mr. cordray but there is a lot that is wrong with mr. cordray being appointed by the president rather than being confirmed by the senate, which is in the law, and there's a whole lot of a problem with no congressional oversight whatsoever that would be able to cuscurb the overregulation thate suspect is going to happen in this agency. so, mr. president, this is not the end of this subject. today we are going to be voting on the increase in the debt limit by $1.2 trillion, and what do we have already on the books for debt but $15.2 trillion, which is a figure that is now

equal to or more than our gross domestic product. now, to put that in perspective, through the years, the average debt-to-gross domestic product in our country has been 40%. today it is 100%. we're not talking about greece. we're talking about the united states of america that should be the beacon of economic stability in the world and we are here to raise the debt limit without so much as a plan to curb spending, to look at the entitlement reforms that we know are necessary because we can't cut enough spending in the discretionary accounts to actually do what we must do to whittle down a $15 trillion debt because the discretionary accounts are 50% or less of the

total expenditures of our country. and the major responsibility that this country has in defense is getting ready to be shredded by this administration while we have a new consumer agency that has unfettered budgetary authority. where is our perspective here, mr. president? so we're talking now about 50% of the budget that we spend, the spending in our country being discretionary accounts and we're hearing today that the president is going to cut enormous numbers out of our defense budget, but at the same time we hear very little talk about entitlements, which are the automatic expenditures that we cannot

control. and if the president were going to lead, he would be going into the entitlements and providing some solutions and some leadership. the republicans have said repeatedly, we will work with you on entitlements because we know it's hard. i have actually introduced legislation along with is that right kyl that would begin the process of shoring of social security ask saving our system. this fact, it's called "the defend ask save social security act," -- the "defend and save social security act," ask it would cut a 75-year shorttall, without raising taxes and without cutting benefits. ask thin thi anyone this our pls 58 years of age or older wouldn't be affected at all. but starting in 2016, under our bill, the normal retirement age

would start three months each year increasing the age for normal retirement. so if you're 58 or above, it would not affect you at all. if you are 57, you would retire three months later. if you're 56, six months later. so in three-month increments, by the year 2027, we would have the full retirement age increased by three years. now, that would begin to put us on a much more accurate table of when people are actually living and retiring, because in the actuarial tables, people are healthier than they were when social security passed, they

work longer, they want to work longer, and we need to make the actuarial tables match today's standards of health and work. if we do that three months a year, by the year 2027 we will be on a sound actuarial standard. in addition, my bill would propose a very modest change in the annual cost-of-living adjustment. we would begin the cost-of-living adjustment if inflation is over 1%, and at that point, we would factor in whatever the inflation rate is. so it would be a minor adjustment in the cost-of-living adjustment but we would never go into the core benefits nor would we tax anyone any more than they're being taxed right now. that is the way we can address this in a gradual way and give

our social security system the ability to stay solvent and secure for 75 years. mr. president, we don't hear from the president of the united states about correcting something as solid a necessity as social security and we haven't heard anything from him about helping to solve the medicare problem. which is a different issue but which clearly must be addressed because we are going into deficits every month. every week, every day on medicare. so the missing ingredient in what the president has said in his state of the union and what actually needs to happen is entitlements, entitlement reform. republicans have said we will work with you on tax reform, tax

reform that will produce more revenue with a fairer, flatter tax system, one that will make our businesses and corporations more competitive because we do have the one or number two -- it goes back and forth with japan -- highest corporate tax rates in the world. so if we put our corporations at a better competitive position in the world, then they're going to hire more people. if we can do that with the president, we can make a difference in this debt and the deficits. but all i'm hearing is kind a -- kind of a class warfare argument. it just seems old and stale, mr. president, because i think the american people are smarter than that. i think the american people know that if business is hiring and

we can get an economy that's robust and strong with more people working, that everybody's going to do better. and that's what we all want. raising taxes, which is the only option that the president seems to care about, is not what we ought to be doing in a recession. and you can dance around it, but if this isn't a recession, i don't know what is. with millions of people not working and almost a 9% unemployment rate, i -- i mean, i don't know what the definition of a recession is by the economists, but i think when millions of people aren't working and your unemployment rate is about%, tha 9%, that th- that's a time when you don't want to increase taxes and increase the burden on business with a health care plan that is out of control. it's freezing hiring.

