John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Lydia Sand, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Lydia is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending Bethel University, where she is majoring in international relations. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Lydia for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Hayden Mathias Fuchs, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Hayden is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of Kansas, where he is majoring in business-finance and business-management. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Hayden for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Sarah Margaret Aker, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Sarah is a graduate of Sturgis Brown High School, Sturgis, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in chemistry and political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Keaton Jace Bauman, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Keaton is a graduate of Huron High School in Huron, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in history and political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Keaton for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Abiane Campbell, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Abiane is a graduate of Yankton High School in Yankton, SD. Currently, she is attending the Winona State University, where she is majoring in business administration and paralegal studies. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Abiane for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4853; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Thune amendment 4376 be inserted; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the amendment I just proffered to the other side which was objected to. I think there is a consensus in the Senate that we need to fix some of these problems we are facing, one of which is the expiration of unemployment insurance for people who are unemployed. There are a lot of tax provisions that are expiring that need to be extended, things such as the research and development tax credit, which is critical to innovation and competitiveness in this country, and a whole range of other tax credits which affect a broad range of our economy. Also, I believe it is important that we provide some certainty to people who depend upon Federal policy, and one of those groups would be the physicians in this country who rely upon Medicare reimbursements for much of their survival because they treat so many Medicare patients. Much of the patient base for many of the physicians in my area of the country, where we have a high elderly population, is Medicare. Obviously, physicians have been facing--up until last week--a 21-percent cut. That was addressed for 6 months, so we have fixed that. We have dealt with it for 6 months. Obviously, that is an issue that will come up again. What my amendment would have done was to solve that issue not just for the next 6 months but to the end of the year 2012. So physicians in this country would have gotten an additional 2 years of relief, so to speak, with regard to their reimbursement. So I would suggest that inasmuch as these are all things we agree need to be done, the real basic disagreement here revolves around how do we do that. What the other side has put forward is a series of proposals, starting with the first one, that had $70 billion in tax increases and almost $80 billion added to the Federal debt. The last proposal that was put forward by the Democratic majority had $50 billion in tax increases and $55 billion added to the Federal debt. We hope that this week we are going to see that slim down even further, and I would suggest we are making progress in the right direction. But I think it is still fair to say these things need to be paid for. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, we have $13 trillion in debt that we owe. That includes debt that is owed between governmental agencies--we call that intergovernmental debt--as well as debt held by the public. If you can find it, the debt held just by the public is about $8.6 trillion. But remember, we are talking about trillions and trillions of dollars. As my colleague from Tennessee just pointed out, it took 43 Presidents 232 years to get to $5.8 trillion. The amount of debt we compiled and accumulated between 1776 and 2008--232 years of American history--was $5.8 trillion. Now, under this President's budget, we will equal that amount in the next 5 years and double it in 10. In other words, we will double the Federal debt today in 5 years and triple it in 10. That is an astounding number. If you think about all of American history up until the year 2008--232 years and 43 Presidents to get to $5.8 trillion--we are going to double that amount in 5 years and triple it in 10. Staggering. Under this new administration, we have already racked up enormous amounts of new debt because we added $1 trillion to the debt to pay for a stimulus bill which has not shown any evidence of job creation other than jobs that have been created here in Washington, DC, at the Federal Government level. I think you could argue that Washington's economy has benefited because we have created some government jobs, most of which are temporary census jobs. But if you look at the overall job statistics, we have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million jobs since the passage of the stimulus bill. We passed health care expansion, which was sold as health care reform but, frankly, does little to reform health care and certainly doesn't do anything consequential to reduce health care costs. I think most Americans now realize, as insurance premiums continue to go up and as the Actuary and the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee all attest to the fact, we are going to see the cost curve bend up, not down, as a result of the passage of health care reform. This is a $2\1/2\ trillion expansion over a 10-year period, when it is fully implemented. That is a massive new entitlement program on top of the entitlement programs that are already bearing down on us and leading us toward a situation