Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Chairwoman Mikulski for organizing this colloquy among Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs regarding the real consequences of the upcoming sequester on this Nation. Fortunately, America's veterans are spared from the direct impact of the sequester, as all programs funded through the Department of Veterans Affairs are exempt. Veterans hospitals and clinics will continue to operate normally, veterans benefits will be processed and paid, and other veterans services will continue uninterrupted. But make no mistake about it; veterans are no more immune than any other American from the collateral damage that these senseless automatic spending cuts will inflict. Bear in mind that veterans are parents and teachers, firefighters and law enforcement officers, border patrol agents and small business owners. A large number of civilian jobs at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among other federal agencies, are held by veterans. In fact, veterans comprise 44 percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce. Veterans are subject to the same risk as any other government employee of being furloughed or laid off because of the sequester, and veteran-owned businesses face the same risk as any other small business of losing crucial government contracts. This is not some abstract inside-the beltway issue. Eighty-six percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce resides outside of the Washington metropolitan area. In my home state of South Dakota, approximately 1,000 Defense Department civilian employees are slated to be furloughed, reducing gross pay by about $6.3 million. This loss in income will surely reverberate throughout the local economy. The ripple effect of the sequester on the economy and job market nationwide is particularly worrisome for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who already face higher unemployment rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, veterans of these two wars are dealing with an unemployment rate of 11.7 percent, compared to a national unemployment rate of 7.9 percent. The employment picture for Iraq and Afghanistan-era women veterans is even bleaker: 17.1 percent compared to a national unemployment rate for women of 7.4 percent. Furloughs, layoffs, and civilian hiring freezes have the potential to make a bad problem far worse for these veterans. So yes, the VA is spared a direct hit from the budget axe triggered by the sequester, but veterans are not. Another impact of the sequester that will be felt across this country is funding for military construction, which is poised to lose more than $1 billion as a result of sequestration. Like other agencies, the Defense Department does not have the flexibility to choose where to cut military construction every single project planned for construction in fiscal year 2013 will be forced to take a funding cut of approximately 9 percent. The fiscal year 2013 program comprises more than 250 military construction projects in 42 states, the District of Columbia and overseas. As a result of sequestration, every one of those projects will have to be reassessed to determine if it can be executed at the lower funding level, or if it will need to be delayed or cancelled. The Defense Department can shift funding from one project to another through a congressional reprogramming, but that means the Department will be the sole arbiter of choosing winners and losers among the projects that Congress has already authorized. Moreover, reprogramming actions are time consuming and labor intensive, and at a time when the Department will be understaffed due to furloughs and a hiring freeze, the likelihood of delays or deferrals of military construction projects is high. Not only does this affect mission critical and quality of life projects on military installations, but it also impacts the local construction industry, and thus the local economy, in hundreds of communities throughout the Nation. Carpet bombing the federal budget with across-the-board spending cuts is neither wise nor prudent. It's about as smart as a surgeon performing heart surgery with an axe. There will be casualties, and veterans and military families will be among those casualties. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to a man who has been generous with his time, his treasure, and his heart, to his friends, his family, the State of Wisconsin, and to America, Senator Herb Kohl. America and Wisconsin have always been defined by immigrants arriving in this country seeking freedom, opportunity, and a better life for themselves and their families. Such was the case for Senator Kohl's father Max, an immigrant from Poland, and his mother Mary, an immigrant from Russia. Their family's story was just one among the many millions of stories of fulfillment of the American dream. Max and Mary's son Herb attended Washington High School in the Sherman Park neighborhood of Milwaukee. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Madison in 1956 and went on to earn an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1958. Senator Kohl's service to his country started at a young age. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve after receiving his MBA and served in the military for 6 years. After his military service, he began contributing to our Nation not in government but in the private sector. During the 1970s, he managed his family's well-known retail businesses. The stores built by the Kohl family remain the legacy that all Wisconsin respects and appreciates. When Wisconsin's NBA team, the Milwaukee Bucks, was considering moving out of the State for financial reasons, Citizen Kohl stepped in and purchased the franchise. He prevented the team from leaving and preserved professional basketball as an integral part of Wisconsin's strong sports tradition. Suffice it to say, Citizen Kohl had established himself as a very successful member of this Nation's business community. But he didn't hoard his financial success; he shared it and he shared it generously. Senator Kohl's philanthropy was widespread, but he particularly seemed to enjoy directing his generosity to helping Wisconsin students and educators. In 1990, he established the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Achievement Award Program. This program provides a total of $400,000 to hundreds of students, teachers, and schools throughout the State of Wisconsin each and every year. In 1995, Senator Kohl continued his generosity to education and sports in our State by donating $25 million to the University of Wisconsin Madison for a new sports arena. The Kohl Center, as it is now known, is the home for the school's basketball and hockey teams. Senator Kohl was first elected in 1988 and even though his duties required him to spend time in Washington, his heart has always been with the people of Wisconsin. For the past 24 years, he has maintained a strong passion for Wisconsin's children, seniors, farmers, and manufacturers. As a man whose life has been distinguished by generosity, it is worth noting that his final speech on the floor of the Senate was not a long list of his many accomplishments; instead, it was a short heartfelt speech of gratitude to those who made him the generous man he is today, those he served with, and those he represented in the Senate for four consecutive terms. Now it is our turn to thank Senator Kohl for the honorable 24 years he has served his State and this Nation. During his first election, the slogan of Senator Kohl's campaign was ``Nobody's Senator but Yours.'' There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that he has lived up to that promise each and every day. On behalf of all the citizens of Wisconsin, I wish to thank Senator Herb Kohl for his generous spirit and his many years of service to Wisconsin and America. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in August, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This measure, coupled with CISADA and last year's powerful Iran Central Bank legislation authored by Senators Menendez and Kirk, have helped dramatically to increase pressure on the Iranian government to halt its illicit nuclear activities. Iran's petroleum exports have dropped by more than half this year, producing losses of over $100 million each day to Iran's economy. Even so, Iran continues to press forward aggressively with its enrichment program and to suppress the rights of its citizens. The bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Menendez and Kirk to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act will further tighten sanctions on Iran and increase the economic pressure on its leaders. I have worked closely with Senator Menendez and respect his fierce commitment to this issue, and to giving the administration all of the tools it needs to deal with Iran. I support the amendment. Our sanctions laws have become increasingly complex, however, and to assure that the new provisions can be effectively implemented, I hope we can work with officials in the Departments of State and Treasury to continue to refine these provisions as the bill moves to conference. This is a complex area of the law, and we need to have a sure hand as we go forward toward conference, drawing clear lines and avoiding any unintended consequences that might undermine the credibility of the overall sanctions regime.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

