Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma for 2 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to take on a cause which I know is close to the hearts of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which is to assert the privilege of pay-go. I have heard innumerable arguments made on the other side of the aisle about the importance of the pay-go mechanisms in this Congress: how pay-go will be used to discipline our spending as a Congress and how pay-go is the way we get to financial and fiscal responsibility as a Congress. In fact, 2 weeks ago, I believe it was, the majority leader came to the floor and offered a brandnew pay-go resolution as a matter of statute and said that this is one of the key pillars of the majority party and the President in the area of how you discipline spending and bring our spending house in order. The President has mentioned pay-go on numerous occasions also. Why all this talk about pay-go? Because I think people are beginning to realize--certainly our constituents--that the government is spending too much money; that we are running up too much debt; that we are passing bill after bill after bill in this Congress which we are not paying for. The cost of those bills is going to our children. We are going to double the Federal debt here in 2013. We are going to triple the Federal debt in 2019 under the President's budget and the budget passed by the Democratic leadership in this Congress. The Federal debt increases by $11 trillion over the next 9 years of this budget that is being proposed by the President--$11 trillion. We get to a point where our Nation is basically spending so much and borrowing so much that our financial house is unsustainable. Those are not my words. Those are the words actually of the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of OMB. They both said their own budget that they sent up here was unsustainable in its present form because it spends so much more money than we have, and those bills get passed right on to our kids. Well, in defense of their sending up a budget that spends all of this money we don't have and doubles the debt in 2013 and triples it in 2019, they said they were going to assert pay-go rules which would discipline this Senate on the issue of spending. At the time they made that assertion I said, Oh, come on, give us a break. Over the last 3 years that this Congress has been under Democratic control, under liberal control, in over 20 instances, pay-go as it presently exists in the law was waived, costing over $\1/2\ trillion in new spending. Approximately $\1/2\ trillion that should have been subject to pay-go rules was waived--simply waived--by the other side of the aisle: We are not going to pay attention to pay-go rules, we are going to spend the money and add the debt to our children's backs. I think the American people notice this and are certainly frustrated about this, because they intuitively understand--it is called common sense--if you spend all of this money you don't have, the debt is going to come back to roost on our children's backs and it reduces their quality of life. Obviously, if you have a government that runs up deficits which exceed the capacity of our ability to repay them, it is our children who end up paying the cost of that profligate spending. It is our children who end up with these bills. Their standard of living will be reduced as a result of all of this new deficit and debt this Congress has passed and which this Congress has proposed. So for political cover, they called up a couple of weeks ago this pay-go resolution and said we are going to assert pay-go around here on everything that comes through this Congress. We are going to make sure the financial house of this Congress is disciplined by the rule of pay- go. Well, that is why I want to help them, because here is a new bill on the floor of the Senate. It violates pay-go. It violates their own rules. It violates this great sanctity that they claim was going to be the cause of fiscal discipline--the pay-go rule. Just a few weeks ago, we passed a pay-go resolution here. What did we get? Within 2 weeks, we have a bill that violates the pay-go rules. The pay-go rules, as we have them--and they are the law, the rule of the Senate today--say that pay-go will apply for any legislation that increases the deficit in the first 5-year period or in the first 10- year period. This bill has been scored by CBO as violating that rule. It increases the deficit by $12 billion, unpaid for, in the first 5- year period. This bill is, therefore, subject to a pay-go point of order. We are going to hear a specious argument from the other side of the aisle that, well, in the year 2020 we account for all this and we get the money back. Well, I don't believe that. I don't believe the check is in the mail either. The American people don't believe that. More importantly, the rules of the Senate don't allow that. The rules of the Senate make it very clear that if it adds to the deficit in the first 5 years, it is subject to a pay-go point of order. And this is not a small amount here; $12 billion is a lot of money. I know that under the way we function here, and we talk about trillions--and the President rolled out just yesterday a new $100 billion or $200 billion package of health care, added to a $2.4 trillion package of