where, in a very few years if we don't take some serious steps, this country is going to be bankrupt. We are going to be belly- up. It is as simple as that. You cannot continue to sustain trillion- dollar deficits year after year after year, which is what we are facing for the foreseeable and long-term future, and expect that we are not going to completely drive this country into the ditch. So the amendment I offer pays for things. It says: Let's change the way we do things around here. Let's quit handing the bill to our children and grandchildren. Let's quit putting it on the credit card and saying to the next generation: You pay this. There is certainly nothing wrong with the things the other side is trying to accomplish. As I said, I think there is consensus about addressing these serious needs in our economy right now. But the difference of opinion exists here about, how do you do that? We are simply saying: Let's pay for things. Let's start doing something different here in Washington. Let's do what the American family has to do, what the American small businesses have to do. Let's pay for things, for crying out loud. That is what my amendment would do. It would say: Here are some ways we can shave some savings and we can cut spending here in Washington, DC, and do all these things we think we ought to do without adding to the debt and without raising taxes in the process. A few months back, here in the Senate, we passed legislation which was labeled as historic and passed to great fanfare. It was called pay- go legislation, and it created pay-go rules that suggested that from now on we are going to start paying for things. What has happened since the passage of pay-go? The Senate has approved, if you count the not- paid-for portions of the bill that is on the floor right now--of course, that hasn't been approved yet, but assuming it were--nearly $200 billion of new debt. From the time we said we are going to start paying for things, which was a few short months ago, we have waived the very rules that were going to put us on a path to fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline, declared everything an emergency, and added almost $200 billion to the Federal debt. So here we are today debating yet again another measure that will add more to the Federal debt, that will impose taxes on small businesses in our economy at a time when they are trying to get some momentum to help churn us out of this recession, get us back to where we are creating jobs and to a period of economic growth. All we are doing is piling new taxes on them--taxes on investment, taxes on small businesses, and taxes, of course, with the recent passage of the health care bill, literally on everybody because all those tax increases are going to get passed on to the American consumer. So where are we? Here is where we are. There are a number of things that can be done that would do what the other side wants to do--to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. One of those things would be that we could save the necessary amount of money to pay for this now. The cost of extending unemployment benefits in the Democratic proposal, by the way, is $33 billion. That is a substantial amount of money, but there are many ways in which that could be paid for, all of which were included in my amendment last week, but let me suggest a couple of discrete parts of that amendment that might be stripped out and used to pay just for the unemployment insurance. We can pay for the extension of the unemployment benefits by returning unspent stimulus funds, which would save $34.5 billion. So the $33 billion in unemployment benefits that need to be extended to people who have lost jobs in the recession could be paid for by returning unspent stimulus funds to the tune of $34.5 billion. So there would be enough to pay for the unemployment benefits and some left over. It could also be paid for through a 5-percent cut to the 2010 appropriations and an expansion of the affordability exemption to the individual mandate in the health care reform law, which together would save $33.5 billion. So that would give the $33 billion that would be necessary to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. Alternatively, it could be paid for with the rescission of other unspent Federal funds, which would pay for it by saving $56 billion. So you could take care of the unemployment benefits, you would have $33 billion that is necessary to pay for that and $23 billion left over, hopefully to be put toward the Federal debt, which would be the best thing we could do for our children and grandchildren. Finally, it could also be paid for with the inclusion in this bill of medical malpractice reform, which was also included in my amendment last week. That would save about $50 billion. So you would have $50 billion to pay for the $33 billion in unemployment benefits and have $17 billion left over to put toward the Federal debt, which again would be the best thing we could do for our children and grandchildren. So all these arguments that are made by my Democratic colleagues that these things are Draconian just aren't true. These are commonsense things that would give us the necessary resources to take care of the problem that is in front of us today but do it in a way that doesn't add billions and billions of dollars to the Federal debt, exacerbating what is already a very serious circumstance facing our children and grandchildren, which the Senator from Tennessee did a very good job of outlining. If you are a child under 18 in America today, the amount of debt you own is about $85,000. By the year 2017, that is going to be $196,000. So if you are a young person in America today who is under the age of 18, your share of the Federal debt is $85,000. Ten years from now, that will be $196,000--in fact, less than 10 years from now; in the year 2017. I think all that leaves us with a very clear choice when it comes to how we solve problems here in Congress, here in the Senate, and how we deal with the immediate question before us this evening: How do we extend unemployment benefits to those who have lost jobs in the recession? The other side has come forward with a proposal, again with billions