Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I am introducing today, the United States Job Creation and International Tax Reform Act of 2012. The name says it all. This is a bill that would incentivize American companies to create jobs in the United States while at the same time leveling the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace. This bill would reform and modernize the rules for taxing the global operations of American companies and would help America become a more attractive location to base a business that serves customers all over the world. Unfortunately, our current tax rules do just the opposite. In fact, many businesses could be better off if they were headquartered outside the United States. That is not right, and Congress should fix it. This bill would do that. I wish to thank Senator Hatch and members of his staff who have been helpful in working through the complexities of this international tax. I also wish to mention Eric Oman, a member of my staff and a CPA, who worked with me in developing this legislation. He has lived overseas and worked with the U.S. tax laws overseas. That is the kind of expertise we need to reform international tax law. I wish to thank all who testified before the Finance Committee, especially Scott Naatjes, who is the vice president and general tax counsel of Cargill. This man has dealt with the complex accounting of foreign earnings and the money to be repatriated to the United States, an actual practitioner whom we relied on. He gave us insight into years of records that have to be reviewed for a single item in the complex web of the current international tax system in order to bring the money back to the United States. Finally, I wish to thank Dave Camp, the chairman of the House, Ways, and Means Committee, who kick-started the discussion on tax reform when he released his discussion draft last October. Enacted in the 1960s, our current international tax rules have passed their expiration date. Many of the U.S. major trading partners, including Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and most of Europe have moved to what are called territorial tax systems. That is actually a word for a global tax system. These types of tax systems tax the income generated within their borders and exempt foreign earnings from tax. The United States, on the other hand, taxes the worldwide income of U.S. companies and provides deferral of the U.S. tax until the foreign earnings are brought home. Deferral of the tax until the earnings are brought home encourages them not to bring the money home. It actually incentivizes them to leave their money abroad and to expand over there. Because the United States has nearly the highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies don't bring those earnings back and, as I said, reinvest outside the United States. That certainly is not a recipe for U.S. growth and U.S. job creation. The dominance of U.S.-headquartered companies in the global marketplace is waning. Thirty-six percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies were headquartered in the United States in 2000. In 2009, that number dropped to 28 percent. That is from 36 percent to 28 percent among the Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered in the United States. Clearly, America is losing ground and our current international tax rules are a big part of the problem. The bill I am introducing would help to right the ship by pulling our international tax rules into the 21st century so U.S. companies are not at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies because of American tax rules that are outdated by changes most other countries have already made. The bill would give U.S. companies incentives to create jobs in the United States and undertake activities in the United States in order to win globally. First, if the foreign earnings have already been subject to a tax in a foreign country, this bill would provide a 95-percent exemption from the U.S. tax on those foreign earnings. This would allow for American- managed capital to be put to the most productive use and help stabilize our economy. Second, this bill would allow foreign earnings that are currently sitting overseas to be brought back to America at a reduced rate--not a zero tax rate but a greatly reduced rate--and with the ability to pay that, the taxes that are owed in installments. That gets the cash back now and still gets some taxation for us instead of leaving it all overseas. This provision would serve as a transition to the new territorial system by allowing U.S. companies to unlock a significant amount of capital currently being held offshore and quickly move into the new territorial system, and that means more jobs and a better economy. It also emphasizes one of the things I talk about with any of the tax changes--as one of the few accountants--we have to transition into these things if we want the companies stable enough that they can exist through the change in the Tax Code, and that provides for a transition as well. Third, this bill would reduce the U.S. tax burden on income generated by American companies from ideas and innovations. This bill would encourage companies to develop and keep rights to ideas and inventions in the United States. When families tune in to ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday evenings, they would hear fewer stories about how U.S. companies are moving their profits to tax haven countries and avoiding U.S. tax on those earnings. Families would hear fewer stories about how the U.S. multinational companies set up post office boxes in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland without a single employee or officer of the company anywhere on site and attribute a significant portion of their foreign earnings to those jurisdictions. Instead, families would hear more stories about how U.S. companies are generating the ideas and inventions of tomorrow right here in America. This bill can be a first step in tax reform. We have a lot of work to do in many other areas of tax law in order to make it simpler, fairer, and more transparent. We need to be looking at the individual tax system, the corporate tax system, and particularly how we tax the passthrough entities such as partnerships and S corporations that have to pay the tax on the money when it is still invested in the business. I also recognize, as we move forward in these other areas, it may be appropriate to make changes to this bill. This is exactly how the legislative process should work, and I look forward to getting back to conducting the Senate's business in regular order, where we work through the issues in the committee first and offer amendments to improve the bills that ultimately come to the Senate floor, where there is a shot for everybody else to make amendments. But today with the introduction of this bill, we move from discussion to action with respect to a single piece of the tax reform. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommended a move to a territorial system, and I am glad to be moving the conversation forward on this recommendation with the introduction of this bill. I hope this bill will begin a discussion, a discussion of fairness that needs to begin yesterday. I hope Members and their staff will review the bill and the detailed explanation we have prepared. I also ask that all interested stakeholders review the bill and reach out to my staff and the staff of the Finance Committee to discuss what they like, what they don't like, and their suggestions for improvements. That is the way bills are supposed to work. The international tax rules are not easy or simple and reforming them will be a heavy lift. But those things are worth doing, and when they are worth doing, they are rarely easy or simple. I look forward to joining with my colleagues to pass international tax reforms that our American companies and our country desperately need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I am introducing today, the United States Job Creation and International Tax Reform Act of 2012. The name says it all. This is a bill that would incentivize American companies to create jobs in the United States while at the same time leveling the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace. This bill would reform and modernize the rules for taxing the global operations of American companies and would help America become a more attractive location to base a business that serves customers all over the world. Unfortunately, our current tax rules do just the opposite. In fact, many businesses could be better off if they were headquartered outside the United States. That is not right, and Congress should fix it. This bill would do that. I wish to thank Senator Hatch and members of his staff who have been helpful in working through the complexities of this international tax. I also wish to mention Eric Oman, a member of my staff and a CPA, who worked with me in developing this legislation. He has lived overseas and worked with the U.S. tax laws overseas. That is the kind of expertise we need to reform international tax law. I wish to thank all who testified before the Finance Committee, especially Scott Naatjes, who is the vice president and general tax counsel of Cargill. This man has dealt with the complex accounting of foreign earnings and the money to be repatriated to the United States, an actual practitioner whom we relied on. He gave us insight into years of records that have to be reviewed for a single item in the complex web of the current international tax system in order to bring the money back to the United States. Finally, I wish to thank Dave Camp, the chairman of the House, Ways, and Means Committee, who kick-started the discussion on tax reform when he released his discussion draft last October. Enacted in the 1960s, our current international tax rules have passed their expiration date. Many of the U.S. major trading partners, including Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and most of Europe have moved to what are called territorial tax systems. That is actually a word for a global tax system. These types of tax systems tax the income generated within their borders and exempt foreign earnings from tax. The United States, on the other hand, taxes the worldwide income of U.S. companies and provides deferral of the U.S. tax until the foreign earnings are brought home. Deferral of the tax until the earnings are brought home encourages them not to bring the money home. It actually incentivizes them to leave their money abroad and to expand over there. Because the United States has nearly the highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies don't bring those earnings back and, as I said, reinvest outside the United States. That certainly is not a recipe for U.S. growth and U.S. job creation. The dominance of U.S.