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

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I have been listening to the debate on spending and taxes and our debt and deficit. I come to the floor this morning with a few visual aids and charts and graphs to try to dispel some of the myths I have been hearing. The first myth I constantly hear is about the Draconian cuts being proposed in the House budget. I think this chart pretty well dispels that by showing that 10 years ago, in 2002, the Federal Government spent $2 trillion. This last year--this year--we will spend about $3.8 trillion. We have doubled spending in just 10 years. The debate moving forward shows that under the House budget, we would spend $4.9 trillion. President Obama's budget proposes spending $5.8 trillion. I think it is clear to see from this chart that nobody is proposing net cuts in spending. We are just trying to limit the rate of growth in spending. Another way of looking at spending is over 10 years. In the 1990s, the Federal Government over a 10-year period spent $16 trillion. The last decade, from 2002 through 2011, the Federal Government spent $28 trillion. Again, the debate moving forward is, over the next 10 years do we spend $40 trillion, as the House budget proposes, or do we spend $47 trillion? Again, no cuts, just trying to reduce the rate of growth. Let's talk a little bit about what the Federal Government has spent under the current administration. Over the 4 years of President Obama's administration, the Federal Government in total will spend $14.4 trillion. Think back to the last graph. That is almost as much as we spent in the decade of the 1990s. The entire deficit for that time period was $5.3 trillion. In other words, we had to borrow $5.3 trillion of the $14.4 trillion we spent; that is, about 37 cents of every dollar spent, we borrowed. We put that debt burden on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. I often hear that the whole problem with the deficit is caused by the war costs or the 2001 to 2003 tax cuts. We added those to the chart here. We can see that the total amount over that 4-year period of the overseas war costs and the Bush tax cuts was $1.2 trillion. It is less than 25 percent of the total deficit. Again, they are a factor but not the cause of the deficit. The cause of the deficit primarily is spending. This chart basically shows what has been happening over the last 50 years. The structural deficit we have incurred is a basic result, on average, of the Federal Government spending 20.2 percent of the gross domestic product from 1959 to 2008, prior to this administration. On the other hand, revenue generation averaged about 18.1 percent of GDP, which gives us a 2.1-percent structural deficit. That is why our debt has continued to grow. Under this administration, starting with the recession, that structural deficit exploded, with tax revenue dropping to about 15 percent and spending skyrocketing to 25 percent and now to about 24 percent. It is on a trajectory to hit 35 percent by the year 2035. Clearly, that is unsustainable. Another way of taking a look at the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, in terms of their total effect on our deficit figure, is to actually put them on a bar chart. The red bars represent the total deficit. The blue portions on the bottom of those red charts are the actual reductions in revenue from those tax cuts. We can see it is not a very large figure. In total, over that--I guess that is an 11-year time period, the total Bush tax cuts were about $1.7 trillion, while the entire deficit was about $7.5 trillion. The tax cuts represent about 22 percent of that total deficit--but, again, when we take a look at the last 4 years, a far smaller portion of the deficit, because the primary deficit over the last 4 years has been on the spending side of the equation. What does the President offer us for solutions? Last year, he proposed the Buffett rule. In a speech on September 26, in proposing the Buffett rule, he used the basic principle of fairness that he said the Buffett rule represents, and if that was applied to our Tax Code, it could raise enough to not only pay for his jobs bill, it would also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Think about what President Obama said there. He said the Buffett rule would not only pay for his jobs bill but would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Here is the chart and here is the fact: The Buffett rule for 4 years--4 years of the Buffett rule, it was projected, would raise about $20 billion total. President Obama's 4 years of deficit is $5.3 trillion. So let's state it a different way: $5,300 billion. It doesn't take a math major to realize $20 billion doesn't even come close to stabilizing a deficit of $5,300 billion. President Obama misled the American people. I think the President of the United States has a far higher duty to the American people. He should be honest with them. Last week, we debated the other tax proposals offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. In proposing this and actually, unfortunately, passing this piece of tax legislation, the majority leader said this piece of legislation is about debt. It is about the debt, he said. We have to do something about the debt, and we have tried mightily to do that. We have tried mightily. Again, let's take a look at the facts. The first years of that tax legislation--the only years that count--would have raised $67 billion a year on average compared to last year's deficit of $1,326 billion. Is that trying mightily to fix the debt and deficit? I don't think so. If we were serious about fixing our debt and deficit situation, if we were trying mightily to do that, we might have tried passing a budget in the last few years. We might have actually brought appropriations bills to the floor so they could be debated and passed in the House and signed into law so we would not be faced with what we are faced with right now, which is a continuing resolution to fund the government in 2013. Again, dispel the myth: The Democrats' tax proposal would do nothing--almost nothing--to stabilize our debt and deficit. It is simply a political exercise. It is political demagoguery. It is class warfare. I ask the American people to consider a simple question: Are they for increasing taxes on the productive sector of our economy, the small businesses, those 1 million small businesses that would be affected by this? The money that would be taken out of those small businesses that they would use to expand their business, to buy capital equipment, to increase wages, to pay for health care, and invest in 401(k) plans, it does not stabilize the debt and deficit. It does nothing to do that. I think Republicans basically agree with President Obama and President Clinton. Back on August 5, 2009, just as we were coming out of recession, President Obama said: ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' I agree with that. Republicans agree with that. Back in December--the last November and December of 2010--right after the lameduck session when all the tax rates were extended for 2 years, President Obama said: ``If we allow these taxes to go up . . . the economy would grow less.'' He was right. Back then, by the way, average growth in our economy was about 3.1 percent. During the last four quarters now, the economy has only grown about 2 percent. Our economy is in worse shape. It only grew at 1.5 percent in the last quarter. We can see the downward trajectory. Of course, President Clinton also said probably the best thing we could do is to extend all the tax rates to take that sense of uncertainty off the table. That is what Republicans are proposing. Let's not increase taxes on any American at this point in time. Let's not threaten any kind of government shutdown. As much as fiscal conservatives do not like the Budget Control Act or those spending limits, we think it is reasonable policy to pass a 6-month continuing resolution so a responsible leader can come into this town and actually start fixing our debt and deficit situation. That is what Republicans are all about, taking the uncertainty of a shutdown off the table, taking the uncertainty of what people's tax rates will be over the next year off the table, and being responsible. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with Senator Levin's statement.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. This is a pretty straightforward motion. It recommits the bill in the Senate back to the committee to have that committee report back to the full Senate two separate bills. It recognizes the reality that what we have in front of us is not really a farm bill but a food stamp bill. The history is that in 1964 we made food stamps permanent. In 1973 we combined the food stamp portion with the farm bill to ease passage of both votes--to make it easier to spend money. That has worked pretty well because when the food stamp bill was first passed, it cost $375 million--million--per year. Really, 500,000 people were eligible. Since that point in time it is now going to cost $772 billion over 10 years. It is now 78 percent the size of this entire package. Again, I think it is more than appropriate to split these bills in two so both bills, the food stamp bill and the farm bill, would get more scrutiny and there would be more debate.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. The bill the Senate adopted today passed the Banking Committee earlier this year by a unanimous bipartisan vote. Among its other provisions, this legislation will have important effects because it requires intensified targeting of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, sanctioning energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Iran, and mandating sanctions for those who supply Iran with weapons and other technologies used to commit human abuses, including those used to impose an electronic curtain of censorship on Iran's citizens. In addition, this legislation gives the President additional authority to sanction the Asad regime in Syria. Today the Senate has shown that we can still act in a bipartisan way on important priorities. I thank every Member for supporting passage of this bill today. In particular, I thank all the members of the Banking Committee for their work, including Ranking Member Shelby and Senators Menendez, Kirk, Schumer, and Brown. In addition, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his determination to get this legislation through the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to quickly come together on a final bill the President can sign soon. It is important that the Congress act swiftly so that we can continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime to end its illicit and illegal nuclear activity. Again, I thank all my colleagues for their support on the Iran sanctions bill today. Exhibit 1 Tightening Iran Sanctions Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the most pressing foreign policy challenge we face, and we must continue to do all we can-- politically, economically, and diplomatically--to avoid that result. The meetings here in Washington in March between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama underscored the gravity of these issues, and the importance of an intensified, unified effort by the international community to further isolate Iran's leaders and compel them to abandon their illicit nuclear activities. Iran's willingness to sit down again with the P5 + 1 group--the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany-- and begin to re-engage on the nuclear issues is a hopeful sign. But even after the first meeting, which both sides called ``constructive,'' it remains to be seen whether Iran will actually be willing to work towards progress on the central issues at the negotiating sessions planned for Baghdad later this week, or whether these meetings will simply be another in a series of stalling actions to buy time to enrich additional uranium and further fortify their nuclear program. As that process moves forward, today the full Senate is finally acting on an important bill to confront this very serious threat to our national security, to Israel and to our other allies in the Middle East and Europe. S. 2101, the Iran Sanctions Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, was approved by a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate Banking Committee. I am pleased that, with the help of ranking member Senator Shelby and other committee colleagues, we are presenting to the full Senate, as we did 2 years ago, this bipartisan bill to expand and tighten sanctions on Iran, along with a manager's amendment to address several issues that required updating to take into account recent events, and clarifications or additions that my colleagues sought to expand the reach and effectiveness of the bill, including changes requested by Senator Menendez to an amendment he offered in committee, section 503, to narrow its application while preserving his original intent to enable attachment of assets in which the government of Iran has an interest, to satisfy certain terror-related judgments against Iran. In pressing this bill forward we recognize that economic sanctions are not an end: they are a means to an end. That end is to apply enough pressure to secure agreement from Iran's leaders to fully, completely and verifiably abandon their illicit nuclear program. The President has made clear that his policy is not to contain Iran once it has a nuclear weapon: it is to prevent Iran from achieving that goal in the first place. He is deadly serious about that. At the same time, he is moving forward diplomatically, in consultation with our allies, to test Iran's willingness to come clean on its nuclear program, and resolve the international community's concerns on this front. Let me describe where we have been on Iran sanctions, so that Senators may better understand where we're going. This has been the subject of heated rhetoric on the Presidential campaign trail, so I want to describe clearly the longstanding bipartisan approach we in Congress have taken. Since here in the Senate we sometimes cannot even agree to cross the street together, in today's hyper-partisan environment bipartisan agreement on this bill is notable. On Iran sanctions we have always worked in a bipartisan fashion; I hope that will continue. In coordination with allies like the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and others, the Administration has taken its own steps to increase pressure on Iran's petrochemical industry, oil and gas industry, and financial sector. We acted in the Senate 5 months ago on an amendment by Senators Menendez and Kirk to sanction the Central Bank of Iran and other banks that deal with Iranian banks involved in nefarious activities. Shortly thereafter, Europe announced it will ban oil imports from Iran, starting in July. This will further increase pressure on Iran's economy and cut off other key sources of revenue for their nuclear program. Almost $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have been put on hold or discontinued. Oil shipments have sharply declined due to sanctions. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Iran's crude oil output has dropped to its lowest level in over 20 years, due largely to the tightening squeeze of sanctions. And, in the last few months, about half of the tankers booked monthly to load at the country's largest terminal didn't complete the voyages, according to brokers, company officials and ship-tracking data. It is clear Iran is losing oil sales to key customers in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, and is having some of its biggest customers demand steep discounts to buy its oil. Some estimate the losses in Iran's oil revenues are approaching 40 percent of daily sales. Iran's oil exports have the potential to fall another 300,000 to 500,000 barrels a day or more when the European Union's embargo takes effect in July, according to a report this week by Barclays. That is a huge impact. A senior IRGC official acknowledged the effectiveness of sanctions recently, saying: ``The regime is at the height of isolation and in the midst of a technological, scientific and economic siege. We are not in a situation of imaginary threats and sanctions. Threats and sanctions against us are effectively being pursued.'' These sanctions have had a more powerful effect than many thought possible. Iran is also isolated diplomatically. The international community is lined up against their nuclear program, with progressively tougher UN sanctions imposed on them. Their most important ally, Syria, is collapsing into civil war. They are, as President Obama said, in a ``world of hurt.'' Many believe the recent shift by Iran's leaders on the nuclear issue is the result of that pain, and the intense pressure of heightened sanctions. But while it is clear that existing sanctions are biting, they have not yet persuaded Iran's leaders to drop their nuclear ambitions. We must not let up now, as negotiations on these issues are continuing. I believe that further progress in those negotiations depends on intensifying that pressure on Iran's leaders, and that's what this bill is all about. With these new sanctions, including those targeted at the IRGC, we are forcing Iran's military and political leaders to make a clear choice. They can end the suppression of their people, come clean on their nuclear program, suspend enrichment, and stop supporting terrorist activities around the globe. Or they can continue to face sustained multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure, and deepen their international isolation. Just as then-Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby did in 2010, Senator Shelby and I have incorporated ideas from many of our Senate colleagues into one Committee bill, including from S. 1048 sponsored by Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez has been a leader on these issues, along with Senator Kirk, and we acknowledge their many contributions. The bill also borrows and refines ideas from legislation developed by Senators Lautenberg, Gillibrand, Schumer, Kyl, Lieberman, Brown, and others. I will now touch on a few of the highlights of this bill and I will insert a more comprehensive and detailed summary into the record at the end of my remarks. Our legislation will: broaden the list of available sanctions, require intensified targeting of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, require firms traded on US stock exchanges to disclose Iran-related activity to the Securities and Exchange Commission, sanction energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Iran, penalize US parent firms for certain Iran-related activities of their foreign subsidiaries, mandate sanctions for those who supply Iran with weapons and other technologies used to commit human rights abuses, including those used to impose an ``Electronic Curtain'' on Iran's citizens, and provide for other similar measures designed to increase pressure on Iran's government. All told, when enacted the bill will significantly increase pressure on Iran's leaders, and that must be our goal as we move forward in this process. I hope and expect my colleagues will support this bill enthusiastically, and that we will be able to reconcile it with the House bill and move it forward quickly into law this year. I look forward to working with my House colleagues, including Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman, who as former Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman has led the sanctions effort against Iran for many years, and played a key role in developing both CISADA and the House version of this measure, to get a bill enacted this year. Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012 Section-by-Section Summary Sec. 1--Short Title, Table of Contents Sec. 2--Findings Contains a series of findings about the threat posed by Iran, the bipartisan understanding of the implications of its achieving a nuclear weapons capability, steps taken thus far by the US, its allies and the United Nations Security Council to counter that threat, and the need to intensify those efforts to counter that threat and deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Sec. 3--Definitions Provides that the definitions of key terms (``appropriate congressional committees,'' ``credible information,'' and ``knowingly,'') will be those found in the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) of 1996, as amended, and that the definition of ``United States person'' will be that found in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). Sec. 101--Statement of Policy Defines US policy to be to prevent Iran from (i) acquiring or developing nuclear weapons and advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, (ii) continuing its support for international terrorism, and (iii) engaging in other activities designed to destabilize its neighbors in the region. It also outlines the US policy of support for full implementation of all sanctions against Iran as part of multilateral efforts to compel Iran to abandon its illicit nuclear program. Sec. 102--Expansion and Implementation of Multilateral Sanctions Regime States the sense of Congress that expansion and vigorous implementation of bilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran, and vigorous enforcement of all U.S. sanctions, is an effective way to achieve the goal of compelling Iran to abandon its efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. Sec. 103--Diplomatic Efforts to Expand Multilateral Sanctions Regime Urges efforts by the US to expand the UN sanctions regime to include (i) imposing additional travel restrictions on Iranian officials responsible for human rights violations, the development of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and Iran's support for terrorism; (ii) withdrawing sea- and airport landing rights for Iran Shipping Lines and Iran Air, for their role in nuclear proliferation and illegal arms sales; (iii) expanding the range of sanctions to which Iran is subject; (iv) expanding sanctions to limit Iran's petroleum development, imports of refined petroleum products and reduce its revenue from sale of petrochemical products, and (v) accelerating US diplomatic and economic efforts to help allies reduce their dependence on Iranian crude oil and other petroleum products. Requires periodic reporting to Congress. Sec. 104--Imposition of Sanctions with regard to Iran Declares the sense of Congress that efforts should be made to maximize the effects of sanctions and to preserve information-sharing. Sec. 201--Sanctions with respect to Energy Joint Ventures with Iran Extends ISA sanctions to persons knowingly participating in petroleum resources development joint ventures established on or after January 1, 2002 anywhere in the world, unless such ventures are terminated within 180 days of enactment, in which Iran's government is a substantial partner or investor, or through which Iran could otherwise receive energy sector technology or know-how not previously available to its government. Sec. 202--Expands Sanctions on Providers of Goods and Services to Iran's Energy Sector Requires imposition of ISA sanctions on persons who knowingly sell, lease, or provide to Iran goods, services, technology or support (including refinery construction or repair), or infrastructure predominantly used for the transportation of refined petroleum products, that could directly and significantly contribute to its petroleum resources development or refining programs, in single transactions of $1 million or more or multiple transactions aggregating to $5 million or more in any 12-month period. Requires imposition of at least three ISA sanctions to persons who knowingly sell, lease, or provide to Iran goods, services, technology or support for its petrochemical sector in a single transaction of $250,000 or more, or multiple transactions aggregating to $1,000,000 or more in any 12- month period. In so doing, codifies the President's decision to extend US sanctions to Iran's petrochemical sector, adopting the standards, thresholds and petrochemicals list contained in Executive Order 13590. Sec. 203--Sanctions with respect to Uranium Joint Ventures with Iran Requires ISA sanctions to be imposed on persons who knowingly participate in joint ventures with Iran's government, Iranian firms, or persons acting for or on behalf of Iran's government in the