and billions and billions of dollars that are not paid for, and that does go on the debt and that does get passed on to our children and grandchildren. What we are offering are some commonsense ways, which means the Congress and the Federal Government may have to live on a little bit less. They are things that would require the Federal Government to go on a diet, if you will, in the same way the American people are having to go on a diet. The American people are being asked, because of this tough economy, to make hard choices with regard to their family budgets, with regard to their individual and personal lifestyles, with regard to their businesses. Everybody in this country is having to make decisions about cutting back a little bit. We could address this issue by just asking the Federal Government to take a little bit of a haircut, put the Federal Government on a little bit of a diet. We can achieve the savings necessary to pay for the proposal that is before us. Again, as I said, $33 billion fixes the unemployment benefit issue, and I have just named four ways that could be paid for, with money left over that could be put toward the Federal debts. That is what this is about. That is what the discussion here is. This is very straightforward. My colleagues on the other side have come up here this evening and will continue to offer unanimous consent requests to go ahead and do this but not pay for it, and people on our side are getting up and saying: Wait a minute. No, I object, and here is why. And the reason is because we believe in a very straightforward way that we ought to start doing what I think the American people expect of us, and that is for us to live within our means in the same way they do. Unfortunately, regrettably, today, that is not what is happening here in the Congress. Year over year over year, we continue to spend and spend and spend and borrow and borrow and borrow like there is no tomorrow. Well, the chickens are going to come home to roost. Someday, the bills have to be paid. People where I come from in South Dakota understand that. There is no free lunch. When you borrow money, it has to be paid back. You can't spend money you don't have. Those are all things that are happening here in Washington, DC today. We are spending money we don't have and we are borrowing money we don't have any idea about how we are going to pay it back. All we are simply doing is giving it to the next generation so they will have a bill facing them and a future that will shackle them with debt that they will be dealing with for their lifetimes and probably the lives of their children and grandchildren as well. By way of illustration, because I think it is important to put things into perspective--sometimes I think it is very difficult to come to grips with what is $1 billion, what is $1 million, what is $1 trillion. I tried to break that down, to put it in perspective for myself so I can understand a little better what we are talking about. The numbers, the number of zeros on the end of that number, can be almost mind boggling to the average person in this country. Most of us are not used to dealing with numbers that are in that ballpark of $1 trillion. What a trillion seconds is--if you took a trillion seconds, what would that translate into, by way of illustration and example--a trillion seconds, if you broke that down into years, would be almost 31,000 years; 31,746 years is what a trillion second is. If you take $1 trillion and you make a second a dollar and try to put it into terms I think the average American can understand, a trillion seconds represents 31,746 years. Since most of us here are probably not going to live much more than 80 years--hopefully if we are lucky, we will live beyond that. Most of us here are going to live under 100 years. When you talk about a trillion seconds, which in the last--we have seen about 15 seconds pass here, and you add that up to a trillion, that is 31,746 years. Think about what $1 trillion represents, how much that is, the scale, the dimension we are talking about and what we are doing to future generations of Americans if we do not start taking the steps that are necessary to pay the bills around here. This amendment I offered and that was objected to by the other side would have done that. It would have fixed the physician fee issue, not just until November of this year but for another 2 years beyond that, to the end of the year 2012. It would have addressed the issue of the expiring tax provisions which we are all concerned about. It is an important tax policy that needs to be extended that has expired and needs to be addressed. Also, as I said earlier, there is of course the issue before us this evening of unemployment benefits which, at a cost of $33 billion, could easily be offset by any of a number of things I suggested this evening. I see my colleague from Utah has arrived on the floor. I know he too has an amendment he wishes to offer that I think makes a lot of sense. When it comes to creating jobs, he is someone with a small business background and understands what job creation is about and I understand he will have a request he will make of our colleagues on the other side as well, so at this point I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I offered an amendment a week ago during the debate on the extenders legislation that is still on the floor of the Senate that would have paid for all the things the Senator from Michigan would like to see paid for, and we have things we need to do, such as unemployment insurance, an extension of that. We need to deal with the issue of these expiring tax provisions. What we would do is simply say we start paying for things around here. So I offered an amendment that would do that. It was defeated here in the Senate. But at 8:15, I intend to come back here and offer that again as an alternative because I think probably everybody in the Senate agrees we need to address the concern of people who are unemployed in this economy, but we should do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. That is what my amendment will do. So, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Clarence Wolf Guts, of Wanblee, SD. Clarence passed away