-headquartered companies in the global marketplace is waning. Thirty-six percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies were headquartered in the United States in 2000. In 2009, that number dropped to 28 percent. That is from 36 percent to 28 percent among the Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered in the United States. Clearly, America is losing ground and our current international tax rules are a big part of the problem. The bill I am introducing would help to right the ship by pulling our international tax rules into the 21st century so U.S. companies are not at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies because of American tax rules that are outdated by changes most other countries have already made. The bill would give U.S. companies incentives to create jobs in the United States and undertake activities in the United States in order to win globally. First, if the foreign earnings have already been subject to a tax in a foreign country, this bill would provide a 95-percent exemption from the U.S. tax on those foreign earnings. This would allow for American- managed capital to be put to the most productive use and help stabilize our economy. Second, this bill would allow foreign earnings that are currently sitting overseas to be brought back to America at a reduced rate--not a zero tax rate but a greatly reduced rate--and with the ability to pay that, the taxes that are owed in installments. That gets the cash back now and still gets some taxation for us instead of leaving it all overseas. This provision would serve as a transition to the new territorial system by allowing U.S. companies to unlock a significant amount of capital currently being held offshore and quickly move into the new territorial system, and that means more jobs and a better economy. It also emphasizes one of the things I talk about with any of the tax changes--as one of the few accountants--we have to transition into these things if we want the companies stable enough that they can exist through the change in the Tax Code, and that provides for a transition as well. Third, this bill would reduce the U.S. tax burden on income generated by American companies from ideas and innovations. This bill would encourage companies to develop and keep rights to ideas and inventions in the United States. When families tune in to ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday evenings, they would hear fewer stories about how U.S. companies are moving their profits to tax haven countries and avoiding U.S. tax on those earnings. Families would hear fewer stories about how the U.S. multinational companies set up post office boxes in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland without a single employee or officer of the company anywhere on site and attribute a significant portion of their foreign earnings to those jurisdictions. Instead, families would hear more stories about how U.S. companies are generating the ideas and inventions of tomorrow right here in America. This bill can be a first step in tax reform. We have a lot of work to do in many other areas of tax law in order to make it simpler, fairer, and more transparent. We need to be looking at the individual tax system, the corporate tax system, and particularly how we tax the passthrough entities such as partnerships and S corporations that have to pay the tax on the money when it is still invested in the business. I also recognize, as we move forward in these other areas, it may be appropriate to make changes to this bill. This is exactly how the legislative process should work, and I look forward to getting back to conducting the Senate's business in regular order, where we work through the issues in the committee first and offer amendments to improve the bills that ultimately come to the Senate floor, where there is a shot for everybody else to make amendments. But today with the introduction of this bill, we move from discussion to action with respect to a single piece of the tax reform. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommended a move to a territorial system, and I am glad to be moving the conversation forward on this recommendation with the introduction of this bill. I hope this bill will begin a discussion, a discussion of fairness that needs to begin yesterday. I hope Members and their staff will review the bill and the detailed explanation we have prepared. I also ask that all interested stakeholders review the bill and reach out to my staff and the staff of the Finance Committee to discuss what they like, what they don't like, and their suggestions for improvements. That is the way bills are supposed to work. The international tax rules are not easy or simple and reforming them will be a heavy lift. But those things are worth doing, and when they are worth doing, they are rarely easy or simple. I look forward to joining with my colleagues to pass international tax reforms that our American companies and our country desperately need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue I raised during my maiden speech on the Senate floor in 1997; that is, the need to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I am disappointed that we were unable to pass a balanced budget amendment in 1997. I commend Senator Hatch for his efforts then. We got within one vote. We had 66 votes and we needed 67. Had we gotten that, we wouldn't be in this mess today. In 1997, our national debt was $5.4 trillion. Today, it is an astonishing $15 trillion. Without immediate action, that number will continue to increase to a level that is even more unsustainable. Time and time again, the Federal Government has proven it is incapable of the fiscal discipline needed to spend within its means. Time and time again, the Federal Government has spent more money than we brought in. It has led to the situation we currently face where we are borrowing more than 40 cents on every dollar we spend and where we are being threatened with further downgrades in our credit rating. In fiscal year 2010, the government brought in slightly more than $2.2 trillion in revenue. At the same time we collected $2.2 trillion, we spent $3.5 trillion. In other words, we overspent by $1.3 trillion. That is $1,300 billion. That is an astonishing amount of spending, and it cannot be sustained. I encourage everybody to write these numbers out with all of the zeroes sometime and see what we are talking about. We have a spending addiction that must be controlled. For years we have tried to hide it, disguise it, or ignore it. We have acted as if it is OK to keep spending money we don't have. We no longer have that option. The world today is different from the world of 1997. We have seen riots in other nations where their fiscal situations were out of control. If we don't act now, we could see similar events in this country. We can either balance our budget or go broke--even more broke than we already are. Balancing the budget is not a revolutionary idea. Responsible families balance the amount they spend with the amount they make or they go bankrupt. Businesses balance the amount they spend with the amount they bring in or they go bankrupt. Most States have amendments requiring them to balance the amount they spend with their revenue. Wyoming's Constitution requires a balanced budget each and every year, and they do it. If people in Washington understood budgeting the way Wyoming does, we would be in a much better place right now. If families, businesses, and States can balance their budgets, there is no reason the Federal Government cannot balance its budget. There are two options the Senate is considering today, and I am pleased there is consensus from both sides of the aisle that a balanced budget amendment would help us. Although that is the case, there is no doubt in my mind that the version introduced by Senator Hatch is far superior to the version introduced by Senator Udall. The Republican balanced budget amendment gets to the heart of the problem, which is the need to rein in out-of-control spending. The Republican resolution requires that we get spending down to historical revenue levels and forces us to make the tough choices about which programs will no longer be necessary. It also prohibits Congress from raising taxes until a supermajority of Members support such a tax increase. This is an important provision because the default solution for our out-of-control spending should be cutting spending, not raising taxes. This bill also goes into effect 5 years after ratification, which gives us the ability to transition to a balanced budget. I have a penny solution bill out there, a 1-cent solution where we cut 1 percent from every dollar we spend for 7 years. At the end of 7 years, the budget would balance. So it is not something that is undoable. We can balance the budget. While I am pleased that my Democratic colleagues have a balanced budget amendment, the alternative they offer does not address the heart of the problem. It does not include a spending cap to ensure that we move spending to an acceptable level. It does not include a requirement for a supermajority to raise taxes, which will allow proponents of tax increases to more easily work to balance a budget on the backs of the American taxpayers. And the American taxpayers are only 49 percent of the people working right now. The American people are not the ones who cannot get spending under control. They should not see tax increases simply because Congress can't do its job. We need to pass the Hatch amendment, and we need to pass it now, because I must also remind my colleagues that passage of a strong balanced budget amendment is the first step. If we pass a balanced budget amendment, it still must be ratified by the States. Three- fourths of the States have to pass it for it to become a part of the Constitution. That will take time, and with a $15 trillion debt we don't have a lot of time left. There is speculation that 2 years might be the outside. This isn't going to balance for 5 years. Two will create some substantial cuts and tax increases. Passage of the balanced budget amendment by three-fourths of the States is a tough test. Because of the magnitude of what we are trying to do, it should be. However, we need to give the States this opportunity to force the Federal Government to come to grips with its finances, as the State governments are required to do. Why should we give the States the opportunity to ratify a balanced budget amendment? Because I found that the best decisions are made closest to the people. State governments are closer to the people than the Federal Government and they are generally better at addressing the needs of the people of their State. Giving the States the opportunity to ratify the amendment will bring the budget closer to the people and would allow the American people to decide how they want Washington to spend their hard-earned money. Most of the American people get it and they are asking us to get it and do a balanced budget amendment. Amending our Constitution is an extraordinary measure. It is not something I take lightly. We are in an extraordinary time. We have a budget deficit that is out of control and a national debt that is ballooning to levels that are unsustainable. We need a balanced budget amendment so we can begin to get our Nation's finances back in order. I commend Senator Hatch for his bill and appreciate him offering it. I hope my colleagues will support it. It is essential for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for whatever time I might use.