health care--I know that billions become lost sometimes in that debate. But $1 billion is a lot of money, and this is $12 billion added to our children's backs in the way of deficit and debt. Most Americans see that as a lot of money. You could run the entire State government of New Hampshire for about 3 years on that. Yet we are going to run up the deficit by $12 billion, in violation of our own rules. There is something even more outrageous about this bill. It is pretty outrageous that we would have all the sanctimonious discussion from the other side of the aisle about how they are going to live by pay-go 2 weeks ago and then have the first bill they bring forth violate the rules of pay-go. That is pretty outrageous in and of itself. But this bill, in an act of gamesmanship that really deserves a special award-- maybe a gold medal at the Vancouver Olympics for gamesmanship in fiscal policy and how you basically pass on to your children a major new debt without telling them it is coming--certainly this bill would deserve a gold medal in that category. On top of the pay-go violation, this bill creates $140 billion of deficit and debt. Now, even on the other side of the aisle, that has to be considered a lot of money. Maybe they don't consider $12 billion a lot of money, but $140 billion has to be big money. So $140 billion of deficit and debt is built into this bill even though the bill, on its face, states that it only spends $12 billion or $15 billion, something like that. How do they do that? How could that possibly be? Because what they have done here--and as I said, this deserves a gold medal for manipulating the financial house of the Senate and the Congress in a way that is avoiding actual accountability for the debt you are adding onto our children's shoulders--is they have put into the baseline the highway money. So the billions in highway money for this year in this bill, multiplied out over 10 years, comes to $140 billion, and then they have claimed that is all offset, all that money is offset. How do they claim it is offset? Well, it is tactical, but follow this because it is the ultimate game in double bookkeeping--something Al Capone might have done were he running the books of the Senate. There is a highway trust fund that doesn't have enough money to pay for the roads they want to build--the highway committee in this Congress, the EPW Committee. They want to build more roads than the trust fund has money coming in for, so they take money from the general fund and transfer it to the highway trust fund. They allege that 10 years ago or so, the highway trust fund lent money to the general fund and no interest was paid on that money lent to the general fund. First off, at the time they passed the law that said no interest was to be paid on it--but it would be ridiculous to pay interest between the two funds anyway--even if you accepted that argument, you couldn't get to the numbers they are talking about. What they have done is claimed that any money that comes out of the general fund to fund the highway fund is an offset. That is an interesting concept. Therefore, it doesn't get scored against the deficit by the highway fund. Where do we get the money we took from the general fund to fund the highway fund? The answer is pretty simple: We borrow it from China, from Saudi Arabia, from Americans, and our kids get a bill called a piece of debt that they have to pay off. This double-entry bookkeeping, in the tradition of Al Capone basically, when simplified, means that it adds $140 billion of new deficit and debt to the general fund, which has to be paid by our kids--not offset, unpaid for, simply money spent. Do you know something. We are spending a lot of money around here that we don't have, and it is not right. I think the American people would like us to stop that. If we are going to spend this money on roads, then let's pay for it. Don't hide the fact that you are not paying for this with some gamesmanship called offsetting highway fund with general fund money. I think that is a pretty cynical act. If you don't have the courage to stand before this Congress and say publicly that we want to spend $140 billion and don't want to pay for it, then you are not fulfilling your responsibility to your constituents, because that is what you are doing. You have an obligation not to try to hide what you are doing in some sort of bookkeeping manipulation, which gets you a gold medal for bookkeeping manipulation but certainly doesn't do anything for transparency and honesty in government, on top of having a pay-go violation--$12 billion as scored by CBO. This point of order lies. There is $140 billion of new spending proposed in this bill, which isn't paid for. It is spending that isn't paid for, and it is authorized and going to be spent. That is pretty inexcusable because it is claimed that it is paid for, which is the real hypocrisy of what we are seeing. My colleagues on the other side may vote against this point of order. I cannot understand how they can do that, and I cannot understand how, when the majority leader comes down here--and I am sure he will or one of his representatives will--and says pay-go should not lie here because in 2020 we are going to pay for all this, that they can claim anything other than the fact that a pay-go point of order lies. I mean, it does