it's just not rocket science, mr. president. and it's time that we got together with the president of the united states. he's the elected leader of our country. and we don't need partisan rhetoric and campaign speeches. what we need is to look at the real capability that we have to do something about this deficit ask that's cut domestic spending in a reasonable way, address entitlement reform, which we can do, and, for heaven's sakes, tax reform that creates a fairer, flatter tax, that gives our corporations the ability to compete globally would be some steps in the right direction. mr. president, i hope that we can reject this resolution. let's don't increase the debt

limit. let's sit down and get to work on bringing the debt down so we will never go beyond $15 trillion in debt for our country and our future generations. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida is recognizedment mr. nelson: mr. president, -- the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requested be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i would ask consent that senator durbin of illinois be the next democratic speaker. the presiding officer: is there

objection? so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, senator durbin, the chairman of the civil rights subcommittee of the judiciary committee, will convene a hearing of the committee tomorrow in tampa, tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 for the purpose of reviewing florida's new election law that was passed a year ago by the florida legislature. what has been characterized by this senator and others as a voter suppression law. interestingly, there is a pattern in about 14 states that have changed the election laws to make it harder to vote, harder to register to vote and

harder to have one's vote counted as they intend. that is rather extraordinary. in this year of 2012, -- that is rather extraordinary in this year of 2012 that we would be concerned about the right of access to the ballot and the right to vote, which is a cherished constitutional right and one which is under assault in this country at this moment and especially in my state of florida. let me give you some particulars. the new election law, for example, has changed the voting registration requirements for those who sign up to register others -- in other words, third parties, such as the league of women voters that have been

registering voters in florida for decades, and under the old law that was on the books for decades, that would give them once they registered the voter, took the information, they had ten days to turn it in to the county survivor of elections. that law has been on the books for decades. mr. president, the legislature of florida last year signed into law by the governor changed that to 48 hours, and the penalties that accrue go up to $1,000 for that person that was strearg the voters and did not turn in those names within 48 hours, and therefore the league of women voters in florida that has been doing this as a civic duty has

stopped registering voters. not going to take the chance that their members would be fined up to $1,000. now, doesn't that sound like something exactly the opposite of what we should be doing? we should be encouraging people to register to vote, which is what the civic duty that the league of women voters has sought for years. it's happening before our eyes. but, mr. president, there's more. college students, young people got excited about politics in the last presidential election and voted in record numbers compared to what they had been doing before. but the florida legislature changed the law so that if a student at their college that

has not been registered before suddenly gets interested and goes down to the survivor of elections office and registers to vote for this year's general election, and when they arrive on election day, they are asked to show their identification and they pull out their driver's license, the likelihood is that that driver's license is the address of their parents where they have grown up, and if that address is in a different county from the county that they registered in, they will not get a ballot. they will get a provisional ballot. now, mr. president, we know from the last presidential election in 2008, in florida, only half of the provisional ballots were

counted. is this what we want to do to encourage young people to get excited and interested in their government, and then they get this on election day and they get a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot? i don't think so, but, mr. president, it's happening right underneath our noses, and that's one of the reasons that the judiciary committee is coming to tampa tomorrow. we're going to flesh this thing out with a whole bunch of witnesses. but unfortunately, mr. president, there's more. after the debacle that we had in the 2000 presidential election in florida where we saw mistake after mistake after mistake, and all too painfully we know the results of how that election

played out. to the credit of the florida state government, they made it easier to vote, and they created early voting and they created what was the old absentee ballot where you had to swear that you were actually going to be absent from your place of voting on election day, they made that easier by having vote by mail, and they had set early voting and it has been the case for years now 14 days prior to the election. it was so successful in the last presidential election that fully 40% of the entire general electorate voted before election day. so you can imagine that there was a lot more orderly and less