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you what has been keeping me awake, and I am sure, if I explain it well enough, it will keep you awake as well. Misery loves company. This is misery that is going to affect your future, and the Senate has to make some changes to have a future for this country. For 14 years, I was the only accountant in the Senate. I have been joined by Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, who is an accountant, and these kinds of numbers always bother us a little bit. I have put together a couple of pie charts here. This one on the left represents the spending we are doing; the one on the right represents the revenue we are receiving to do the spending. These are proportionately correct. This is the spending; this is the revenue to do the spending. Dramatically different. The revenues are dramatically lower. There are a number of pieces to this that I think probably will reveal more. The spending, incidentally, is $3.456 trillion. We are spending $3.456 trillion. We are taking in $2.2 trillion. That is $1.3 trillion less than we are spending. So we are spending a third more than we are taking in. How long can you do that? There is no end in sight. What is that made up of? Well, one of the things we worry about is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I have the revenues represented here for Social Security and other social insurances, and we are taking in $865 billion a year to support these programs. This piece of the pie is what we are having to put out for those same programs. We are having to put out $1.494 trillion; so $865 billion versus $1.494 trillion. When we say these programs are going broke, I think that fact is pretty evident. If you don't make any changes, this kind of spending will eliminate a program that seniors rely on. I used to say when we are spending at this rate, we are stealing from our grandkids. Now we are to a point where we have spent so much, it is no longer our grandkids we are stealing from, it is our kids. And in a matter of months the bill could come due. Europe is having some difficult financial times, and they are changing the way money is going to be available to secure the bonds that allow us to do this kind of spending. These actions could have widespread implications for the United States very soon. We also took Social Security money and put it in a trust fund. I always say, don't trust the trust funds. What we did is put IOUs in a drawer and we spent the money. We are spending some of the money twice. How long can you spend the money twice? Let us take a look at some of the other parts of this pie, because we always talk about the nondiscretionary spending. Well, to cover our discretionary spending, which includes Defense and all of the nonmandatory items, we are spending $1.349 trillion. And the income? Individual income tax is paying $899 billion. Corporate income tax pays $191 billion. I bet people thought there was a lot more corporate tax than that. Part of the reason for this corporate number is that a lot of people have single proprietorships, partnerships, or small business corporations. If a business is in one of those three categories, the money their company makes goes straight to their tax line, even though hardly anybody in business can take out all of the money they make. If they do not reinvest that money into the business, it business would go broke. So they do not get to take the money out, but have to count it through the individual tax code. That goes in this $899 billion of individual income, as opposed to the corporate tax of $191 billion. There is also an excise tax of $67 billion. These are the kinds of numbers that have to fund $1.349 trillion of spending. We have discretionary spending of $660 billion and we have military spending of $689 billion. I mentioned Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but besides that we have other mandatory spending adding another $416 billion in spending. That $416 billion accounts for the other items we have said will definitely be paid no matter what kind of shape the Federal Government is in. There are all sorts of programs included in that tally. This little yellow sliver here, a very important one, is the interest we have to pay. That is mandatory as well. We don't have an option on whether we are going to pay the interest on the bonds that we owe. Those interest costs come to $197 billion a year and that is at the lowest interest rate in the history of the United States. What happens when that goes up? As European countries have more trouble trying to sell their bonds, they are going to have to pay a higher rate to be able to sell those bonds. When they have to pay a higher rate, we will have to pay a higher rate. We are all competing for the same dollars, and there aren't enough dollars out there to fund this kind of an increase in spending each and every year. How do we make up the $1.2 trillion more we are spending than we are taking in? It's a huge difference we aren't coming close to addressing. I hope people can grasp the difference between spending and revenues. If you look at your own personal budget, your spending better be lower than your revenues, or at least no greater than the revenues. We haven't grasped that concept here yet. We did eliminate earmarks for the most part, and that helps, but it was still a rather small amount and we are still adding programs. Sometimes we add programs as a demonstration project. A group of Senators get together and they say, our five States could do something beneficial with this new program we have devised, so we will put a little money in the budget and draw up the criteria so just those five States can receive these monies. And the purpose is to see whether the program is effective. In my 14 years here, I have rarely seen one of these types of tailored programs that wasn't effective. I suppose there are some I never heard reported on, but I yet to see one that isn't effective. This means the following year the same group comes back and says, we just had this revelation, this marvelous experiment that happened in our State. It was spectacular and it ought to be expanded to every State in the Nation. Well, if it is that good, it probably ought to be expanded to every State in the Nation. But with whose money? With what money? We are already spending more than we are taking in. We can't do the demonstration programs on new ideas unless we can eliminate some of the old ideas, which brings up another problem. Another thing we do around here is we say we are going to eliminate this program, and over 10 years it will bring in the $5 billion needed to fund a new program. Well, that savings is accrued over 10 years, but the money on the new program is going to be spent over 1 year or 2 years at the most. That is pretty bad accounting. That is how you get to a situation where you have the current spending level versus the current revenues, by using creative accounting to pay for that new program. Well, you can't bind a future Congress, so there is no assurance that the current method of getting the revenue will stay around. There is also no assurance we won't use that same pot of revenue two or three times. We will probably be told this is not the case, but I have seen some instances around here where revenue has been spent more than once. One of the other problems we have around here is that we have too many spending decisions to make. There isn't a business in the world, with the exception of a business like Wal-Mart, that spends $3.456 billion in a year--1 year. There aren't many businesses that comes close to that. And they have a bevy of accountants figuring out how to make expenditures, cuts, and balance the budget for the year. What we do here in the United States Senate is an appropriations process. We have broken that process down into 12 pieces to make it more manageable, but 12 pieces doesn't cut it. You can't get into the detail for spending the billions. One of those numbers is $689 billion. How long would it take to go through the expenditures on $689 billion? We have to trust some of the past spending and some of the past obligations, but we can't be as conscientious and detail-oriented as we should be. So what do we do about it? Well, we do omnibus bills. That is where we look at what we spent last year, and we put everything into one package and hurry up and pass it so the government can continue to operate. Before that happens, we might do a series of continuing resolutions. We say, we can't shut down government because there are so many things people need that we have already approved--to the tune of $3.456 trillion--so we have to keep government operating. What we end up with is a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution allows a government agency to spend one- twelfth of what they had the previous year each month until we get a funding agreement for the remainder of the fiscal year. In 2008, we spent 27 percent less than we spend right now. I think a lot of the agencies would be delighted to have us keep continuing one-twelfth of their last year's allotted spending each month this year. That is what we have been doing, and it's not getting us anywhere. I think there ought to be a penalty, which would be reflected in every one of the budgets. I think every time we pass a continuing resolution there ought to be a reduction in the amount spent each month until we get a final resolution. That