lie. What is a pay-go point of order? It is the CBO telling us that we have violated our own rules, called pay-go, and we are spending money that goes to the deficit--in this case, $12 billion. So as a very practical matter this is a pretty black-and-white situation: either you are for enforcing fiscal discipline here with a pay-go point of order or you are not. I have to say, if this pay-go point of order fails, then I think we ought to follow it up with a unanimous consent that says we are going to rid ourselves of pay-go as an enforcement mechanism because we are then saying it doesn't mean anything. Clearly, that would be the only conclusion you could reach. A pay-go point of order makes it clear: There is $12 billion of deficit spending in the first 5-year window, which violates the pay-go rules set up by this Senate and specifically proposed and promoted by the Democratic majority as a way to give us fiscal discipline, and we are ignoring it, overruling it, and we are bypassing it with this piece of legislation if we do waive the pay-go rule. At this point, I make a point of order that the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, would increase the on- budget deficit for the sum of years 2010 to 2014. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and honor Army SPC Marc Paul Decoteau of Waterville Valley, NH, for his service and supreme sacrifice for his country. Specialist Decoteau demonstrated a willingness and dedication to serve and defend his country by joining the U.S. Army. Just as many of America's heroes have taken up arms in the face of dire threats, Marc dedicated himself to the defense of our ideals, values, freedoms, and way of life. His valor and service cost him his life, but his sacrifice will help spare millions from lives under tyranny and oppression. An exceptional student-athlete, Marc played an integral role in two Plymouth Regional High School State football championships and was also a standout lacrosse player. Marc graduated from Plymouth High School in Plymouth, NH, in 2008 and, sensing a call to duty, enlisted in the Army shortly thereafter. Tragically, on January 29, 2010, this brave 19-year-old gave his life for this Nation while in support of combat operations in the Wardak Province of Afghanistan. At the time of this hostile action, Specialist Decoteau, a member of the 6th Psychological Operations Battalion out of Fort Bragg, NC, was serving his first tour in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. A beloved member of the Waterville Valley community, Marc was respected and admired by all those around him. As a loyal member of the U.S. Army, he continually performed above and beyond all expectations. Specialist Decoteau will live on as a decorated hero and a patriot. Marc was recognized for his service several times, receiving the National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and Parachutist Badge. He was also posthumously awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, and NATO Medal. My condolences and prayers go out to Marcs parents Mark and Nancy, his brother Andrew and sister Maddie, and his family and friends. I offer them my deepest sympathies and most heartfelt thanks for their sacrifice. Marc exemplified the words of Daniel Webster who said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure. God bless Marc Decoteau.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first, I thank the Democratic leader, the majority leader, for his endorsement of the Conrad-Gregg initiative, although that is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about pay-go. Pay-go is one of those terms of art around here that has a political life of its own, and its political life is independent of its substantive action. Yes, pay-go worked when we had it in the nineties. We had a Congress which was willing to enforce it. Regrettably, over the last 2 years, when pay-go has been in place as a budgetary item--not much different than doing it statutorily--pay-go has been waived by the majority of this Senate and specifically by the majority party on an incredible number of occasions. It has been waived. It has been gamed. It has been gone around. It has been stepped on. It has been ignored to the tune of $1 trillion. Madam President, $1 trillion of spending has occurred in the last 2\1/2\ years which should have been subject to a pay-go point of order, which should not have survived a pay-go point of order but against which no pay-go point of order was made because pay-go was gamed. The idea that pay-go is a substantive exercise around here is politically inaccurate. It is political fraud. I mean, basically, pay- go is used to make a statement that you are going to be fiscally responsible, but it does not happen. This is a nice political cover vote. I am going to vote for pay-go, and I am going to be tough on spending when, in fact, we know that whenever an item comes to this floor for all intents and purposes that should be subject to a pay-go point of order, it is not. Pay-go is not pay-go. Pay-go is Swiss-cheese-go. It is full of holes. I have great respect for the other side of the aisle. So if they will rename this Swiss-cheese-go, I may vote for it. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that we change the name of pay-go to Swiss-cheese-go, and then I might be willing to vote for it.