lines when 60% of the electorate is turning out on the election day between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and, of course, the 40% that voted early, many of them have jobs, it wasn't convenient for them to get to the polls so they could do it on their convenience and they could do it on the weekend. some of them like single moms that had to arrange to get a babysitter could do it at their convenience. indeed, many minorities found it convenient when they could get away from work to vote early. now, mr. president, the florida legislature changed the law and it was signed into law by the governor constricting that 14 days to eight days, and then a

very interesting change. instead of early voting going all the way up to and including the sunday before the tuesday election, they constricted that back to the last day of the eight days is saturday. well, guess who has voted in record numbers after church on the sunday before the tuesday election. record numbers. african-americans. and so, mr. president, they will not be able to go and vote on the sunday before the tuesday election because of the new law in florida. now, those who passed this new law said it was to cut down on fraud, and yet they have no

example -- and i'm looking forward to asking some of the witnesses tomorrow to make the record complete -- no example of any increase in fraud in the last decade of which these election laws were passed after the 2000 presidential election to make it easier to vote. so what we have is a pattern, a pattern over 14 states including our state of which what i have just described, which is the law is one of the most onerous, that is one of the more distinct voter suppression laws that has been enacted. why? is it for partisan reasons? if you restrict young people, if you restrict minorities, if you make it more difficult for

women, particularly single moms, does that suggest a pattern of certain voters, of restricting them and making it more difficult because of partisan reasons? i think it's right clear. and this is happening in america in the year 2012 when, in fact, the constitution tells us that one of the most cherished things that we went through, even a civil war, and then we went through the civil rights movement in order to guarantee the right of access to the ballot of which we had to knock down poll taxes and all kinds of impediments for people to vote, and we have gone through all of that experience since the

1850's, and here right under our noses, we're having these kind of voter suppression laws enacted. mr. president, there is a three-judge panel that is now considering this law in the district of columbia. there is also an examination under the voting rights act of 1965 in the five counties that are watch counties under that act in florida as to whether or not their civil rights have been eclipsed. and i'm certainly hopeful that the court and/or the civil rights division of the justice department are going to see behind this smoke screen of so-called fraud into what is really the motivation. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 98. mr. coburn: and the amount of time that has been allocated by the majority leader under the unanimous consent agreement? the presiding officer: the republican leader has eight minutes remaining. mr. coburn: i understand that, but what was the total amount of time that has been allocated to this h.j. res.? the presiding officer: the time until noon was equally divided. mr. coburn: so the total amount of time is two hours today that we're going to discuss this resolution, is that correct, mr. president? the presiding officer: it was slightly more than two hours. mr. coburn: thank you. i would ask unanimous consent to be able to speak on the resolution for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from florida.

mr. nelson: how many minutes does the minority have left? the presiding officer: the minority has seven minutes left. the presidingmr. nelson: and hoe does the majority have? the presiding officer: the majority has 24 minutes remaining. mr. nelson: would the senator consider 15 minutes? given the inequity of the time? mr. coburn: well, actually, that was my whole point, is we're going to spend a little more than two hours to raise the debt limit $1.2 trillion, you can't give a senator 20 minutes to talk about it? mr. nelson: we -- mr. president, is there a consent order that was entered into yesterday? the presiding officer: there was a unanimous consent agreement yesterday. mr. nelson: and the minority has eight minutes left. the presiding officer: six 1/2 minutes left. mr. coburn: i am asking unanimous consent to speak on this issue, $1.2 trillion raise

on the debt limit for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. nelson: mr. president, i have no objection. the presiding officer: the senator will proceed. mr. coburn: mr. president, i come to the floor aghast that we have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to spend less than two and a half hours talking about raising the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion. we passed a budget control act that raised the debt limit to $15.2 trillion. the president has requested another increase in the debt limit of another $1.2 trillion. we passed a budget control act that didn't cut spending, there's no absolute reduction in

spending. we didn't eliminate one program. we didn't do one oversight hearing on the waist, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. in the time of august when we passed that until now. no wonder america is disgusted with congress. on september 7 the debt limit was increased from 8.9 pldz, and in july, in october $1.3 trillion. in february, 2010 to 14.3, in august of 2011 to 14-point and in september of 2011 to 15.2 and now we're going to raise it to 16.3. i didn't vote for one of those. and the reason is there's a -- a debt limit doesn't mean anything in this country. because every time we come up to the debt limit, what we do is just pass it rather than the