could be 1 percent or \1/2\ percent or \1/4\ percent, but there should be some kind of a reduction if we are ever going to reduce spending and pay down our debt. There is another responsibility, and that is for appropriators to figure out how to get this spending circle down to the size of the revenue circle. This is the only part that the Appropriations Committee has worked on--this little third of the square that contains discretionary spending. What we are going to have to do now is come up with some solutions. I have some solutions. I am not going to go into those today, but what I want people to do right now is to think about how much we are spending versus the revenue we have. Every person in America needs to be thinking about the way the programs they are involved in can be a part of getting the spending circle down to the size of the revenue circle. It is everybody's responsibility. What we continually run into are the groups--particularly from our States--that come in and say: I have this fantastic program and we just need a little increase for inflation because it is such a phenomenal program. For years, we have been able to do that. That is how the balloon got this big. We are not going to be able to do that anymore. What would be helpful is if people could suggest how, in their program, they could make it better for less money. It is either going to have to be better for less with a little pain right now, or wait a couple years and have it worse for less with a lot of pain. We are at a point right now where we reduce spending 1 percent for each of 7 years and get to a balanced budget; that is, 1 percent true cuts. That isn't 1 percent less growth. It is 1 percent true cuts each and every year, and it has to cover the whole circle, not just the discretionary part of the spending circle--which is what we usually concentrate on--and then have some discretionary capability on it. The fact is, the largest amounts we spend in this whole piece of the pie is spent on mandatory spending, and it is conversely funded by a much smaller amount. We can't do that for long. We are going to have to propose solutions. Instead we have been in scenario where people come in and say we need a little bit more money or don't cut my program; keep it the same size. I ask for suggestions on how we could keep this practice going in light of our disproportionate revenues and expenditures. The usual approach is to tell me and my fellow senators there are a couple of other programs that we ought to eliminate. We are looking at those too. We looked at them in the Health and Human Services areas, Senator Coburn and I did, and found there was $9 billion of duplication. Do we need duplication? I would hope not. Senator Coburn got so excited, he did this same study for the entire Federal Government and found $900 billion in duplication. Does that mean a whole lot of other agencies were a whole lot less efficient than Health and Human Services? No. It means we have duplicative programs in every single agency. We also have financial literacy programs in every single agency. If we are spending $3.456 trillion and only getting $2.2 trillion in revenue, is the financial literacy in our government working? I don't think so. When I first got here, there were 119 preschool education programs. Preschool is important. The start children get from when they are first born until they go to school makes a huge difference in their growth and development for the rest of their lives. However, we had 119 programs and once we took a closer look, we found many of them, according to their own evaluation, were failing. We now have that number down to 69 programs. Do you know why we can't go below 69? My jurisdiction as Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is over the Department of Education, which only has 8 programs--8 of 69 preschool programs. The Department of Agriculture has the most preschool programs. That's why, when Senator Coburn is talking about duplication and looking at the complete picture of everything the Federal Government does, there is duplication in each and every agency. What we are going to have to do is pick out those that operate with the most efficiency and results, give them a little more funding and eliminate the other duplicative programs. Getting rid of duplication is a surer way of solving the problem than some of the other ways that have been talked about. One other avenue we keep talking about is waste, fraud, and abuse. Yes, there is waste, fraud, and abuse. We need everybody in America to help us find that waste, fraud, and abuse, but in reality, the total cost of waste, fraud, and abuse is a rather elusive number. Does anybody know how big that is? Everybody is guessing. It is only a guess how much there is. We need to find it, and we need to be taking the money from eliminating these actions before we spend it. We will sometimes attempt to use the waste, fraud, and abuse numbers as the pay-for for a new program. We aren't able to spend that money until we actually have it, but what happens it is used as pay-for and the program goes into effect, but nobody follows up to go out and dig up that waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, the waste, fraud, and abuse money ought to go into a fund before it can be spent on something else. However, when I am talking about duplication, the $900 billion worth of duplication, I am talking about numbers that we can go to the Federal budget and look up. We can find out exactly how much those programs are spending. In its duplication, we wouldn't eliminate all of them, but we ought to be able to eliminate half of them. Madam President, $450 billion alone, half of Senator Coburn's total duplication findings, would be a huge change for this country. I hope we look at some of those ideas to cut spending. I have a 15- page speech that would explain some ways we could solve this problem, but what I am trying to do is get people to grasp the concept that our Federal tax receipts, and total revenue, is far outweighed by the circle that shows what we are spending. As a family, people know they can't budget this way. As a government, we can't do it for very long, even if we print our own money. Somehow we are going to have to shrink the spending circle down until it is that size or grow the revenue circle until it is--they are comparable in size, or a combination of the two. As I said, I will give some other speeches to outline some of my other ideas. In the meantime, I hope everybody will take a look at the chart I have shown today. We can't look at it and say don't touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, we can't have $\1/2\ trillion of extra expenditure spending in that category alone for long. There is another $416 trillion in mandatory spending in that same category. How long can we keep spending at this rate? What happens if interest rates go up? This piece of the spending pie can become much bigger and probably will. I don't know how long we can keep interest rates as low rate as they are now. If they go up, it will help some seniors because they have some investments in cash that would get higher interest rates, but for the country as a whole, rising interest rates that already make up 6 percent of our budget will only be more cause for worry. When that one expands above the 1 percent we are spending right now--and it is going to expand in the next couple of years because of what is happening in Europe--we had better be worried about it. This is the kind of picture shown by the deficit commission that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson chaired. I was hoping we would repaint this picture a number of times between the time they released their report 1 year ago and now, because we have to get America to understand. Actually, I can tell you the people in my State understand this. I don't need to explain it to them. They know how much more we are spending versus what we are taking in. They can even tell you the numbers. They are concerned, and they need to be concerned. We all need to be concerned. I am open to suggestions on this. I will have some speeches I'll give later reiterating this definite problem we are in. I have said a number of times our country has maxed out its credit cards. A couple weeks ago during a trip to Wyoming, I checked into a hotel and I used my Senate credit card. The lady a few moments later, very embarrassed, said: ``I am sorry, but your card is being rejected.'' I said: ``I guess the Federal Government is in worse trouble than I thought,'' and used my own card and it went through. We had better be worrying about it now because we do have a problem. We have maxed out our credit cards, and there are not any other places we can go for money. We have been the bastion of money for years. Keep in this in mind. Start thinking of ways we can actually make some cuts and increase some revenues. I have ideas for both in speeches I'll give in the future. We are in a crisis. It will be a more immediate crisis any time and we are no longer spending our grandkids' money; we are spending our kids' money, and it is about to come due on us. When I say ``on us,'' I am even including myself and the seniors in that count. The day of reckoning is not far away. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have introduced this resolution to prevent the labor dispute between our Nation's railroads and their labor unions from delivering a knockout punch to the U.S. economy just before the holiday season. The contract renegotiation that has been ongoing for some time has been through the National Mediation Board process and recommendations put forth by the Presidential Emergency Board selected by President Obama have been accepted by the majority of the unions. In fact, 10 of the 13 unions have reached agreement, and I congratulate both sides for coming to the table and working it out. Unfortunately, the threat of a nationwide rail strike still remains and that is something our economy simply cannot bear at this time. I have heard from numerous U.S. manufacturers about the negative consequences this strike will have on them. They are concerned not just for their companies but for the employees who may have to be laid off if they are unable to ship product and for the customers who will not be able to get supplies they need. A rail strike may start on December 6, but the impact of this threat is already being felt. As someone who comes from a State that relies on commercial rail for much of its economy, I know how serious this is and that is why I have introduced this resolution. I urge the Senate, the House and the President to act quickly to avert this manmade national disaster.