Mr. GREGG. I am not the leader, so I do not get leader time. I ask unanimous consent for another minute so I might respond to the leader.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, a little humor even in serious times does not hurt things, I do not think. The point is substantive, even if it was humorously presented, which is that pay-go around here has become farcical. It is not used to discipline our budget process at all. That is why over $1 trillion of spending has resulted which should have been subject to pay-go points of order. I do not think you can present a pay-go statutory point of order as being something other than what it will be, which is basically something so full of holes it will have virtually no effect on our capacity to discipline ourselves because we have already shown we do not discipline ourselves under the present pay-go rules we have. From my standpoint, this proposal does not hold water as a way to discipline ourselves and bring our fiscal house in order. I appreciate the courtesy of the leader in allowing me to take an extra minute. I did not hear him object to my offer, but I will withdraw it.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Montana is right. We have to pay our bills. But we also have to make it clear we are not going to continue to run up bills we can't pay for. It is not responsible to raise the debt ceiling in this manner if we aren't going to put in place any responsible activity to bring under control the rising debt, and there is no proposal here to do that--in fact, just the opposite. The proposal from the administration, and passed by this Congress, was a budget that will increase the debt every year for the next 10 years by over $1 trillion, on average. There is no proposal to bring that down. The debt will double in 5 years. It will triple in 10 years under the budget passed by the Democratic leadership of this Congress and the President's budget. That is not fiscal discipline. To raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion while doing nothing to address the debt and how it is being added to is totally irresponsible. It is like a drunken sailor asking to have the bar open all night. Why are we going to this number, by the way? Why $1.9 trillion? So that the Congress does not have to face up to the debt ceiling before the next election. We ought to have to face up to it again before the next election because the people of this country have a right to know whether this Congress is going to do something about controlling the rate of growth of the debt before the next election. Instead, we are seeing this attempt to try to take this off the table by moving it past the next election. The American people do not believe it should be off the table. That is what Massachusetts was all about. They are worried about this debt. They are worried about what we are doing to the next generation of Americans--to our children--by running up this debt. This is not correct. We should not vote for this massive increase in the debt ceiling until we get some responsible action around here on the issue of how we are going to control the debt and deficit.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to manage the time on our side.

Mr. GREGG. After the Senator from Illinois, I will yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for supporting this effort by myself and Senator Conrad. It is important to note what we are trying do is address what is coming at us as a fiscal crisis of inordinate proportions which will probably leave this Nation in a situation where it will either be fiscally bankrupt or confronting a massive reduction in the standard of living for our children. It is a serious issue. I am glad there is a coming together on both sides on the need to address it. At this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, would the Chair advise us as to the status of the time?

Mr. GREGG. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. What is the time situation?