things the american people have asked us to do. little has changed in washington in the last five years. we've argued, debated and lamented on how to rein in the federal government's costs and out-of-control spending. all the time that was going on, we were on a spending binge, spending money we do not have on things we do not need. even though we knew we had to borrow more money, congress has done nothing to avoid raising the debt limit further. nothing. we did not do oversight of federal programs. we didn't eliminate one duplicate program. we eliminate any spending in the tax code. we hear all the members of congress and the president talking about how we have to change. we didn't do anything on that. that would generate more men rein, fairer revenue to the

federal government. we didn't work to save medicare, we didn't work to save social security, we didn't work to save medicare. instead of fixing the problem, we made it worse. we increased the deficit, we funded ineffective programs, we wasted money on silly projects, we funded duplication, we approved a trillion dollars in more spending for next year all of which essentially will be borrowed on the backs of our grandkids and our kids. let me give you examples of what we spent money on last year. we spent $75,000 to promote the awareness that michigan raises christmas trees. we spent $113,000 for video game preservation. we spent $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the soviet union. we spent $48,000 for the second annual hawaii chocolate festival.

we spent $350,000 to support an international art exhibit in venice, italy. we spent $10 million to remake sesame street for pakistan. we spent $35 million on our own party conventions. and we spent $764,000 to figure out how students use mobile messaging devices for social networking which they already know how they do it. in february of last year g.a.o. brought us with wonderful report. it showed thousands upon thousands of programs that are duplications. the majority leader of this body voted against both attempts that i made to take advantage and eliminate waste and duplication. he never once instructed committee chairmen to go find this duplication, limit, to save our children, to save our country. and we didn't do any better on

our side of the aisle. the fact is we didn't do anything, of the thousands of things that we could have done, we did nothing to lower our deficit, cut the waste, or eliminate duplication. we've known about this significant hundred billion dollars, gold mine of savings, from the g.a.o. report for over a year now, and we've done nothing, zero. america should be disgusted with congress. because what we care about is party power, not fixing the problems of this country. just this week, the g.a.o. reported an additional report and next month we're getting the second third of the federal government on duplication, have another $100 billion identified as waste but this week g.a.o. reported we have 209 separate

federal programs to advance science, technology, engineering, and math education. 209 programs, of which most of them overlap one another. we put amendments on the floor to say we want every agency to tell us all the programs. it's defeated. you vote against it because you don't want to know what all the programs are. the only way we eliminate the duplication is to make the agencies show us what they're doing. that goes down to defeat. why? because we want -- we don't want to do the hard work of living within our means like every other family and every other business in this country does. we ignore the realities. we're in lala land on who can win the next election. we've done nothing about the $9.5 billion in government benefits paid to people who earn more than a million dollars in year in this country. we've done nothing about that since that report came out.

government benefits from unemployment insurance to student loans, $9.5 billion a year, we've done nothing, zero. we could -- we could save money. we've done nothing. real americans, everyday americans, understand the way we get out of our problems is through sacrifice and prioritizing what is important for our country. we lack the leadership in this body to do that. a veteran who served our country in a time of war wrote me a letter about our current financial situation. more than nearly anyone i come in contact within washington, this regular citizen from the middle of the country understands the problem and he understanding what is needed to fix it. dear senator dough burn, i'm a

retired military member and a veteran, deployed four times during my career having spent years of my rife in dangerous prayses away from home in tough conditions. i'm very familiar with shared fies. in all those days away my sole purpose was to be prepared and ensure my soldiers were ready to do -- ready to deploy and return alive. in our current situation it's easy to feel reich we're going into battle unprepared against a financial enemy, political gridlock, no leadership with two parties vying for the next elections. i'm well aware many proposals current currently out there would affect me however i'm part willing to be part of the solution versus robbing my kids and grandkids from the save opportunities our great country

offered me. 34r50ez inform your colleagues there are more people like me await leadership than there are left and right side uncompromising voters. these times call for briefings to the american people, not speeches, times for members of congress to stand together and to brief us on our unfunded liabilities and show us how sacrifice can lead to renewed prosperity rarity. i'm embarrassed for us that we failed to meet the standard that we ask of the people who serve this country.