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise today to introduce my Buy Back America Bonds bill, S. 1909. This bill will not only help raise awareness of our Nation's debt crisis, but it will also give every American the chance to be a part of the solution to fix our country's fiscal dilemma. My bill will allow Americans to invest in this incredible country and bring foreign- held U.S. debt back to American hands while at the same time reducing Federal Government spending. But before I talk about where my bill is going, I want to explain where I am coming from. In World War II, war bonds were sold to help pay for our Nation's national defense and reduce the amount of debt incurred. People from all kinds of backgrounds saved toward purchasing war bonds, often with nickels, dimes, and quarters. On the job, people deducted the cost of war bonds from their meager paychecks. Families invested in war bonds and saved for the future. During World War II, President Roosevelt even asked the Boy Scouts of America to sell war bonds, and they did. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts worked with their packs and troops to sell bonds to their neighbors and communities. In other words, all across the country, folks of all walks and types were working together for one collective goal--to do their part for the country's war effort. Men, women, and children were selling and purchasing these war bonds, all in the name of lending a hand to our fellow countrymen and to pay for the costs of war. I was born during World War II. When I was born, my parents bought me a war bond. I still have that $20 bond today. Not cashing it was my first gift to my country, and it is also a keepsake to me. In 1941, when savings bonds were retitled as ``war bonds'' in the terrible and devastating aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the United States rallied as a collective nation in support of the war and war bond effort. At the time, though, the average American only earned about $2,000 a year. Despite these hardships and tough times, 134 million Americans were called on to be part of the war bond effort, and more than half of the U.S. population--85 million people--responded to the patriotic call to participate. The Scouts raised money and personally donated their own funds 10 cents at a time in the form of stamps that could be pasted into a war bond booklet. When war bond books were complete, they could be taken to the local bank, and sometimes even the local post office, to purchase bonds. One innovative group even created a promotional cardboard with slots for 75 quarters that had to be filled before it could be redeemed for a bond. Showing his leadership and dedication to the effort, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt purchased the very first war bond issued. In part of President Roosevelt's April 30, 1941, radio address to the American people, he said: One thought is uppermost in my mind as I make grateful acknowledgment of this dual honor. It is that in reserving the first Defense Savings Bond and the first Defense Postal Savings Stamps in the name of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General have given emphasis to the national character of this defense savings campaign. This character of the campaign is national in the best sense of the word, for it is going to reach down, we hope, to the individual and the family in every community and on every farm, in every State and every possession of the United States. The President goes on to say: It is national and it is homey at the same time. For example, I am buying not one stamp but ten stamps each to go into a little book for each of my ten grandchildren. And the first savings bond is being made out in the name of Mrs. Roosevelt as beneficiary. It is fitting that the President in his purchases should be a sort of a symbol of the determination of all the people to save and sacrifice in defense of democracy. In a larger sense, this first defense bond and these first defense stamps sold to the President constitute tangible evidence of a partnership--a partnership between all of the people and their Government--entered into to safeguard and perpetuate all of those precious freedoms which Government guarantees. In this time of national peril, what we all must realize is that the United States Government is you and I and all other families next door all the way across the country and back again. It is one great partnership. That ends the quote from President Roosevelt. The President concluded his address by asking his fellow Americans to demonstrate their faith in America by investing in the new defense bonds and stamps. I remember as a child bringing dimes to school so that I could purchase a stamp for my savings bond book--one stamp at a time, saving toward the price of a full savings bond. I remember vividly that the bond was a lofty $18.75. When I got my book filled, we could go down to the bank so that I could finally trade for my bond--that piece of paper showing that I had done my small part to help in the effort and make this country better. Kids of my generation learned the value of saving and helping their country through the savings bond program. Today, I rise to speak about a different sort of fight, and yet, at the same time, this fight is one that is no less serious than the one I remember as a child. Today, our Nation is struggling to fight a growing spending problem and a debt crisis. Debt is our problem now. It is time to get all of America involved, not with a promise of wealth but with a sense of investing in our country, of buying America back, pulling us back from the brink of bankruptcy to other countries. The national debt stands at $15 trillion, which breaks down to nearly $48,000 for every person in our entire country. These figures are a frightening reminder that we cannot continue to put off the tough choices and that we must restore the fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. This is a tough fight that has to be tackled on all fronts. Today I am proposing a step in the right direction and calling upon Americans for support of this effort. I am proposing that we bring American debt back to American hands. I am introducing the Buy Back America Bonds, S. 1909. My bill would buy back American bonds to American citizens in affordable $25 increments so every American can afford to invest and do their part. The Treasury would then use the funds from these bonds to begin paying down the $4.4 trillion in foreign-held U.S. debt. Investing in Buy Back America Bonds would allow Americans to show their patriotism and faith in this great Nation. Unlike the war bonds of my childhood, Buy Back America Bonds would create a new series of savings bonds which are indexed for inflation as well as earning a fixed interest rate. By tying Buy Back America Bonds to inflation, we ensure the buying power of consumers' investments remains the same while also earning them additional interest. These could be called Gold Standard Bonds. Those are two ways the Buy Back America Bonds would earn and keep their value for investors in addition to their patriotic and symbolic investment. These are not going to be barn-burner investments, but they will help our Nation not only pay down our debt but pay down the amount of debt owed to foreign nations. What makes this bill particularly special is that for every bond purchased, citizens are also helping the Federal Government to reduce spending. Every year after the first year the amount of Buy Back America Bonds sold would be tallied and that exact amount would then be cut from Federal spending the following year. I stand before you to explain not only where I am coming from with my Buy Back America Bonds but also why our Nation needs a collective effort to rally around to make steps toward a more responsible Federal budget and getting our national debt under control. Investing in America and bringing foreign-held debt back to American hands is where I propose to start. I ask my colleagues and the American people to help me be an integral part of the debt crisis solution. Not only am I a father, I am a grandfather, and I want to be the first to purchase Buy Back America Bonds for my four grandchildren. I want my grandchildren and yours to have every opportunity for a great quality of life, to know the meaning of faith and investment in a prosperous United States. I am doing everything I can to ensure that happens. That means proposing solutions to problems and working to get my colleagues on board. So I rise and ask for the support of my colleagues for this great effort and support for S. 1909, my Buy Back America Bonds bill. What President Roosevelt said then is equally true now: In this time of national peril we must realize the U.S. Government is you and I, and all other families next door all the way across the country and back again. It is one great partnership. Working together we can solve all of this. We need to solve all of this. We need to start solving it right now and this is one way to do it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was sorry to hear the supercommittee is in trouble, that they might not be able to agree. Then this morning's Washington Post front page headline was ``Debt Panel Failure Won't Cause Catastrophe.'' Every day we do not find a solution, every day we spend is a catastrophe. We have maxed out our credit cards. Here is one way that came to my attention. I was traveling in Wyoming and I checked into the hotel for the night. The person checking me in, very embarrassed, said: I am sorry, but it will not take your credit card. It was a Federal credit card. I said: Goodness, we are in more trouble than I thought. I gave them my personal credit card and that went right through so I am not sure where we are. But I know we have maxed out our credit cards and not just that but also the symbolic credit cards that we have. We have as much debt as we probably can sustain and as debt comes due across the world for other countries, it is going to be tougher and tougher to be able to sell more debt. We are kind of in the same situation as Greece and Italy, except for two things. No. 1 is we are a big, flexible country that has pulled itself out of terrible situations time and time again, and we will do it this time too. We also own our own money supply. That helps. When constituents ask what can they expect, I always start the conversation by saying you should expect to get no more than what the 2008 level was. We increased things considerably after that with the