Mr. GREGG. Did the Senator from Montana wish to speak? I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me first address to my colleagues the issue of the Baucus amendment, as modified now by the Grassley language. I think it is an important amendment. A lot of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have come up to me and said: We are concerned about the tax issue. I know a lot of people on the other side and our side of the aisle said: We are concerned about the Social Security issue. As I understand the Baucus-Grassley amendment, it essentially says: There is a 60-vote point of order now on Social Security benefits and taxes, so that before you can proceed to the commission's up-or-down vote, you will get two more votes--one on Social Security benefits and one on payroll taxes. So there can be no question but that those two extraordinarily sensitive issues are raised and are aggressively handled in a bipartisan way because you would have to waive it with 60 votes. That is an important point. The reason I raise it is because I don't think there is a real issue here with Social Security benefits or taxes. I know the interest groups out there are ginning up the issue. That is what they do. That is how they make their money. That is how they get to drive around town in limousines. They send out fundraising letters and say: Conrad-Gregg is going to destroy Social Security or it is going to raise taxes. But that is not going to happen. Who is on the commission? There are eight people appointed by our leadership, Senator McConnell and Congressman Boehner, and there are eight people appointed by your leadership, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. So we are giving them a gun. Do you think they are going to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger on taxes or on Social Security? Of course not. They are going to act responsibly. The proposal they come back with is going to be bipartisan. That is the whole purpose. It is fair, it is balanced, and it will make progress. It will not completely resolve the problem, but it will make progress, and it will say to the world: We are making progress on this absolutely critical problem; which is the fiscal insolvency of our Nation that we are headed toward. We know, without question, our country goes into what amounts to fiscal bankruptcy probably within 7, maybe 10 years. We will be unable to catch up with the debt we have put on the books. We will be unable to pay for that debt in a reasonable way because, basically, people are going to start saying: I am not going to lend you guys any more money, except at outrageous interest rates. So we have to take action. We can wait until the time happens. We can wait until we hit this wall. We can wait until we go off this cliff, where our debt goes to 100 percent of GDP, which we know will happen. Today it was reported our deficit this year is going to be at least $1.34 trillion, and for as far as the eye can see it is going to be $1 trillion-a-year deficits and the debt will have doubled in 5 years and tripled in 10 years. The practical implication of that is our Nation is on a path that is absolutely unsustainable, where our children will get a country where they cannot afford to pay down that debt or, if they do pay it down, it is going to basically take away the resources they would have used--our kids would have used--to buy a house, send their kids to college or get a new car. Something should be done now. Why wait until we hit the wall? Isn't it our job, as responsible people, as the people who have been entrusted with the governance of this Nation, to do something? If you want to look at the scene of the crime where this has happened, it has happened in the Congress. We are the ones who have put on the books the policies which have led to this crisis, this looming crisis. So it should be our job to straighten it out. That is what this commission, this task force does. It is balanced, it is fair, and it is structured in a way that will be bipartisan because it requires a supermajority-- 14 of the 18 people--just to report the proposal. Then it requires a supermajority to pass it in both Houses. Then the President has to sign it or it comes back for a 67-vote veto override vote, which is a true supermajority. So this proposal will be absolutely bipartisan, it will be balanced, it will be fair, it will address the outyear fiscal insolvency of this Nation, and it is the only game in town. There are a lot of other proposals floating around this place, but they are all political cover. That is all they are. They are all political cover. They are structured basically to give people a vote so they can go back and run a campaign ad and say: I was acting responsibly. I voted for the XYZ proposal. But none of those proposals work. We know they do not work. We have been here before. We have seen this before. We have seen this story before. Regular order does not work around here. So unless you have fast-track approval, unless you have an up-or-down vote, unless you have no amendments--for the reasons the Senator from North Dakota has outlined--unless you have a balanced commission with a supermajority to report, you do not get bipartisanship, you do not get fairness, and you do not get action. So what we propose leads to action. I wish to say, again, especially to people on my side, if you are concerned about this tax issue--which I think is a straw dog because I know Mitch McConnell is not going to appoint four Senators to this group who are for some sort of massive expansion in taxes, and certainly Congressman Boehner is in the same camp, so I think it is a straw-dog argument being ginned up by people who basically have other agendas, in my opinion--but if you believe it is a serious argument, then the Baucus amendment takes it away. It essentially takes it away, the Baucus-Grassley amendment. So I would hope people would look at that amendment and agree with the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, that this is an appropriate amendment because it redresses the concerns around here on the issue of taxes and on the issue of Social Security and it makes this whole process even stronger. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am sorry, what is the time again?