we have done nothing to eliminate the duplication in the 82 federal government programs for teacher quality. we have done nothing to consolidate the 88 economic development program. we have done nothing to consolidate the 80 different transportation assistance programs. we have done nothing to eliminate the 47 financial illiteracy programs. we have no business teaching anybody financial literacy when we don't even have it ourselves. we have done nothing to consolidate the 47 job training program. as a matter of fact, i heard the president say he wanted to add to it. homelessness prevention and assistance, we have done nothing to consolidate. food programs, disaster response, fema, and there is hundreds more, and yet we have done nothing. shouldn't we come together as men and women, americans, not democrats and republicans, and say we're going to do what we can do to assure the future of this country and quit thinking about the next election? we ought to be doing what is

needed. it's called making priorities. we could save $50 billion if we got together and said, okay, every committee is going to eliminate duplication, eliminate fraud. we have a bill with 37 cosponsors to eliminate the fraud in medicare, 37. bipartisan. can't even get it to the floor to vote on it to make sure c.m.s. eliminates some of the $100 billion a year in waste and fraud at c.m.s. in terms of medicare. that's how we save medicare. but yet, we can't get it to the floor. so when we do work together, we're blocked, impeded from having a vote where we have bipartisan consensus. i call my colleagues, i love you dealer, i think you're -- dearly, i think you're tremendous individuals, but we better change our vision, we

better change what we have our eye on. what we have our eye on now in terms of the risk to our country is the survival of our country, and it's time we come together, put partisanship aside and say we're going to solve the problems in front of this country. we can do it. the brainpower is here, the capability is here. let's do it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on each side? the presiding officer: the democratic side has 18 minutes remaining. mr. durbin: is there any time remaining on the other side? the presiding officer: there is no time remaining on the other side. mr. durbin: i would like to ask the chairman if i could have eight minutes or 10 minutes to speak? mr. bawches: i yield the time. mr. durbin: senator coburn who just spoke, we see so many things differently but yet we see so many things the same.

he and i come to the senate with different backgrounds, perhaps different values in many areas and a much different voting record. they would put us on opposite sides of the political spectrum if they decide those voting records, and yet i have found over the last several years senator coburn and i have been able to agree and come together on some of the important issues he just raised on the republican side of the aisle which are chaired on the democratic side of the aisle ft senator coburn and i served on the bowles-simpson commission, a commission appointed by president obama to reduce our nation's debt and deficit. i voted for the commission report, with some misgiving over proposals, but believe that it moved us in the right, proper and necessary direction. the fact and simple fact of the matter is the united states borrows 40 cents for every dollar our government spends, borrows 40 cents for every dollar we spent primarily after we have exhausted the savings of

americans from foreign nations like china who end up buying the u.s. treasures to fund our debt. so as we go more deeply into debt, we become more indebted to foreign countries. sovereign nations and their sovereign funds. i think that that is something that needs to be addressed, addressed in a proper fashion. where senator coburn and i may disagree is in the fashion that we approach it. we are currently emerging from a recession. we know what the impact has been. families and businesses across america have been hard hit. families and their savings, many people losing their jobs and businesses, either going out of business or cutting back. we're starting to see the first indications of recovery. the green chutes, as they say -- green shoots, as they say. as the president said in his state of the union address, we lost four million jobs in america in the six months before he was sworn in and another four

million before his proposal to get the economy moving forward was enacted into law. eight million jobs in that short time frame out of the 14 million unemployed today. the president really started to move the economy forward, working off of a proposal by president bush to deal with financial institutions, a bitter pill for many of us, but i'm afraid necessary to keep our economy stable, and then with his investment program to put america back to work. these things are starting to take hold. we have seen a growth of some three million private sector jobs since the president's program started. it's an indication that we're moving in the right direction. and i would just say to my friend from oklahoma when we talk about issues like deficit reduction and spending reduction, we should speck to those issues in the context of economic recovery, to make certain that whatever decisions we make in reducing the deficit,