mining, production or transportation of uranium anywhere in the world. Exempts such persons from sanctions if they withdraw from such joint ventures within 6 months after the date of enactment. Sec. 204--Expansion of Sanctions Available under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 Expands the current menu of sanctions, available to the President under the ISA, to authorize exclusion from the United States of aliens who are corporate officers, principals or controlling shareholders in a sanctioned firm, and permits applicable ISA sanctions to be applied to the CEO or other principal executive officers (or persons performing similar functions) of a sanctioned firm, which could include a freeze of their US assets. Sec. 205--Definitions Defines ``credible information'' and ``petrochemical product.'' ``Credible information'' includes public announcements by persons that they are engaged in certain activities, including those made in a report to stockholders, and may include announcements by the Government of Iran, and reports from the General Accountability Office (GAO), the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Research Service, or other reputable governmental organizations. Defines ``petrochemical product'' consistent with Executive Order 13590. Sec. 211--Sanctions for Shipping WMD or Terrorism-related Materials to or from Iran Requires the blocking of assets of, and imposes other sanctions on, persons who knowingly provide ships, insurance or reinsurance, or other shipping services, for transportation of goods that materially contribute to Iran's WMD program or its terrorism-related activities. The sanctions apply to parents of the persons involved if they knew or should have known of the sanctionable activity and to any of their subsidiaries or affiliates that knowingly participated in the activity. Provides for Presidential national security interest waiver; requires a report to Congress regarding the use of such a waiver. Sec. 212--Imposition of Sanctions on Subsidiaries and Agents of UN-sanctioned Persons Amends CISADA to ensure that US financial sanctions imposed on UN-designated entities reach those persons acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or owned or controlled by, the designated entities. Requires the Treasury Department to revise its regulations within 90 days of enactment to implement the change. Sec. 213--Liability of US Companies for Violations by their Foreign Subsidiaries Requires the imposition of civil penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of up to twice the amount of the relevant transaction on US parent companies for the activities of their foreign subsidiaries which, if undertaken by a US person or in the United States, would violate US sanctions law. Subsidiaries are defined as those entities in which a US person holds more than fifty percent equity interest or a majority of the seats on the board, or that a US person otherwise controls. Covers activities under the current US trade embargo with Iran and would apply regardless of whether the subsidiary was established to circumvent US sanctions. Sec. 214--Securities and Exchange Commission Disclosures on Certain Activities in Iran Amends the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers whose stock is traded on US exchanges to disclose whether they or their affiliates have knowingly engaged in activities (i) in section 5 of the ISA (energy sector activity); (ii) in 104(c)(2) or (d)1 of CISADA (related to foreign financial institutions who facilitate WMD/terrorism, money laundering, IRGC activity, and other violations); (iii) in 105A(b)(2) of CISADA (related to those who transfer weapons and other technologies to Iran likely to be used for human rights abuses); (iv) with persons whose property is blocked for WMD/terrorism and; (v) persons in the government of Iran. Provides for periodic public disclosure of such information, and conveyance of that information by the SEC to Congress and the President. Requires the President to initiate an investigation into the possible imposition of sanctions as specified, and to make a sanctions determination within 6 months. Sec. 215--Immigration Restrictions on Senior Iranian Officials and their Family Members Requires the identification of and denial of visa requests to senior officials, including the Supreme Leader, the President, members of the Assembly of Experts, senior members of the Intelligence Ministry of Iran, and members of the IRGC with the rank of brigadier general or higher that are involved in nuclear proliferation, support international terrorism or the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran. Also includes their family members. Provides for Presidential national security interest and UN obligations waiver; requires a report to Congress regarding the use of such a waiver. Sec. 216--Sanctions with respect to the Provision of Certain Financial Communications Services to the Central Bank of Iran and Sanctioned Iranian Financial Institutions States the sense of Congress that the President should intensify current diplomatic efforts to ensure that global financial communications services providers such as SWIFT terminate services to Iranian financial institutions designated for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA. Requires the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a list, within 60 days of the date of enactment, of entities that provide financial communications services to or facilitate access to such services for the Central Bank of Iran or financial institutions described in 104(c)(2)(E)(ii) of CISADA (i.e., institutions whose property is blocked in connection with Iran's proliferation of WMD or its support for terrorism). Requires reporting by the Secretary of the Treasury within 90 days of enactment on the efforts of SWIFT to terminate the provision of services to the Central Bank of Iran and Iranian financial institutions designated for sanction. Authorizes the imposition of sanctions under CISADA or IEEPA with respect to a financial communications services provider, and the directors of, and shareholders with a significant interest in, a provider, that has not terminated such services to the Central Bank of Iran or designated Iranian financial institutions. Sec. 217--GAO Reports on Iran's Energy Sector Mandates regular reports from GAO on foreign investment in Iran's energy sector, exporters of refined petroleum products to Iran, entities providing shipping and insurance services to Iran, Iranian energy joint ventures worldwide, and countries where Iranian petroleum is produced or refined. Sec. 218--Expanded Reporting on Iran's Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum Products Amends section 110(b) of CISADA to require additional reporting on the volume of crude oil and refined petroleum products imported to and exported from Iran, the persons selling and transporting crude oil and refined petroleum products, the countries with primary jurisdiction over those persons and the countries in which those products were refined, the sources of financing for such imports and the involvement of foreign persons in efforts to assist Iran in developing its oil and gas production capacity, importing advanced technology to upgrade existing Iranian refineries, converting existing chemical plants to petroleum refineries and maintaining, upgrading or expanding refineries or constructing new refineries. Sec. 301--Sanctions on Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Officials, Agents, and Affiliates Requires the President to identify, and designate for sanctions, officials, affiliates and agents of the IRGC within 90 days of enactment, and periodically thereafter; designation requires exclusion of such persons from the United States, and imposition of sanctions (related to WMD under IEEPA, including freezing their assets and otherwise isolating them financially). Also, outlines priorities for investigating certain foreign persons and transactions in assessing connections to the IRGC. Requires the President to report on designations and waivers. Sec. 302--Sanctions on Foreign Persons Supporting IRGC Subjects foreign persons to ISA sanctions if those persons knowingly provide material assistance to, or engage in any significant transaction--including barter transactions--with officials of the IRGC, its agents or affiliates. Requires imposition of similar sanctions against those persons who engage in significant transactions with UN-sanctioned persons, those acting for or on their behalf, or those owned or controlled by them. Provides for additional sanctions under IEEPA as the President deems appropriate. Requires the President to report on designations and waivers, as applicable. Sec. 303--Rule of Construction Clarifies that section 301 and 302 sanctions do not limit in any way the President's authority to designate persons for sanction under IEEPA. Sec. 311--Extension of US Procurement Ban to Foreign Persons who interact with IRGC Requires certification by prospective US government contractors (for contract solicitations issued beginning 90 days from the date of enactment) that neither they nor their subsidiaries have engaged in significant economic transactions with designated IRGC officials, agents or affiliates. Sec. 312--Sanctions Determinations on NIOC and NITC Amends CISADA to require the Secretary of the Treasury to determine and notify Congress whether the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company are agents or affiliates of the IRGC. If found to be IRGC entities, sanctions apply to transactions or relevant financial services for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from the NIOC or NITC only if the President determines that there exists a sufficient supply of petroleum from countries other than Iran to permit purchasers to significantly reduce in volume their purchases from Iran. Provides for an exception to financial institutions of a country that has significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian petroleum or petroleum products within specified periods which track those provided for in section 1245 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Sec. 401--Sanctions on those Transferring to Iran Technologies for Human Rights Abuses Imposes sanctions provided for in CISADA, including a visa ban and property blocking/asset freeze, on persons and firms which supply Iran with equipment and technologies--including weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot control equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance equipment--which the President determines are likely to be used by Iranian officials to commit human rights abuses. Requires the President to maintain and update lists of such persons who commit human rights abuses, submit updated lists to Congress, and make the unclassified portion of those lists public. Requires the President to report on designations and waivers, as applicable. Sec. 402--Sanctions on those Engaging in Censorship and Repression in Iran Requires imposition of sanctions as in section 401 against individuals and firms found to have engaged in censorship or curtailment of the rights of freedom of expression or assembly of Iran's citizens. Sec. 411--Expedited Processing of Human Rights, Humanitarian, and Democracy Aid Requires the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Treasury Department to establish a 90-day process to expedite processing of US Iran-related humanitarian, human rights and democratization aid by entities receiving funds from the State Department; the Broadcasting Board of Governors; and other federal agencies. Requires the State Department to conduct a foreign policy review within 30 days of request submission. Provides for additional time for processing of applications involving certain specified sensitive goods and technology, and requests involving novel or extraordinary circumstances. Sec. 412--Comprehensive Strategy to Promote Internet Freedom in Iran Requires the Administration to devise a comprehensive strategy and report to Congress on how best to assist Iran's citizens in freely and safely accessing the Internet, developing counter-censorship technologies, expanding access to ``surrogate'' programming including Voice of America's Persian News Network, and Radio FARDA inside Iran, and taking other similar measures. Sec. 413--Sense of Congress on Political Prisoners Declares that the United States should expand efforts to identify, assist, and protect prisoners of conscience in Iran and intensify work to abolish Iranian human rights violations. Directs the Secretary of State to publicly call for the release of political prisoners, as appropriate. Sec. 501--Exclusion of Certain Iranian Students from the US Requires the Secretary of State to deny visas and the Secretary of Homeland Security to exclude certain Iranian university students who may seek to come to the U.S. to study to prepare for work in Iran's energy sector or in fields related to its nuclear program, including nuclear sciences or nuclear engineering. Sec. 502--Technical Correction Reaffirms longstanding US policy allowing the sale of certain licensed agricultural commodities to Iran by amending section 1245(d)2 of the National Defense Authorization Act to allow for continued payments related to such commodities. Sec. 503 Interests in Financial Assets of Iran Deems blocked assets of Iran seized or frozen in the US, and property interests of Iran in the United States, to include property held in book entry and related indirect forms, property held by securities clearing agencies and other intermediaries, and inchoate interests in funds transfers in the payment process through intermediary banks, regardless of federal or state law that might otherwise apply, if that property is an interest held for the benefit of Iran or if any intermediary holds the interest for the benefit of Iran and the status of the property is relevant to any attachment or proceedings in aid of execution, whenever issued, on judgments against Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking, or material support for such an act. Defines various terms used for purposes of the section, including ``blocked asset,'' ``clearing corporation,'' ``financial asset,'' ``security,'' and ``securities Intermediary.'' Sec. 504--Report on Membership of Iran in International Organizations Requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress listing the international organizations of which Iran is a member and detailing the amount the US contributes to each such organization annually. Sec. 601--Technical implementation; penalties Provides the President with the necessary procedural tools to administer the provisions of this new law, drawing on relevant provisions of IEEPA, including ensuring that the Administration can require recordkeeping of certain persons, and has subpoena and enforcement authority for certain specified provisions of the bill. Sec. 602--Applicability to Authorized Intelligence Activities Provides a general exemption for authorized intelligence activities of the U.S. Sec. 603--Termination Provides for termination of some provisions of the new law if the President certifies as required in CISADA that Iran has ceased its support for terrorism and ceased efforts to pursue, acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology. Sec. 701--Short Title for Title VII The ``Syria Human Rights Accountability Act of 2012.'' Sec. 702--Sanctions on Those Responsible for Human Rights Abuses of Syria's Citizens Requires the President to identify within 90 days, and sanction under IEEPA, officials of the Syrian government or those acting on their behalf who are complicit in or responsible for the commission of serious human rights abuses against Syria's citizens, regardless of whether the abuses occurred in Syria. Sec. 703--Sanctions on those Transferring to Syria Technologies for Human Rights Abuses Requires the President to identify and sanction persons determined to have engaged in the transfer of technologies-- including weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot control equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance equipment--which the President determines are likely to be used by Syrian officials to commit human rights abuses or restrict the free flow of information in Syria. Provides for exceptions where a person has agreed to stop providing such technologies, and agreed not to knowingly provide such technologies in the future. Requires the President to report on designations and waivers, where applicable, and to update the list periodically. Sec. 704--Sanctions on those Engaging in Censorship and Repression in Syria Requires the President to identify and report to Congress within 90 days of enactment those persons and firms found to have engaged in censorship or repression of the rights of freedom of expression or assembly of Syria's citizens, and impose sanctions under IEEPA on such persons. Requires periodic updating of the list, and public access via the websites of the Departments of State and Treasury. Sec. 705--Waiver Provides for Presidential national security interest waiver for Syria provisions; requires a report to Congress on the reasons for the waiver. Sec. 706--Termination Provides for termination of the Syria provisions if the President certifies that the Government of Syria is democratically elected and representative of the people of Syria, or a legitimate transitional government of Syria is in place. Certification required must stipulate that the government of Syria has released political prisoners, ceased the abuse of citizens engaged in peaceful political activity, ceased the practice of procuring sensitive technology to restrict the free expression rights of its citizens, ended support for terrorist organizations, ceased development of missile programs, is not engaged in the development or acquisition of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, and agreed to allow the UN and international observers to verify such claims. Provides for suspension of sanctions for 1 year if a transitional government is in place, to provide time to develop the more detailed certification above. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Not more than 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, before I start talking a bit about the budget of my friend Senator Lee, I want to respond to the comments of the Senator from Iowa in terms of interest rates. Instead of talking about student rates, let me talk a little about America's average borrowing cost. Certainly, what I have done is delved into the budget and taken a look at the history, and from 1970 to 1999--over that 30-year period--the average borrowing cost in the United States was 5.3 percent. By the way, that was when America was a far more creditworthy nation, when our debt-to-GDP ratio ranged from about 40 percent to 67 percent. Now our debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100 percent. Over the last 3 years our average borrowing cost has been kept artificially low, at 1.5 percent. So my concern is by not seriously addressing the problem, by not actually passing a real budget that starts reining in the growth in government, we are going to go from that 1.5 percent and revert back to that average mean borrowing cost of 5.3 percent. If we do, that 3.8-percent differential would add $600 billion to $700 billion per year to America's interest expense, and that would crowd out 60 to 70 percent of all discretionary spending. That is the interest rate that I am concerned about. That is the day of reckoning I am concerned about, when global investors look at the United States and say: You know what. We are not going to loan you any more money. Or what is more likely to occur, they will say: We will loan you money but at a far higher rate. Having made that statement, I would like to talk a little about the budget of my friend, Senator Lee, and the things I like about it. One of the things I like to do is take a look at history. I know a lot of us say we don't have a tax problem, and we don't. It is not that we tax the American public too little, it is that we spend too much. And this is some pretty graphic proof. This reflects our 10-year spending levels. From 1992 to 2000, the Federal Government spent a total of $16 trillion over that 10-year period. Over the last 10 years, from 2002 to 2011, the Federal Government spent $28 trillion. Now, the debate moving forward is--according to the just released Obama budget--the President would like to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years. The House budget would spend $40 trillion. I guess what I like about Senator Lee's budget is that he would come in and spend about $37 trillion and put us on a more aggressive path toward fiscal sanity. While we hear about Draconian cuts all the time, one doesn't have to be a math major to realize that moving to $37 trillion, $40 trillion, or $47 trillion is not a cut from $28 trillion. All we are trying to do is reduce the rate of growth. The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget can be illustrated in terms of this chart, which shows the total Federal debt. I started this chart in 1987, the tail end of Ronald Reagan's administration, when our total Federal debt was $2.3 trillion. I want to point out that it took us 200 years to incur $2.3 trillion. Of course, last year, in the debt ceiling agreement, this Congress gave the President the authority to increase our debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. We will go through that in less than 2 years. That is a problem. Of course, if we take a look at President Obama's budget, we can see how quickly our national debt has increased. But according to President Obama's budget, in the year 2022 our total Federal debt would be $25.9 trillion, up $10 trillion from what it is today. Senator Lee's budget would result in a total debt of about $19.1 trillion. Even more importantly, he stabilizes and then reduces a very important metric, our overall debt-to-GDP ratio. That is what investors take a look at in terms of our creditworthiness. The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget is by 2022 it will reduce Federal spending to 17.8 percent of the size of our economy. If you are like me and you think the root cause of our economic problem is the size, the scope, and all the rules and regulations, all of government's intrusion into our lives and the resulting cost of government, this is the key metric: How large is the Federal Government in relationship to the size of our economy? Currently, the Federal Government takes 24 cents of every dollar that is generated by our economy. If we add in State and local governments, total government in the United States consumes 39.2 percent. Put another way, 39 cents of every dollar filters through some level of government. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find government particularly effective or efficient. To put that in perspective, for example, the cost of government for Norway last year--one of the European-style socialist nations--was 40 percent. For Greece, it was 47 percent. Anybody hear of Greece recently? That economic model is collapsing. This is why Senator Lee's proposal is important. If we take a look at spending and revenue generation over the last 50 years, we can see spending from 1959 through 2008 averaged 20.2 percent. Over the last 3 years we have increased that to 24 percent. Revenue generation has been 18.1 percent over that same time period. By the way, as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle want to punish success and increase the top marginal tax rates, the problem with that is it simply doesn't work. During my lifeline, the top marginal tax rates have been 90 percent, 70 percent to 50 percent to 28 percent, 35 percent, 39.6 percent, and now back to 35 percent. In all that time period the average tax receipts--the maximum amount the Federal Government could extract from our economy--has averaged very tightly around that mean of 18.1 percent. If we ever have any chance of living within our means, we better get Federal spending down to about that level. That is what Senator Lee's budget does. So, again, I thank my friend Senator Lee, as well as Senator Toomey, and Senator Paul for putting forward serious proposals. I thank all Republicans in Congress who are actually voting for something because, Mr. President, Republicans are proving we are willing to be held accountable to the American people by putting a plan on the table and showing the American people what we would do to try to get our fiscal house in order. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, by now, it should come as no surprise that the Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years. I believe it has been 1,111 days. When I go to back to Wisconsin--and I think it is probably true of my colleagues--the people of Wisconsin, and I think the people all over America, want us to work together and solve our debt and deficit issue. Since I have been here, the Republicans have fulfilled the responsibility to show what the plan is for stabilizing our debt and deficit. The House passed a budget in the last 2 years, but the Democrats in the Senate have not. It is because they simply refuse to be held accountable. That is a real shame. I realize the American public wants us to work with each other, but my suggestion is that the first individuals who need to work with each other, the first compromise that needs to be done is with our Democratic colleagues in this Chamber. They have 53 percent, and they only need 51 to pass a budget. They need to get together and work together, and they need to hammer out a compromise and pass a budget. The way that we get together and compromise in the entire process is the House budget would be presented with the Senate budget, we would do a conference, and we would have a process for being able to compromise. That is the basic minimum of what I think needs to be done in the Senate. One point I want to make is that President Obama has made a number of promises during his administration, and one I will talk about now is on February 23, 2009. In his opening remarks to the fiscal responsibility summit, the President stated: Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now in this administration for getting our spending under control. I point out that when he made those remarks, the most recent estimate for what the deficit would be in fiscal year 2009 was put forward by CBO on January 7, 2009. They were estimating that the deficit for that year would be $1.186 trillion or 1.2 rounded up. Half of that amount would be $593 billion. That is the promise President Obama made to this Nation in terms of the work he would put in and what he would deliver to our Nation in terms of deficit control. The facts are far different. In 2009, largely because of the very partisan stimulus package the President passed, the deficit wasn't $1.2 trillion, it was $1.4 trillion. That was followed in 2010 by $1.29 trillion. Then in fiscal 2011, it was $1.3 trillion. The latest CBO estimate for deficit for this year will be $1.253 trillion, almost $1.3 trillion. That is double what the President promised he would be delivering to the American people in terms of deficit control. Moving forward, this President in his budget is projecting increasing our debt from $15 trillion to over $25 trillion. I am not sure that is believable. The other quote of his was on September 26, 2011, in remarks at a DNC fundraiser in San Diego when he was trying to sell his Americans Job Act. He said the following: What I have said is that this is a very simple principle that everybody should understand. Warren Buffett's secretary should not pay a lower tax rate than Warren Buffett. A teacher making $50,000 a year, or a firefighter making $50,000 a year, or $60,000, should not be paying a higher tax rate than somebody making $50 million a year. And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our Tax Code, could raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs bill-- And here is the key quote: --we would also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Mr. President, I don't know what you call that last statement, but I think it could be called a doozy. I think the President has a very serious responsibility not to mislead the American public. I think that statement was a gross violation of that duty. I have one chart here, a simple one. It shows the 4-year deficit figures for the last 3 administrations. Here's Bush's first 4-year administration, which is a $.8 trillion total deficit in 4 years. In the second 4 years, it is $1.2 trillion in deficit spending. This President will accumulate $5.3 trillion in deficit spending in his 4 years. Four years of the Buffett rule--that tax President Obama said would stabilize the debt and deficit--would be $20 billion. I realize the people in the gallery probably cannot see that line on the chart, but it is obviously not enough to stabilize the debt and deficit. I think the President has the obligation and duty not to mislead the American public. That is what he did in this case. Senator Corker has been a real leader on this issue in terms of being a real hawk in trying to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. I wonder if he has any comments.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I came prepared with charts, and a number of things that have already been mentioned by my colleagues I am ready for. We are talking about the true cost of the health care law. When this was passed--and I actually grossed up these figures because they actually netted out--the savings of Medicare with new spending in Medicare, the way ObamaCare was originally going to be paid for was about $1.3 trillion to cover about $1.1 trillion in outlays. That was split up in basically two ways: about $590 billion in taxes, fees, and penalties, and then $665 billion in reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage. Now, we have not imposed the $208 billion of the doc fix, the sustainable growth rate formulas, because even Washington realized if we reduce payments to providers, there will be less access for seniors. So I guess I don't have any reason to believe those cuts in Medicare will actually occur. If we move the budgetary window forward to the timeframe when ObamaCare truly kicks in--because, initially, by the way, we had 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outlays. But really we only had 4 years of full outlays. If we move the budget window forward, the true cost of ObamaCare over a 10-year window is $2.4 trillion, and that is a very minimal estimate. That is very conservative. If we don't impose Medicare cuts, and we only grow the taxes, fees, and penalties--about $816 billion--that leaves a $1.6 trillion deficit risk over 10 years. We are talking about these deficits now that for 4 years have been $1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion. We are trying to close a $1.3 trillion deficit with about $1 trillion worth of discretionary spending. The other graph I had--and this plays into what the earlier part of the conversation was--reflects the 1960s, when 68 percent of our expenditures were appropriated. They were under some control in Congress. And 32 percent were the mandatory programs and interest. Currently, about 36 percent of government expenditures are appropriated and 64 percent are basically off-budget, on automatic pilot. As the Senator from Texas pointed out, 10 years forward, only about 25 percent of our Federal budget will be appropriated--will be discretionary spending. Everything else is on automatic pilot. That is simply not sustainable. The last graph I want to put up--and we haven't talked about this yet--reflects what I really fear. If we take a look at the average borrowing costs for the United States from 1970 through 1999, when we were a far more creditworthy nation, our debt's GDP ratio ranged from about 40 percent to 67 percent. Our average borrowing cost as a nation was 5.3 percent. Over the last 3 years, from 2010 to 2012, our average borrowing cost has been 1.5 percent because we have held rates artificially low. If we just revert to that mean, that would actually be a 3.8-percent differential. Applied to our debt, that would be $600 billion to $700 billion per year in additional interest expense. Compare that to $1 trillion worth of discretionary spending, and that would totally wipe out the defense budget, for example, or if we maintain the defense budget, it would wipe out all discretionary spending. That is what we need to be concerned about. That is the day of reckoning I am concerned about: when creditors from around the world take a look at the United States and say: You know what. I am not going to loan you any more money. What is more likely to occur is they will say: I will loan you more money but at a far higher interest rate. I know the Senator from Tennessee is fully aware of these types of figures.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. The Senator from Wyoming looks as though he might have another concluding comment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I appreciate those comments. I will conclude. There really are two plans on the table right now. One is from the House Republicans. It actually passed the Chamber. Republicans were willing to put their votes to a budget. Republicans are willing to be held accountable. Of course, the other plan would be the President's budget, which last year lost in this body 0 to 97, and his current budget lost in the House 0 to 414. So I guess you can say that is a plan that doesn't sound like a particularly serious plan. So I join my colleagues, and I thank the Senators from Texas and Wyoming and Tennessee for joining me. I would join them in asking this body to please exercise your responsibility, own up to your duty, and let's pass a budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak not to exceed 15 minutes.