Mr. GREGG. No. I will yield my 20 seconds to the Senator from North Dakota to complete our presentation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate the Senator from North Dakota. First, he was a ``voice in the wilderness,'' as we say in New Hampshire. That is the motto of one of our colleges. Then he moved from being in the wilderness to being on the side of the wilderness, and people were starting to listen. Now he has become the clarion call. The simple fact is, his statement, which summarized it all, presents the problem as it is. The debt is the threat. He, in his statement he just made, outlined the implications of the debt. You cannot deny it. It is there. It is coming. It exists. It is being added to. The numbers simply cannot be ignored any longer. We are, as a nation, on a path where, if we continue to spend and run deficits as we have and as are projected, our Nation will not be able to maintain its standard of living. We will not be able to finance our debt. The value of our currency will come under acute threat. The burden of taxes to pay for the cost of government will overwhelm the ability of people to live productive lifestyles. Inevitably--and this is not hyperbole, unfortunately--inevitably, we as a nation will go into insolvency of some form. Either we will have to inflate our economy radically or we will have to bear a burden that simply stifles the capacity of our children to have a high quality of life because of the cost of the government and the cost of the debt. The Senator from North Dakota has cited the figures. We go to a public debt that is 100 percent of gross national product within the next budget window cycle. We crossed the 60-percent threshold, which is the tipping point, where, similar to a dog, we have trouble catching our tail because we have so much debt on the books, potentially, this year but certainly by next year. These numbers are staggering. They are hard to understand--trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. As the Senator from North Dakota has also pointed out, the debt is owned not by Americans but by foreign nations. Today, China owns almost $1 trillion of our debt. Oil- exporting nations own, as a group, almost $1 trillion of our debt. We are shipping overseas the dollars which we should be reinvesting in the United States to create a more productive and vibrant economy and a better lifestyle for our Nation. By the year 2017 or 2018, the interest on the debt alone will exceed every other account in the Federal Government. It will be approximately $900 billion a year, almost $1 trillion a year, more than what we spend on national defense, massively more than what we spend on education, on building roads, on doing the things a government is supposed to do. Where does that interest go? It does not stay in the United States to benefit America and make us a stronger nation. It is going to go to countries such as China--not that I have anything against China-- countries that have bought our debt. So we are on an intolerable path, a path of unsustainability, a path which leads us down the road to a nation which is less prosperous and has a lower standard of living than what we received from our parents. That is simply not acceptable. So how do we address this? Well, for years we have said: Let's do it by regular order. Let's come up with ideas and run them through the committee process, run them up the political flagpole, let the community of interest that wants to speak out on issues speak out on it. Then we will evolve solutions that work on these very difficult problems. Most of the issue, by the way, is driven by the cost of the entitlement programs and, for years, nothing has happened. Nothing has happened. There is a reason for that. Our political system is inherently prejudiced against doing substantive activity on issues as big as entitlement reform. We have a system where, whenever anybody puts a policy on the table, a substantive, thoughtful policy or even a policy that is not thoughtful, as a presentation of the way you should address the cost and the burden of our government, it is immediately attacked either from the left or from the right. They almost never even make it to the starting line. We have instance after instance of seeing this. So Senator Conrad and I decided you cannot do this by putting policy on the table. There are too many interest groups in this town that make their living off poisoning the will either from the right or the left because that is how they generate their income. They send out these letters to their constituent groups. If it is a Social Security group, they send it out in a Social Security-type envelope and say: if you do not send this money soon, tomorrow, somebody is going to ruin Social Security for you or, if they are a tax group, they send out the same type of letter that looks similar to an IRS form letter: If you do not send this money tomorrow, your taxes are going to go up radically. So as a very practical matter, nothing ever gets past the starting line around here. Regular order does not, has not, and will not work on those issues. We decided, rather than using that process, which we know leads nowhere, let's set up a process that does lead somewhere. We came up with what is basically, to thumbnail it, a procedure which is totally and absolutely bipartisan and fair, where neither side may game the other, which leads to a policy position, which then leads to a vote on that policy. That is the task force we have. The key components are that it is totally and absolutely bipartisan. Neither side can game the other. It takes 14 of 18 people to report out the proposals. They don't have to be proposals for everything, but the proposals that are agreed to have to have a supermajority; that is, 78 percent of the people on this task force have to vote for it. Since the membership of this task force is appointed by the leadership of the two parties, a majority of the party membership of both parties on this task force has to vote for the final proposal. One presumes that whoever goes on this task force, if chosen by the leaders of their party in the Senate, whether Senator Reid or Senator McConnell, or leaders of the party in the House, Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Boehner, is going to reflect fairly aggressively the viewpoints and the philosophies of the different parts. It will be a bipartisan report or it won't be a report at all. Then it comes to the Congress, and it has to be voted up or down on a supermajority vote. Once again, it basically moots the ability to game it. One side can't game the other. The proposal must be bipartisan and fair. Why did we choose that path? Because the American people have shown very definitively that they will not accept proposals in these very big areas, especially Social Security and Medicare, that are not reached on a bipartisan agreement. They want fairness. They want to make sure nobody is gaming anybody around here. That is why we have these supermajorities. Then, it is on fast track, so the proposal has to be voted up or down and it cannot be amended. Why is that? Because, as we all know around here, amendments are for hiding in the corners. Amendments are offered not for the purposes of accomplishing anything but for the purposes of giving political cover. In fact, we are going to see a couple of amendments just like that on this issue, one from our side and one from the other side, so that people will have political cover if they vote against this task force approach. The simple fact is, if you really want to do something here, you have to have an up-or-down vote on a fast track, and everything has to be on the table, all entitlement and tax reform issues. Why is that? Because this has to be bipartisan. It is that simple. I would be happy to have a commission that focused only on spending reductions or adjustments to Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security programs, but there isn't anybody on that side of the aisle who will agree to that. They would be happy to have a proposal that addresses tax reform, such as has been proposed on occasion by the Senator from North Dakota, which is to try to collect the $300 billion of taxes owed and not paid every year. Nobody on this side is going to accept that. Everything has to be on the table. The key to protecting both sides' interests in this exercise, so that Social Security isn't treated inappropriately and so the tax increases aren't done inappropriately, if there are tax increases, is to make sure that the product has to be bipartisan and it has to be reported on supermajorities, which this does. That issue is addressed. We are here again. I don't know that we will get the 60 votes needed to pass this. It has obviously been attacked from the right and from the left, which usually means you are on a pretty good course. Regrettably, the President put out his Executive order proposal which I think undermined it, but then he has come to support it. But it may be a little late to the dinner here. On our side of the aisle, some of our major interest groups have come out against it. I know this much: We are getting to the point where we don't have too many alternatives around here. If we don't do something like this fairly soon, I genuinely believe that somewhere between 5 to 10 years from now, probably between 7 and 10 years, we as a nation will find it very hard to sell our debt. Countries will look at us and say: You cannot sustain your situation. You have run up a debt that you cannot pay back, and I am not going to lend you money or, if they do, it will be at a very high price. At that point, the options for us will be very few. They will all be horrific options for our children because they will all lead to a lower standard of living for us as a nation. They will all make our country less competitive in the world economically, competition which is very aggressive and totally global now. We can wait. We can punt this thing one more time, as we have done year-in and year-out. We can say there is not a problem out there or if there is a problem, if you don't address it the way we want to on our side or the way you want to on your side, then we won't vote for it. In the end, we will not have been responsible as people who have been given the mantle of government. We will not be fulfilling our responsibility to govern. Instead, the postwar baby-boom generation will be the first generation in history to pass on to our children a country with less prosperity than we received from our parents. That will not be a very good testament to our responsibility as people in charge of governance. This is a chance. This is the closest we have ever gotten to this opportunity. I don't believe we will get this close again at any time in the future. We can either take it or we can allow it to pass. I have often said that Congresses are good at handling the next election but they are terrible at handling the next generation. Unfortunately, for years this issue used to be over the horizon. It is not any longer. It is not only on the horizon, it is closing fast. The red flags are everywhere. We have even seen Moody's, the rating agency, put the United States in a special category with England, not on a watch list, but they have given us a new definition compared to the rest of the industrialized countries. There is no question but the clock is ticking and the hour is late. If we don't proceed to action that leads to actual activity, that leads to actual policy, in my opinion we will not be fulfilling our responsibility as people who are elected to govern and to pass on to the next generation a stronger America rather than a weaker one. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator be willing to yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after the Senator from California.