reducing spending, raising taxes, whatever it may be, that at this point in time in our history, it's in the context of getting america back to work. now, at 12:00 today, we have a scheduled vote and the vote is on the debt ceiling. what is the debt ceiling? it goes back to my earlier point. when we spend more than we bring in in revenue, we need to borrow it. and as the need to borrow increases, the president has the responsibility to ask for authorization from congress. it's known as the debt ceiling limit. in years gone by, it was a routine vote. in fact, if i'm not mistaken, president reagan asked for some 16 debt ceiling extensions in the eight years that he served. and for most of these, he was given permission to extend the debt ceiling on a bipartisan vote. 16 times in eight years. a rather common occurrence at that time but one that we anticipated being part of the ordinary business of government. that issue has become politicized now and there are

some members who will come to the floor and vote against extending the debt ceiling, extending the authority of the president to borrow money to keep our government functioning. what troubles me greatly is many of the same senators who are going to vote against the debt ceiling voted for the spending. they voted to spend the money knowing we didn't have it and now, as former congressman obey of wisconsin used to saying want to pose for holy picture. "oh, i'm opposed to the debt ceiling. i'm not in favor of debt." really? well, how about your vote for the appropriations bills to fund our wars? didn't you vote for those? didn't you vote for the budget resolution which passed on a bipartisan basis that established our spending for two years? didn't you vote as well when it came to the continuing resolution of appropriations that had to pass both the house and the senate? many of my colleagues who

dutifully voted for all of this spending knowing in the back of their minds we didn't have enough money and would have to borrow to accomplish it now come to the floor in a few moments and are going to say we are holier than the others, we are going to vote against an extension of the debt ceiling. i would say to those colleagues, don't vote for the spending if you won't vote for the borrowing because we know now they are linked together. they are one in the same. and the president is only doing what is responsible. you know, we faced a government shutdown over this debt ceiling last year. it's one of the first ever where a serious threat was looming that we were not going to extend the debt ceiling and, in fact, would renege or basically default on america's debts around the world. the result of that would have been catastrophic. the reputation of america, its economy, and the soundness of the collar were at stake. -- soundness of the dollar were at stake. thank goodness at the last minute those who were opposing the debt ceiling relented and

they set up the process which we will be addressing in just a few moments. they said, well, on a periodic basis, then, the congress will have to vote to extends the debt ceiling. last week the house of representatives said no, we don't want to extend the debt ceiling. the same members of the house who voted for the spending bill, the same members who voted for the budget enforcement act, the same members who give speeches back home about how we can't turn our backs on our men and women in uniform and have to spend the money to bring them home safely, those same members voted against the debt ceiling. it is a totally inconsistent position. it is not honest. an honest position would be, i don't vote for spend, i don't vote for borrowing. very few senators, if any, can say that with a straight face. in fact, just the opposite is true. i hope my colleagues here will accept our responsibility to extend the debt ceiling by voting "no" on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the debt ceiling. it's an important vote. and then i want to join and meet the challenge of senator coburn

of oklahoma. there are things we can and must do to bring our nation's debt down consistent with the bowles-simpson deficit commission, consistent with the work of the gang of six and consistent with growing the american economy. it has to include, as bowles-simpson commission recommended, both revenue increases as well as spending cuts, both have to happen. when the president comes before us in the state of the union and suggests increasing tax rates of those making over a million dollars a year, the vast majority of americans say that's reasonable. it's reasonable to ask those who are well-off to pay their fair share. well, let's make that part of our conversation here. if we are serious about the deficit, let us include revenue that will not hurt working families struggling from paycheck to paycheck but will bring the money in to lessen our need to borrow money from overseas. that should be part of it, spending cuts and revenue enhancements that will not hurt the economy.