stimulus bill and that increased some bases. We have to get back down to 2008, just as a beginning. I have to say the President has had a chance to change direction. I have to congratulate the President for naming a deficit commission. I even like the people he named to it, with Senator Simpson from Wyoming and Erskine Bowles heading up that committee. I think they did some tremendous work. I think we should pay more attention to what they had to say. I had a little disappointment when the President did his State of the Union speech following their report. He had an opportunity to repaint the same bleak picture that committee painted and America would have understood better. Although from traveling across our country, and particularly in Wyoming, I know the people there understand it better than Congress does. But he could have changed it by repainting that picture and then he could have followed it up with a solution which would have been his budget. Instead, his budget was another stimulus plan. It has been voted on by Congress. It was not voted for by Congress, it was voted on by Congress, and it was voted 97 to nothing-- it was defeated. I think the deficit commission report would have done much better. Congress has also had the chance to change direction--and in some cases we have. We have kind of eliminated earmarks. There are still some of them that are slipped in, but we kind of eliminated them. We have a couple new problems. Now we add demonstration projects. We have always had demonstration projects, but now we do it as a substitute for earmarks and that is where we allow maybe five States to have an opportunity to do a particular program to see if it works. So we fund it in a minimal amount--that still is millions. The difficulty is that at the end of the period of time for that demonstration project, they all work. They are all spectacular. They all would save America if we just put it in every single State and funded it from the Federal Government. It can't happen. We are out of money. There are lots of good ideas out there, lots of good ideas that would help. When those ideas are proved--the idea with the demonstration is that it would demonstrate well enough how good it is that somewhere at the local level that project would be picked up and done or forgotten. But, no, we do make them a national program and we do fund them forever in chunks of time. Another thing we are doing is that we propose a project and, because we like the word ``pay-for,'' because we should pay for whatever we are doing, we put up a project, we put a 2-year limit on the project, and then we pick a pay-for by showing some program that, if it were eliminated for 10 years, might bring in that amount of revenue. We cannot pay for a 2-year program with 10 years' worth of revenue because somebody is going to spend the rest of that anyway and it may never be collected. A Congress can change its mind all the time. We have to quit using gimmicks and we have to quit adding new programs. What part of maxed out credit cards don't we understand? We have to quit buying votes with dollars we do not have. We do have to address mandatory spending. Social Security and Medicare have been a problem for a long time. I remember when I first came to Congress, President Clinton was the President and he called for a special conference on Social Security. We had 1 day where we got to be initiated into what all the problems were--fantastic speakers. We had a second day where Members of the House and Congress met in smaller committees to work on pieces of the Social Security problem. We came up with a plan and President Clinton looked at the plan and met with us as a group and said: If all of you are willing to put your fingerprint on this, we will do it. We can only do it if everybody puts their fingerprint on it so both parties are responsible for it, and everybody in the room agreed to do that. Unfortunately, we were distracted a little bit by something called Monica Lewinsky, and that bill never came up anywhere. The situation we are in right now is passing bills to fail. Each side has a tendency to put up a bill that has something good in it, packaged with something they like but the other side doesn't like. It is going to get defeated on the basis of what each side doesn't like and the good part is left out. That is not going to get anything done for us. We have tried the stimulus bill. We got negligible effects on jobs. It did escalate the basis for budgets and it was the use of one-time money. That has created some problems for it. We hear that 30,000 teachers and firefighters are going to be laid off. That comes from safety money and education money that went to the States. It was one- time money. They cannot use one-time money for a continuing contract. If a State did, yes, they are having to lay off people because the stimulus is not being repeated each and every year. Are there solutions? Yes, there are solutions. I am optimistic about the solutions. I do recognize everything has to be on the table and we should all reread the deficit commission report. We have to ask constituents to suggest their own programs to reduce. In the spring, we will be inundated by a whole lot of people who will be ready to have us support the program that makes a difference in their life and the life of the community. I always ask them how we are going to pay for it? They always suggest somebody else's program to cancel. There are never any suggestions of how to consolidate within their own program and do it. They have to do it and each of us in Congress needs to evaluate our own programs. Not all of them can be sacred cows. I wish to congratulate Senator Rubio and Senator Coons for a jobs creation bill they have put together. They have taken the diverse bills from both sides of the aisle and several others and looked to see if there was any common thread. All they did was pick out the common thread from each of those and put them into a bill. If both sides and others in Congress like it, why would that not pass and pass quickly? I congratulate our Congresswoman Lummis, from Wyoming. She is on the Appropriations Committee. I think that is the first time we have ever had anybody on the Appropriations Committee. She gets into the details of the budget. In fact, she has gotten into details of the budget down to very small amounts, so much that she has been told she is not going to be invited on any trips with any of the rest of them. That is probably what we need right now, and I congratulate her on her attention to detail. Another thing we have to do is make sure the bills go to committee. I have been a committee chairman. I have been a ranking member. I know when a bill goes to committee, that is where we can get into the details of the bill, and we can do nuances. When a bill comes to the floor of the Senate, and it came from the President to the leader and then to us, the amendments we put in are not very workable as far as reaching agreement from both sides. They are kind of an up-or-down vote. They are very political, and that kind of stymies what we are trying to do. We have to quit doing comprehensive bills. We can do them in stages. We can do parts of them. They can be very major parts, but they can be done in parts. I remember reading a book about the compromise of 1850. Henry Clay put himself in the hospital trying to pass this huge compromise. When he did, some of his friends took the bill, broke it into parts, four parts, and got all the parts passed. Now, there were only four people in all of the Senate at that time who voted for all the parts, but all the parts passed. There should be a lesson in there for us. I do follow an 80-percent rule; I found we can agree on 80 percent of the issues. If we stick to that 80 percent, we can pick any one issue and we can solve 80 percent of that problem. We can solve 100 percent if we can get everybody to think of an alternative way to do that, one sticky part that we have polarized for years. Another thing we need to do is eliminate duplication. Senator Coburn and I took a look at the primary department that comes under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We found $9 billion in duplication. Because it is duplication, we cannot eliminate $9 billion because there are some who would stay and do the same thing the other group was doing. It stimulated Dr. Coburn enough that he looked at all the programs. In all of the programs he found $900 billion worth of duplication. Duplication is not like fraud, waste, and abuse. Fraud, waste, and abuse, we don't know how much is out there. We catch a piece at a time, and we speculate on how much there is. But duplication is specific because it is already in the budget. We can look at what they are paid right now, and if we eliminate that, it is a specific amount. When he talks about $900 billion worth of duplication, it is $900 billion worth of duplication. We ought to be able to get rid of at least $450 billion of that. Half of it could be duplication. It is twice as much of what we effectively need. Why did we find $9 billion in one agency and $900 billion by looking at all of them? When we go outside the jurisdiction, we find--this one always kind of interests me--financial literacy programs in virtually every department and agency in this Federal Government. If we really have financial literacy, would we be in the position we are in now? I don't think so. So that is a whole lot of duplication. It is duplicating each and every agency. If we have only one jurisdiction over one agency, that is the only place we can eliminate it. When I got here there were 119 preschool programs. I took a look at them, and there were quite a few of them that were failing according to their own evaluation--not my evaluation, their own evaluation. We were able to get that down to 69 programs. There are 69 preschool programs at the present time. Here is the interesting part of that: Only eight of those are under the Department of Education. Sixty-one of them are in other departments. It seems like we could have consolidation and maybe some elimination of duplication. Also, we have the States and the local governments coming to us and saying: We are out of money. We need money, and we don't have any money. We cannot afford to help them that way. I have put in a bill to help them collect the sales tax already due them, and this is the marketplace fairness bill that would take care of their infrastructure and their jobs. So I hope everyone will take a look at that. Finally, another solution would be the Buy Back America Bonds that I spoke about just a little while ago. If everybody bought some bonds, that could reduce the amount of debt held by foreign countries; that would help us and then that would reduce the amount of spending by an equal amount. There are solutions out there. It is time we got busy on them. I thank the supercommittee for their work and ask everybody to pay attention to whatever they come up with. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise today to introduce my Buy Back America Bonds bill, S. 1909. This bill will not only help raise awareness of our Nation's debt crisis, but it will also give every American the chance to be a part of the solution to fix our country's fiscal dilemma. My bill will allow Americans to invest in this incredible country and bring foreign- held U.S. debt back to American hands while at the same time reducing Federal Government spending. But before I talk about where my bill is going, I want to explain where I am coming from. In World War II, war bonds were sold to help pay for our Nation's national defense and reduce the amount of debt incurred. People from all kinds of backgrounds saved toward purchasing war bonds, often with nickels, dimes, and quarters. On the job, people deducted the cost of war bonds from their meager paychecks. Families invested in war bonds and saved for the future. During World War II, President Roosevelt even asked the Boy Scouts of America to sell war bonds, and they did. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts worked with their packs and troops to sell bonds to their neighbors and communities. In other words, all across the country, folks of all walks and types were working together for one collective goal--to do their part for the country's war effort. Men, women, and children were selling and purchasing these war bonds, all in the name of lending a hand to our fellow countrymen and to pay for the costs of war. I was born during World War II. When I was born, my parents bought me a war bond. I still have that $20 bond today. Not cashing it was my first gift to my country, and it is also a keepsake to me. In 1941, when savings bonds were retitled as ``war bonds'' in the terrible and devastating aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the United States rallied as a collective nation in support of the war and war bond effort. At the time, though, the average American only earned about $2,000 a year. Despite these hardships and tough times, 134 million Americans were called on to be part of the war bond effort, and more than half of the U.S. population--85 million people--responded to the patriotic call to participate. The Scouts raised money and personally donated their own funds 10 cents at a time in the form of stamps that could be pasted into a war bond booklet. When war bond books were complete, they could be taken to the local bank, and sometimes even the local post office, to purchase bonds. One innovative group even created a promotional cardboard with slots for 75 quarters that had to be filled before it could be redeemed for a bond. Showing his leadership and dedication to the effort, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt purchased the very first war bond issued. In part of President Roosevelt's April 30, 1941, radio address to the American people, he said: One thought is uppermost in my mind as I make grateful acknowledgment of this dual honor. It is that in reserving the first Defense Savings Bond and the first Defense Postal Savings Stamps in the name of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General have given emphasis to the national character of this defense savings campaign. This character of the campaign is national in the best sense of the word, for it is going to reach down, we hope, to the individual and the family in every community and on every farm, in every State and every possession of the United States. The President goes on to say: It is national and it is homey at the same time. For example, I am buying not one stamp but ten stamps each to go into a little book for each of my ten grandchildren. And the first savings bond is being made out in the name of Mrs. Roosevelt as beneficiary. It is fitting that the President in his purchases should be a sort of a symbol of the determination of all the people to save and sacrifice in defense of democracy. In a larger sense, this first defense bond and these first defense stamps sold to the President constitute tangible evidence of a partnership--a partnership between all of the people and their Government--entered into to safeguard and perpetuate all of those precious freedoms which Government guarantees. In this time of national peril, what we all must realize is that the United States Government is you and I and all other families next door all the way across the country and back again. It is one great partnership. That ends the quote from President Roosevelt. The President concluded his address by asking his fellow Americans to demonstrate their faith in America by investing in the new defense bonds and stamps. I remember as a child bringing dimes to school so that I could purchase a stamp for my savings bond book--one stamp at a time, saving toward the price of a full savings bond. I remember vividly that the bond was a lofty $18.75. When I got my book filled, we could go down to the bank so that I could finally trade for my bond--that piece of paper showing that I had done my small part to help in the effort and make this country better. Kids of my generation learned the value of saving and helping their country through the savings bond program. Today, I rise to speak about a different sort of fight, and yet, at the same time, this fight is one that is no less serious than the one I remember as a child. Today, our Nation is struggling to fight a growing spending problem and a debt crisis. Debt is our problem now. It is time to get all of America involved, not with a promise of wealth but with a sense of investing in our country, of buying America back, pulling us back from the brink of bankruptcy to other countries. The national debt stands at $15 trillion, which breaks down to nearly $48,000 for every person in our entire country. These figures are a frightening reminder that we cannot continue to put off the tough choices and that we must restore the fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. This is a tough fight that has to be tackled on all fronts. Today I am proposing a step in the right direction and calling upon Americans for support of this effort. I am proposing that we bring American debt back to American hands. I am introducing the Buy Back America Bonds, S. 1909. My bill would buy back American bonds to American citizens in affordable $25 increments so every American can afford to invest and do their part. The Treasury would then use the funds from these bonds to begin paying down the $4.4 trillion in foreign-held U.S. debt. Investing in Buy Back America Bonds would allow Americans to show their patriotism and faith in this great Nation. Unlike the war bonds of my childhood, Buy Back America Bonds would create a new series of savings bonds which are indexed for inflation as well as earning a fixed interest rate. By tying Buy Back America Bonds to inflation, we ensure the buying power of consumers' investments remains the same while also earning them additional interest. These could be called Gold Standard Bonds. Those are two ways the Buy Back America Bonds would earn and keep their value for investors in addition to their patriotic and symbolic investment. These are not going to be barn-burner investments, but they will help our Nation not only pay down our debt but pay down the amount of debt owed to foreign nations. What makes this bill particularly special is that for every bond purchased, citizens are also helping the Federal Government to reduce spending. Every year after the first year the amount of Buy Back America Bonds sold would be tallied and that exact amount would then be cut from Federal spending the following year. I stand before you to explain not only where I am coming from with my Buy Back America Bonds but also why our Nation needs a collective effort to rally around to make steps toward a more responsible Federal budget and getting our national debt under control. Investing in America and bringing foreign-held debt back to American hands is where I propose to start. I ask my colleagues and the American people to help me be an integral part of the debt crisis solution. Not only am I a father, I am a grandfather, and I want to be the first to purchase Buy Back America Bonds for my four grandchildren. I want my grandchildren and yours to have every opportunity for a great quality of life, to know the meaning of faith and investment in a prosperous United States. I am doing everything I can to ensure that happens. That means proposing solutions to problems and working to get my colleagues on board. So I rise and ask for the support of my colleagues for this great effort and support for S. 1909, my Buy Back America Bonds bill. What President Roosevelt said then is equally true now: In this time of national peril we must realize the U.S. Government is you and I, and all other families next door all the way across the country and back again. It is one great partnership. Working together we can solve all of this. We need to solve all of this. We need to start solving it right now and this is one way to do it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Tennessee be allowed to enter into a colloquy with me for the time that we have allotted.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to talk about a problem I have tried to solve for 14 years. Today, I think we have a new solution and ``the'' solution--The Marketplace Fairness Act. Our solution has to do with sales taxes that are not being collected at the present time. It is a loophole in the tax law. I used to be a retailer. I never thought it was fair that I had to collect the sales taxes but the people from out of State did not have to collect the same sales tax. I used to be a mayor, and this bill is a jobs bill and an infrastructure bill. A lot of people do not realize that sales taxes help pay for schools, police and firemen. They may not realize it pays for infrastructure, such as streets and sewers. I always tell people it is a little tough to flush the toilet over the Internet. The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow States--not require States-- to be able to have the out-of-State online sellers, providing they sell more than $500,000 in a year, to collect the State sales tax. I have also been a State legislator, and I can tell you we never intended to pass a law to tax the people on Main Street who buy the yearbooks and participate in community activities to be the ones to collect the tax, and anyone from out of State to not have to do it. This bill cleans up that problem at the same time. Does it make much of a difference? Yes. We are being asked as a Congress to give money to the States for their teachers, their firemen, and their infrastructure. It is because there is a decreasing amount of revenue going to them through sales taxes that are owed, but are not currently being collected. People may not realize it, but when they buy something online, if the tax is not collected by the seller, they still owe it. This is not a new tax; it is a tax that is already on the books. No legislator ever intended for it to just be for Main Street retailers. If States so choose, sales taxes should be collected by all retailers. In our attempts to fix this problem, we have received a number of support letters for this new bill. I hope everybody will take a look at them. They can view them online. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Some of the groups include: One is from the National Conference of State Legislatures, one from the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the Federation of Tax Administrators, The National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and the Governing Board of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. I want to read one from Amazon.com because they are one of the world's largest online sellers. In the past, they have opposed previous versions of the bill, but they think we have this one right. The letter states: Thank you very much for your legislation on interstate sales tax collection. Amazon strongly supports enactment of your bill and will work with you, your colleagues in Congress, retailers, and the states to get this bipartisan legislation passed. It's a win-win resolution--and as analysts have noted, Amazon offers customers the best prices with or without sales tax. If enacted, your bill will allow states to require out of state retailers to collect sales tax at the time of purchase and remit those taxes on behalf of customers, and it will facilitate collection on behalf of third party sellers. Thus, your bill will allow states to obtain additional revenue without new taxes or federal spending and will make it easy for consumers and small retailers to comply with state sales tax laws. Amazon is grateful for your hard work on the issue, and we look forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation. We have a number of other supporters in addition to the others I just mentioned. We are appreciative of their support and look forward to working with them to get this bill enacted. The Marketplace Fairness Act is a bipartisan bill. The original cosponsors on it are five Republicans--Senators Alexander, Boozman, Blunt, Corker, and me and five Democrats--Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, Reed, Whitehouse, and Pryor. A key person in this debate has been the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who introduced a previous version of the bill. We encourage our colleagues to take a look at Senator Durbin's previously introduced bill and the Marketplace Fairness Act to see the differences--I think our bipartisan bill is a very passable bill. At this point, I would ask Senator Durbin if he has any comments he would like to share as he has been an integral part of making the bill a strong bipartisan product and realizing the plight the retailers and the state and local governments are in.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make some brief remarks about a judge who is coming up for a vote, and I ask that both myself and the other Senator from Wyoming be allowed to speak consecutively.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley and their staffs for moving this nomination. Because of their efforts, I have this opportunity to express my support for Judge Scott Skavdahl's nomination to serve on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Although Scott grew up in Harrison, NE, it wasn't long before he made his way to my home State and enrolled at the University of Wyoming. The university must have felt like a whole new world to him because he had just graduated from a high school that had less than 50 students. Still, while others might have been intimidated, Scott saw it as another of life's challenges to be faced and overcome, so he worked hard to complete the requirements for his undergraduate degree. In between his classes, Scott managed to find the time to pursue another interest of his, as he joined and played on the university's football team for 4 years. After graduation, Scott made a decision that was to start him on a path that would set the tone and the direction of his life when he applied to and was accepted by the University of Wyoming Law School. His classes were difficult and demanding, but Scott knew what he wanted to do with his life, and, as was true for him in so many things, he just wouldn't quit until he had accomplished what he set out to do. That attitude of confidence and commitment to setting goals and achieving them is one of the reasons Scott has been able to establish a reputation for himself throughout his career as a serious and thoughtful litigator and as a judge. Whenever someone speaks of him, they always seem to use the same words to describe him. They say he is incredibly smart, a hard-working attorney, and a highly competent and capable judge. They also say: Although he wasn't born in Wyoming, we are very glad to have him. Looking back over each step along the way that led him to this nomination, it is clear that Scott has used his time and his talents wisely and well. Because of his background and his experience on a daily basis, Scott has come to know in detail the issues that face the people of Wyoming and how the people feel about him. That is why it was no surprise that I have heard nothing but good things about Scott, his approach to the law, and his demeanor as a judge. Simply put, Scott knows all about the administrative ins and outs of the District of Wyoming, and he has used his courtroom as a classroom to help us all be informed and aware of the issues that come before him and the reasons for his decisions on all of them. At times such as these, it is always interesting to take a moment to look back at someone's life and connect the dots that brought him or her to this important moment in time. For Scott, a childhood in Nebraska led him to Wyoming, where he obtained the knowledge and skills he needed to pursue a career in something that really interested him-- the law. He then used those credentials he earned in the classroom and his life to move step by step through our legal and judicial system. His talents and abilities soon caught the attention of former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal and President Obama. The President has now nominated him to serve in this very important post, and he has been unanimously voted out of committee. In and of itself, that recognition is a powerful endorsement of Scott's background, his ability to interpret and apply the law, and his experience both in the courtroom and in his community. It also expresses our confidence that Scott will continue to serve as an integral part of the court system of Wyoming, the West, and our Nation for many years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination, and I look forward to the Senate's approval of the nomination of Judge Scott Skavdahl. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor for my fellow Senator.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to ask for your wholehearted support for Judge Skavdahl of Wyoming. He was nominated by our Democratic Governor. He was appointed by the President, and he has the wholehearted support of our delegation. We have spoken for him in committee and are doing that again on the floor. We have a full statement we submitted. So I would thank you for your vote on this nomination. He came up through the courts in Wyoming and now will be a Federal judge, with your help. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak on final passage of the implementing language for the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements. I support passing these three agreements. I supported them as they made the long and arduous journey from the negotiating table, through the Senate Finance Committee and now to the Senate floor. As has been stated by my colleagues, these agreements are far overdue. Our government and industries have long shared with Congress the positive job impact these trade deals would have on the American economy. In the case of both Korea and Colombia, other nations have not hesitated to adopt similar agreements and I just hope that inaction by the White House has not resulted in U.S. manufacturers and agricultural producers losing market share that can be difficult, if not impossible, to regain. I can say that Wyoming will benefit directly from these agreements. Disodium carbonate, also known as soda ash, is Wyoming's largest export to South Korea. This agreement would immediately remove, upon ratification, the 4 percent tariff on U.S. soda ash exports to that country. This will not only increase U.S. exports of soda ash to Korea by millions of dollars annually but will also increase job opportunities in and around Green River, WY where natural soda ash is found. Wyoming's agricultural producers also stand to gain with the passage of these agreements. In the case of Korea, we know that a strong market for beef will be opened which will help Wyoming ranchers increase the value of their cattle heading to the sale barn. The standards in the Korea agreement will also set the stage for future negotiations in gaining market share for U.S. beef in other Asian markets. Consumer tastes are changing all over the world and our trading partners in Asia offer the largest potential market for American produced meat products. Colombia will do the same for Wyoming's wheat growers by reducing trade barriers and helping that country meet its growing demand for grain products. I stand today in support of these important free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Not only are these nations our economic allies but strategic allies as well. These agreements solidify our relations with these countries and help promote U.S. job growth through our export markets. It is finally time Congress pass these agreements and fulfill the commitments we have made to our trading partners. I yield the floor.