on June 16, 2010, at the age of 86. The last surviving Oglala Lakota code talker, Clarence Wolf Guts was an American hero. Serving in World War II as a Native American code talker, Clarence helped win the war by transmitting critical military messages in his native language, which the Japanese and German militaries could not translate. Clarence enlisted in the U.S. Army on June 17, 1942, at age 18. One of 11 South Dakotan Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota Native American code talkers, Clarence was recruited to help develop a phonetic alphabet based on the Lakota language. This alphabet was eventually used to develop the Lakota code. Serving as a code talker, Clarence's primary job was transmitting coded messages from a general to his chief of staff in the field. Courageous and self-sacrificing, the efforts of Clarence and other code talkers were essential for the Allied victory. Honorably discharged on January 13, 1946, Pfc. Wolf Guts was a man willing and able to serve his country. I have a great deal of respect for Clarence and for the extraordinary contributions Mr. Wolf Guts made to our country. The efforts of the Lakota Code Talkers saved the lives of many soldiers, and Clarence Wolf Guts was a true American hero. Today I wish to celebrate the life of an extraordinary man. As we mourn the loss of this great South Dakotan, I extend my thoughts, prayers and best wishes to Clarence's family, friends, and loved ones.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, could I inquire how much time we have on our side.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as provided for in the order, I now call up my amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, my understanding is that we are headed toward a noon vote, perhaps a little bit ahead of that. I ask unanimous consent to have about 3 minutes to close debate on our side.

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

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors of this amendment Senators McConnell, McCain, Isakson, Bond, Enzi, Cornyn, Barrasso, Roberts, Coburn, Chambliss, Scott Brown, and Judd Gregg.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in response to the comments of my colleague from Delaware, I do not think anybody is denigrating the quality of Federal employees. To the contrary. We are all Federal employees. We all know Federal employees. We are all friends of Federal employees. And we have a lot of Federal employees who do a great job. All we are simply saying is when you are in a tough economy, everybody ought to look at what they can do to live more within their means. When we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit this year and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Lord knows we ought to be looking within to figure out what we can do to try and find some savings that we can use to either pay for the things we need to do or perhaps pay down the Federal debt which, as I said, my amendment does. Amendment No. 4376, as Modified Also, because I think there is a concern that somehow every Federal employee is going to be frozen, I have a modification to my amendment that addresses that concern. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the changes at the desk be incorporated into my amendment. For the information of my colleagues, these are changes to section 403, and they address the criticisms. The amendment would prohibit increases in salaries or bonuses for Federal civilian employees. The changes that are at the desk will allow such increases and bonuses to occur so long as agencies do not exceed their fiscal year 2009 budget for salaries. This is a unanimous-consent request. This would address the concerns raised by some of my colleagues on the other side about making sure Federal agencies have adequate flexibility with salaries and bonuses to address those employees they think are deserving of pay raises. All they have to do is live under that top-line number that gives them flexibility as a Federal manager and to work within it.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I simply offer that modification to my amendment to address the concern that every single Federal employee is going to be capped at some level for some foreseeable period of time. That is not the intention. In fact, what the modification would do is ensure that within the overall budget--within the top line--a manager could make adjustments to individual employee salaries or bonuses if that is something they desire to do. It just means the Federal Government--the agency--is going to have to live within a certain number at the top line. They can work within that salary number beneath that top line. That is all it does. Again, what I have said before, and I will reiterate for the benefit of my colleagues, is that I think we have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible in Washington, DC. As I said before, we have people all over the country making hard decisions with regard to their personal and family budgets, with regard to their small businesses, and they are having to reduce employee salaries, for example, and they are having to make reductions in force and let people go. Those are hard decisions to make. Surely in Washington, DC, where we have seen year- over-year increases in Federal spending, in discretionary domestic spending, that exceeds inflation by six times--look at the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills and the increases that were allowed--21\1/2\ percent in those two appropriations bills, at a time when inflation was 3\1/2\ percent. How can we justify increasing spending over 20 percent in Washington, DC, when the rate of inflation in our economy is 3\1/2\ percent and people all over the country are having to make cuts? It is high time Washington, DC, and the Federal Government went on a diet. That is not to say anything to denigrate or impugn the quality of Federal employees. As I said before, there are a lot of Federal employees who do a great job. All this is simply saying we in Washington, DC, ought to lead by example. There is great power in example, and we have not been providing the example for the American people. We are asking them to make these hard choices, but we are not willing to make those choices ourselves. So I think this amendment gives Members of the Senate an opportunity to say yes to fiscal responsibility, yes to living within our means, yes to paying for what we spend money on, and yes to not handing the credit card to our children and grandchildren. These are not Draconian ideas; these are fairly straightforward savings that we would achieve simply by shaving a little bit from these Federal budgets--making sure we rescind those stimulus funds that haven't been spent or haven't been allocated to pay for this new spending. We use those funds that have been appropriated but not spent to finance some of what we are doing and then apply that to pay down the Federal debt and freeze some of the Federal agencies in terms of their budgets and ask for a 5-percent reduction in some of these agencies over the course of the next foreseeable years. Those are all fairly straightforward steps I think anybody would take if they were trying to get back within a reasonable budget to address what are very serious concerns about the amount of spending and the amount of debt we are piling on future generations. So I am sorry the majority is resistant to accepting the amendment. It would address the concern that was raised by a couple of our colleagues on the other side. It wasn't my intention to impose a very restrictive straitjacket-type approach on Federal managers. On the contrary, we think there should be a top line budget, that we ought to be able to live within it, and certainly managers can make decisions within that about how best to allocate those resources. Congress has actually blocked its own pay raise in the past 2 years, so it seems to me that is at least something we could apply to other areas of our Federal Government as well. So, again, I think the whole purpose behind this amendment is simply to create an opportunity for Senators to vote for fiscal responsibility, to vote for paying for the things we spend money on in Washington, to vote for living within our means, and to vote for not adding billions and billions of dollars to the Federal debt, which is already at $13 trillion and growing by the day. It seems, at least to me, this is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to the American people that we are serious about getting Washington's spending and debt under control. This amendment addresses the issue of unemployment insurance and extending that, addresses the issue of expiring tax provisions, reduces taxes by $26 billion, addresses the impending cut in physician reimbursements that would occur if Congress doesn't take action, but it does it for 2 years longer than what the legislation of the majority would do. We address that up to the end of the year 2012. So it takes care of all those things, and it does it in a fiscally responsible way by reducing spending by over $100 billion, as I said before, by reducing taxes, by keeping taxes low on small businesses, which are the job creators in our economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it reduces the Federal debt by $68 billion. That is a win-win for the American people--the American taxpayer--and it should be a win-win for the Senate. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and with that, Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I will renew my request to so modify my amendment, and I appreciate the manager accepting that change.

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this amendment is, in my view, probably the most important thing that we can do for the economy right now. The Senator from Montana talked about job creation. Everybody in this Chamber cares about that. I think Democrats and Republicans alike believe we have to create jobs in our economy. We need to get economic growth going again. I think we have a fundamental difference about how best to do that, and what my amendment would do is address what I think are the two biggest problems we face--the sort of clouds, if you will, hanging over the economy in this country. One is debt. We have this spiraling Federal debt which is set to double in 5 years and triple in 10 years on the current path under the budget that has been proposed by the President. If we include the debt that government agencies owe each other--in other words, intergovernmental debt--add that to the public debt, right now we are in debt $13 trillion. That is the total amount of debt we have today. That is going to balloon in the next 5 years and the next 10 years. The budget window we use to do our budgeting around here suggests it is going to be much higher than that. So I think what the American people are saying, at least what I believe the American people are saying--and I think we have probably different interpretations of that, but what I believe the American people are saying and what I see in poll after poll after poll is people are concerned about the cloud this growing public debt imposes on our economy and the burden it places on future generations. They are also profoundly concerned about their jobs and about their economy. They want Congress to take steps that will help grow the economy and create jobs. The best way to do that is for the government to get out of the way, so to speak, and incentivize small businesses to do what they do best; that is, create jobs. It is the small businesses in our economy that are the economic engine. They are job creators. We should not be imposing more burdens on them. We should try and keep taxes low. We should try and keep regulations and keep from imposing new governmental burdens on our small business sector and our economy. So we have a piece of legislation before us today in which I think both sides, Republicans and Democrats, agree we need to do something to address unemployment insurance and extending the benefits of those who have lost their jobs in the recession. We need to address the issue of physician reimbursement cuts which will occur if Congress does not take steps to address that. Of course, we need to extend the expiring tax provisions that many of us support-- for example, the tax credit for investment in research and development, which is one of the things companies use to keep us more competitive. Those are all things that have expired, are expiring. Those are issues that need to be addressed. I think both of us agree on that. The question becomes, What is the best remedy, how best do we do that? What the Democratic majority has proposed is a solution which, at the end--and I think this is even under the best-case scenario, which I do not believe we have a CBO score on yet--but the more recent version of their piece of legislation would still add about $50 billion to the debt. So it would increase the amount of debt I just mentioned earlier. It does raise taxes. It raises taxes on small business. It raises taxes on investment. It puts more taxes on oil companies by raising taxes that would go into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And, of course, because my amendment does not include that tax increase, somehow we are painted as being in defense of big oil. Well, let me point out one thing about that--this was true in health care; it has been true with many things that have happened here on the floor--and that is, it would be one thing if the revenues raised by increasing the tax from 8 cents to 49 cents per barrel of oil were actually going to be used to clean up oilspills. It is stated to go into the trust fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but it will be used to fund other things. So, again, you get this double-counting. You get this practice we have seen employed here by the majority on a number of occasions where you are raising revenue that is supposedly for a specific purpose, the proceeds of which are going to be used for something entirely different. That, of course, is coupled with the fact that the tax, as we all know, is going to be passed on to the American consumers. So the American consumers are going to be burdened with higher taxes. At the same time, the other side can say: We are being tough on big oil. We are going to stick them with this big new tax. Ironically, it is not going to go to clean up oilspills; it is going to go to fund these things we are talking about funding here. We have a better way. We can reduce government spending and do this. We can actually extend these expiring tax provisions by reducing taxes by about $26 billion under my amendment. We can cut spending by over $100 billion under my amendment. And we can actually make some progress toward reducing the Federal debt. We have about $68 billion, under my amendment, that can be used to pay down the Federal debt. So we reduce the debt, we cut taxes, we extend unemployment benefits, we address the physician reimbursement issue--and by the way, my amendment addresses that through the end of the year 2012. The amendment now offered by the Democratic majority extends it to the end of this year. So if you are a physician out there who is looking for some certainty and looking for something that is a long-term solution to this issue of cuts in reimbursement, then you get, under my amendment, an extension to the end of the year 2012. Under the Democratic majority option here today, you get something that extends it only until the end of this year. So you can do all those things and still cut the debt, cut taxes, and reduce Federal spending. So what we are offering is a different way. It seems to me, when you are sitting on a $13 trillion debt and you are growing your debt at $1.5 trillion every year, which is what is happening--the deficit this year is going to be about $1.5 trillion. That is what it was last year. We are looking at trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, to the point where the interest on the debt at the end of the 10-year period we use for budgeting purposes in the Senate will exceed the amount we spend on defense. We will spend more on interest on the debt than we spend on national security in this country if we continue down this path. In fact, we will spend, at the end of the 10 years, 4.1 percent of our entire economy--our entire gross domestic product--on interest on the debt. Madam President, $13 trillion in debt--the other day, I tried to put that in perspective so people can appreciate and understand it because I think sometimes it is hard for most of us, myself included, to wrap our heads around $1 trillion. It sounds like a lot in the abstract. But to try to put it into a perspective that perhaps we can understand, I used the analogy of, what is 1 trillion seconds? If you took 1 trillion seconds, what would that mean in terms of total number of years? Well, 1 trillion seconds represents 31,746 years. If you took 13 trillion seconds--which is what the debt now represents, the total debt our country owes--you are looking at over 412,000 years, if a dollar equals a second. So 1 trillion seconds: 31,746. Madam President, $13 trillion is what our total debt consists of today. Again, you are looking at over 412,000 years. I think that speaks to why we need to get the debt and the spending here under control. Interestingly enough, a while back here in the Senate, to much fanfare, the majority passed pay-go rules. The assumption would be that somehow going forward new spending would be paid for and reductions in tax revenues would be offset somehow by increases in tax revenues and all that. Well, since that time, since the passage of pay-go, the Senate has already approved well over $100 billion in new spending, not paid for that is added to the debt. If this legislation is enacted, that number will approach $200 billion since we passed pay-go--the much-touted, with much fanfare, as I said, solution that was going to solve the fiscal woes of our country and suggest a different way of doing things in the Congress. Well, anything but that has happened. On the contrary, every time we have had a major piece of legislation, pay-go has been waived. We waive it. We declare everything an emergency. Now everything is an emergency and nothing gets paid for, and the debt continues to grow, and the debt-o-meter, the spend-o-meter around here continues to spin faster and faster and faster, and the credit card is handed to future generations who are going to have to deal with our inability to live within our means. So the alternative we offer to the legislation before the Senate today that is being put forward by the Democratic majority is, as I said, very simple and very straightforward. It does a number of things. It does all the things we need to do in terms of extension of unemployment insurance, of the physician fee--making sure that cut does not occur, that the physician reimbursement issue is addressed, as I said, through the end of the year 2012--as well as extending these expiring tax provisions that are very important to our economy and to our economic growth. But we do that in a different way. We take $37.5 billion of the $50 billion in unobligated stimulus funds and use those funds to extend existing tax and benefit provisions. We cut money from the government by reducing congressional budgets. I think it is fair that when the American family, the American business community, and people across this country are making hard decisions about their own personal budgets--their family budgets, their business budgets--having to figure out where they are going to cut back, the least we in Congress can do is to scrub our budgets and figure out what we can do to reduce spending. So we cut money from the government by reducing congressional budgets. We rescind unspent Federal funds. There are lots of appropriated moneys out there that do not get spent that revert back or get spent later. What this amendment simply says is, if moneys that have been appropriated have not been spent, then let's use that money to pay down the Federal debt. Let's do these things we need to do here, and then let's make sure we are not continuing to spend and spend and spend, particularly dollars that are not needed. It requires the government to sell unused lands and to auction off unused equipment. It also imposes a 1-year freeze on the salaries of Federal employees and eliminates their bonuses and caps the total number of Federal employees at current levels. I have a modification that would amend this legislation because there has been a concern raised that it would mean nobody could get a raise, even those who deserve it. What the modification would do is allow Federal agencies and managers flexibility to determine how they are going to work within their personnel budgets to provide, perhaps, raises for those who have been deserving. But, overall, their top-line number would be frozen. So it is not as if no Federal employee ever would have to go without any kind of a raise. But we think it is important that the Federal Government go on a diet, just as the family budget is having to do right now as well. We also collect $3 billion in unpaid taxes from Federal employees. We encourage responsibility and prioritizing within the Federal budget by requiring a 5-percent across-the-board discretionary spending cut for all agencies, except at the VA and the Department of Defense. Again, there has been a lot of suggestion that somehow this is going to wreck the economy and force--as I saw some things out yesterday-- that this is going to force a government shutdown. What this amounts to is a 2-percent reduction through the end of this fiscal year, which is September 30. I do not think, out of a $652 billion budget, that if you are a good manager at these Federal agencies, you could not find 2 percent to shave in order to achieve the savings we need to pay for this legislation. It encourages responsibility and prioritizing as well by saving $5 billion in eliminating what is nonessential government travel. And it eliminates bonuses for poor-performing government contractors. Finally, it does create a new deficit reduction trust fund where rescinded balances and moneys saved through this amendment will be deposited for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt. Now, I said this the other day, and I will say this again: I think this ought to be a no-brainer for us here. Irrespective of which side of the political aisle you are on, you undoubtedly are hearing from constituents across this country who are very concerned about the amounts of spending, the amounts of debt, who are concerned about increasing taxes, particularly businesses. We hear a lot about investment frozen on the sidelines because investors are concerned about the uncertainty that exists out there with regard to taxes and what they are going to do in the future. Clearly, this bill, as I said earlier, raises taxes. It raises taxes by about $50 billion in the current version of it. What we would do is reduce the tax burden by extending these expiring tax provisions but do it in a way that does not require new taxes on investment, new taxes on small businesses, new taxes on our economy at a time when we can least afford it, when we ought to be looking at ways to keep taxes low and to make sure we are doing everything possible to lessen the burden on our small businesses, those job creators in our economy. One of the things that was mentioned, and we do in our legislation, is we do address one of the issues with regard to health care. I think the Senator from Montana characterized that lowering the affordability threshold for the individual mandate will strike at the heart of health care reform. Well, first off, let me just point out that this amendment was taken directly from an amendment that was filed by Senator Schumer during the Finance Committee markup of the health care reform bill. I do not think his intention was to strike at the heart of health care reform. I thought the heart of health care reform was to make sure people have access to affordable coverage. I do not think that was Senator Schumer's intent. I think he was thinking we ought to make sure low- income people were not forced to buy unaffordable coverage simply because of health care reform and because they needed a way to finance health care reform. This amendment would make sure individuals and families are not subject to an intrusive and burdensome new Federal mandate if they cannot afford health insurance. So it is a fairly straightforward modification to the health care legislation which takes away some of the burden that is imposed on people at lower income levels. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to me. If you look at the current health care bill, under that bill low-income individuals--those under 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--are slated to pay about $1 billion in mandate penalties. Now, the suggestion was that somehow, if we make this change, insurance premiums are going to go up. Well, I am telling you something. We tried to make this point many times during the course of the debate on health care reform. Insurance premiums are going up. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers predicted this week that health care costs are going to continue to rise at an unsustainable rate--next year by about 9 percent. So it is already clear that health care reform is not going to live up to many of its promises. It is going to continue to raise premiums for most Americans. And that has a lot more to do with the health care reform, the substance of that, than anything else. It does not have anything to do with what we are trying to accomplish here by, as I said, reducing the impact of the individual mandate on low- income individuals in this country. So these are all fairly straightforward reforms. We do touch medical malpractice reform. We think that is something that should have been a part of health care reform and was not that would help reduce health care costs for people in this country and achieve some savings we can use to, again, help pay down the Federal debt, help address the concerns we need to address with this legislation. But bottom line, as I said earlier, what we are looking at here is a very clear choice for U.S. Senators. U.S. Senators can choose to solve the problem before us in one of two ways. The first way is through $50 billion in tax increases, $50 billion in additional debt, and over $100 billion in additional spending--or about $100 billion in additional spending. The alternative I offer cuts taxes by $26 billion, reduces spending by $100 billion, and cuts the Federal debt, reduces the Federal debt by $68 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In my view, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is nothing more important to our economy than dealing with this cloud of debt, this huge burden that hangs over our economy of out-of-control Federal spending, out-of-control Federal debt, deficits that are over $1 trillion or at $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, the concern about tax increases on our economy and how those would impact our small businesses and their ability to create jobs. So this legislation, again, deals with the issue of the debt, deals with the issue of taxes, deals with the issue of spending, and accomplishes all of the underlying objectives we all have of extending unemployment benefits, of dealing with these expiring tax provisions, and dealing with the impending reduction in physician reimbursements. So with that introduction, I reserve the remainder of my time. I think we have other speakers who want to come down, and I look forward to hearing from them as well.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I pay honor to Robert Dean Moore of Mission, SD, who passed away on May 29, 2010, after a courageous battle with cancer. He is survived by his parents, Reverend and Doctor Marrles and Frances Moore, and his brother and sister-in- law, Reverend Jack and Nancy Moore. Robert dedicated his life to improving the health and well being of all Native Americans, including members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, of which Robert was an enrolled member. This mission led him into public service, where he was elected as a Rosebud Sioux tribal councilman as well as being a member of the Aberdeen Area Tribal Chairman's Health Board. Robert was not only a vocal supporter of enactment of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act earlier this year, he was also a strong advocate for better research, education, and prevention of tribal youth suicide. In addition to his dedication to public service and the betterment of his people, Robert lived his life with a strong foundation in his faith. He was also blessed with an exceptional vocal talent that allowed him to touch many across the country through performance. Robert Dean Moore's devoted service to the people of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the rest of Indian Country is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Jeanne Laurence, who will celebrate her retirement from Rapid City Area Schools this June after 23 years of service. In reaching her retirement milestone, Jeanne Laurence is finishing a career that pioneered computer usage within area schools in Rapid City, SD. Jeanne began her career in the real estate field in Wyoming, but after eight years moved to Rapid City and joined Stevens High School as a secretary. At Stevens she tracked student attendance, grades, and discipline issues. In 1985, the school district was not equipped with computers, so Jeanne performed all tracking and management functions by hand. At the first opportunity to use a computer, Jeanne automated most of her tasks and encouraged administrators, teachers, and secretaries to take advantage of this new technology. Over the next several years, Jeanne earned a reputation among co- workers for being an expert on technology solutions. The district quickly recognized Jeanne's expertise and asked her to develop computer classes for fellow staff members. Her knowledge of student management automation resulted in her appointment to the selection committee for the district's first student information system. Jeanne's experience and reputation led to her selection for a district-wide position in the newly formed Department of Information Technology. In her new role, Jeanne became the sole trainer for over 1,500 employees. She developed technology training for new employees and introduced downloadable video clips to the training process. The groundwork provided by Jeanne Laurence in technical education and training has made a significant contribution to the professional development of the staff and to the educational success of the students in the Rapid City Area Schools. Her tireless efforts have brought great credit to her school district and to herself. Congratulations on a well deserved retirement.