i think we can do that if we address it on a bipartisan basis. i stand ready to cooperate with my colleagues to achieve that. i hope they'll join me in voting "no" against the motion to proceed and yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from monday is recognized. -- from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, on a totally different matter, just for about two minutes, i want to compliment the senior senator from kentucky for his long-time work on behalf of the dissidents in burma. very recently visited burma. he spoke on the floor about three hours ago. he met aung san suu kyi who recently won a nobel prize, and it's -- it's -- we as americans, as an american country, are making real progress in burma. our sanctions in burma are

working. the government there is relenting, and discussions that i've had at the state department, the hope is that we keep our sanctions for the time being so that we can continue our progress in burma. but we -- we are making progress in burma. dissidents led by aung san suu kyi are very effective but again i want to compliment the senator from kentucky for his 20 years of work in this area and i think it's probably because of his efforts we're making progress in burma. mr. president, turning back to the subject at hand, alexander hamilton once said, "to be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that the credit of a nation should be well established." that's obvious. we have low interest rates today because so far, we've been able to borrow on good terms. the good terms are the american people and investors worldwide know the united states is a safe

haven given all the perplexity that's occurring in the world, all the consternation occurring in the world, the problems in europe, for example, and some other countries. the united states is a safe haven. people, investors want to borrow in united states treasuries. that's why the rate is so low, one of the lowest times in recent history, and that's essentially because our credit is good. investors trust the united states. now, it's important to also remember, mr. president, that -- that this debt limit is not an -- that we're voting on today is not an authorization for new spendingmening. i repeat, it does not authorize new spending. that's not what it is. has nothing to do with new spending. it just says that we've got to honor our past bills. we have to honor our best debts. and as alexander hamilton said, for our country to be on good terms, it is important that we

honor our past debts, or as he said it, "the credit of a nation should be well established." i strongly urge our colleagues to vote "no" against this motion to proceed to disapprove because the result would be chaos. if that were to pass, it would be -- it would be chaos. we'd plunge ourselves back into a recession, probably through that into a depression. interest rates would skyrocket. inflation would skyrocket. and we're trying to lower unemployment rates, mr. president, not increase unemployment rates. we want people to have jobs, not people not to have jobs. if the united states were not to honor its bills, the united states would not honor the debt that it has heretofore incurred, it would cause chaos, it would show we're not a credit-worthy country, and for that reason i think it's -- it's a no-brainer, mr. president, that this -- this bill should be disapproved and,

frankly, should be unanimously disapproved because i think every member of the united states senate wants to honor the credit of the united states of america, wants to pay the bills that we incurred in the past. it's an entirely different question what we do in the future. entirely different question how much we crews our debt. entirely different question how much we cut spending and increase revenue in order to reduce our deficits and our debt. that is an entirely different issue. extremely important issue but entirely different. it has nothing, nothing what to do with this vote. this vote is only whether we honor our past debts. once we say, yes, we're going to honor our past debts, then, mr. president, clearly it's imperative that this body move ahead to reduce deficits, reduce our national debt. there's been a lot of discussion about that. we've not made as much headway as we should. but it's important to remember, on august of last year, this congress voted to reduce spending by $2 trillion.

$2 trillion. to reduce spending, reduce spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. about close to $1 trillion of that we accomplished on that vote and the other $1.2 trillion is part of the sequestration which goes into effect in january of next year. it's not unimportant that this body voted to reduce spending by about $2 trillion. so we should honor our past debts. we should reduce spending. we should -- not reduce -- we should reduce our budget debts and deficits and we do that by cutting spending and raising revenue. but that's a different issue. that's what we have to do in the future. that's what we have to work on this year and the next year. but today, it's important for the world to know that we honor our commitments. the united states can be trust trusted. that we have credit that's well established because we honor our

past obligations. mr. president, i yield the flo floor. in so doing, i strongly urge members of the senate to vote "no" on the motion to proceed to disapprove because i think that -- if that would be a positive outcome, if that vote were to pass, i'm not one that's prone to exaggeration or to hyperbole, but if -- i might say in this case, if this motion were to proceed, we'd be on the border of catastrophe. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that my final remarks be placed in the record at this pointment. the presiding officerpoint.the t objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. all time is yielded back. under the previous order, the quorum occurs -- the question he

occurs on the motion to proceed to h.j. resolution 98. the clerk will call the roll. vote: