[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2412-S2429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                THE DEBT

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week America's government was 
brought to the brink of a shutdown, and the shutdown was avoided 
literally at the eleventh hour just last Friday. The same day, the 
President called Speaker Boehner to try to advance the talks. According 
to Politico, the President told Speaker Boehner, ``We are the two most 
consequential leaders in the U.S. Government.'' The President was 
right, so why was only one of those two leaders actively trying to lead 
on the issue of the day? Speaker Boehner was trying for weeks to put 
together a deal that could serve the American people, but right up 
until the end, the President was missing in action. Even Senator 
Manchin, a member of the President's own party, said the President had 
``failed to lead this debate.''
  Now the President is finally saying he wants to talk about what steps 
our country needs to take to get our fiscal house in order. I really do 
hope the President is serious, but I have my doubts. This is a line we 
have heard from the President before. Back in February 2009, the 
President called experts to the White House for what he called a fiscal 
responsibility summit. In his opening remarks, the President said this:

       Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past 
     few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the 
     consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or 
     the next generation.

  That was February 2009. For the last 2 years of this administration, 
all the President did was add trillions of dollars to that debt.
  Late last year, the President's debt commission released their report 
on America's fiscal situation, and the findings were sobering. 
According to the report, they said the problem is real, the solution 
will be painful, there is no easy way out, everything must be on the 
table, and he said Washington must lead. The President ignored the 
report.
  America is done waiting for him to take this issue seriously. Last 
week, the House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan put forward the 
first concrete plan to address our debt crisis. Now the President has 
suddenly decided that crisis needs to be addressed. The President has a 
national address scheduled for today, and maybe that will be the moment 
of truth. I hope it will not be another one of the President's recycled 
speeches; empty words cannot fill America's pockets.
  Last November, the American people told us they wanted the truth. 
They wanted to know their representatives could make tough decisions. 
That is what we heard on election day. They wanted to make sure there 
would be a future for their families and for their children. I think 
the American people deserve results. The President has paid them back 
with excuses, with delays, and with business as usual.
  Republicans have been the leaders on trying to reduce the spending. 
The

[[Page S2413]]

President's party has only criticized, complained or, in the final 
moments, tried to take credit. They refuse to lead and have refused to 
act.
  Now the President's party wants us to raise the debt ceiling in what 
they call a clean bill. That is a fancy way of saying they want us to 
borrow more money with no strings attached. The President opposed doing 
the same thing back in 2006 when he was a Senator. This is what he said 
then. The President, on the floor of the Senate, said:

       The fact that we are on the floor today debating raising 
     the nation's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It 
     is a sign the Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a 
     sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from 
     foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal 
     policies.

  I would just say that if President Obama thought raising the debt 
ceiling at a $9 trillion level was a sign of leadership failure, why 
then is President Obama asking us to raise it beyond the $14 trillion 
now?
  Facts are stubborn things. The numbers do not lie. Every day, this 
government borrows over $4 billion. We did it yesterday, and we will do 
it today and tomorrow. Over 40 cents of every dollar Washington spends 
is borrowed money, much of it from China. Every American child born 
today and tomorrow and the next day owes over $45,000. Next year, 
Washington will spend 68 cents of every tax dollar on Social Security, 
on Medicare, on Medicaid, or interest on the debt. If we as a nation 
continue on the President's path, Washington will spend all of what it 
takes in on these items alone. Everything else, from defense to 
education, will be paid for on a budget of borrowed money. Where is the 
money going to come from? A lot of it from other countries, countries 
that do not always have America's best interests at heart.
  John F. Kennedy once said, ``Ask not what your country can do for 
you, ask what you can do for your country.'' In a few years, that could 
change to, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your 
country must do for China. Consider this: When John F. Kennedy was 
President, America only owed 4 percent of its debt to foreign 
countries. Today, we owe half of our debt to foreign countries.
  Debt is not just a disaster for our future; the amount of debt we owe 
right now, today, is so high that it is hurting our employment at home. 
Experts tell us our debt is costing us 1 million jobs, and the evidence 
is clear that our debt is disastrous in the present as well as for the 
future. A debt such as this makes it harder for American families to 
buy cars and homes, to pay tuition for their kids to go to college, and 
then it makes it harder to create jobs for those kids who will be 
graduating this year and next year until we get the spending under 
control.
  The President's party simply offers more of the same old failed 
policies that produced the problems in the first place. Some in the 
President's party have suggested raising taxes to make up for the debt. 
I expect the President to do that this very day in his speech.
  The President's speech today comes just a few months after he 
submitted his budget. After seeing that budget, it is hard to take the 
President seriously. Don't take my word for it; one writer in the 
Washington Post said it already:

       President Obama's budget was irresponsible, failing to take 
     on entitlements and relying on rosy assumptions.

  The international magazine The Economist called the budget 
``dishonest.''
  America needs a President who shows real leadership and a concrete 
plan. That is what the American people are expecting.
  I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless some very specific 
steps are taken. It is time we passed a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. Many States have to balance their budgets, families 
have to balance their budgets, live within their means. Washington 
needs to do the same.
  It is also time for us to place actual legal limits on what we do 
spend. A statutory limit on total government spending will force 
Washington to make the hard decisions each year to get us back on 
track. A hard cap on government spending will start us on the path 
toward fiscal balance and sustained growth. Ronald Reagan used to talk 
about starving the beast. That is what we need. Since President Obama 
took office, the beast has only grown fatter.
  The President's party likes to accuse their opponents of being 
antigovernment, so why didn't the President's party bother to pass a 
budget or fund the government last year when they should have? And why 
are they driving our government further into debt, hurting America's 
standing and our credit on the world stage?
  The President's party likes to pretend they are standing up for the 
little guy. They should have listened to Ronald Reagan when he said: 
``You can't be for big government and big spending and big taxes and 
still be for the little guy.'' The President and his party are for big 
government, big spending, and big taxes, and they are not for the 
little guy.
  The fact is, the President and his party are not that interested in 
solutions. Instead of solutions, the President's party has hidden 
behind nasty words, words like ``extreme'' and ``Draconian.'' Many 
American families are living within the same budget they had in 2008, 
and Republicans believe the government should do the same. Is spending 
no more than you did in 2008 extreme or is it extreme to support 
trillions more in wasteful Washington spending? Is tightening our belts 
like families do Draconian or is it Draconian to spend money we don't 
have and force our children to pay it back?

  Some members of the President's party have gone even further. One 
leader of the President's party said that Republicans wanted to starve 
6 million seniors. That is a pretty disturbing claim. The problem is, 
the Washington Post said that she made it up. This same person called 
the Ryan plan a ``path to poverty''--a ``path to poverty,'' she said--
``for America's seniors and children.'' The Ryan plan doesn't affect 
anyone over the age of 55. It saves Medicare for those who have not 
gotten there yet, and it stops the spending that puts every American on 
the path to permanent poverty. Meanwhile, the President says he doesn't 
want to point fingers. Yet so far his White House has responded to the 
Ryan plan by doing nothing but point fingers. They went back to their 
same old bag of tricks, and they tried to scare our seniors and their 
families.
  The President also accused Congress of playing games. Yet his first 
budget was nothing but a giant game of kick the can, and his address 
today looks more likely to be just another campaign speech rather than 
a legitimate plan for the future.
  The time has come to lead, not sit on the sidelines. The time has 
come for the President to act, not just to talk. As a doctor and a 
Senator, I believe our economy is in need of critical care. Our budget 
is hemorrhaging. There is not a quick or easy fix. A bandaid will not 
help this patient. Treatment cannot be delayed. The time to act is now.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, as ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, I am concerned about where we are as a nation, as we 
struggle to get our house in order. The chairman and cochairman of the 
Debt Commission, Erskine Bowles, Senator Alan Simpson, have told us we 
are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation's 
history. When asked when we could have a financial crisis, we are 
talking about another recession, a double dip, or maybe worse, maybe a 
worldwide cataclysm from excessive debt--hopefully not--but that is 
what they told us we are facing, the most predictable crisis in 
history.
  We have gone 714 days in this Congress without passing a budget as we 
are required to do. The Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget 
by April 15, and we have not achieved that. That is particularly 
problematic at a time of national crisis.
  I see my colleague Senator Corker from Tennessee here, who has worked 
very hard with some constructive bipartisan efforts to do something 
about the debt trajectory we are on. But I

[[Page S2414]]

guess I want to first ask him, as a highly successful mayor of 
Chattanooga, received great plaudits around the country and within the 
State for his leadership, he had to deal with real numbers, real 
expenditures, and real budgets. As a very successful businessman, he 
has had the same challenge. So I guess I would ask him for his 
perspective, having been in the Senate now several years, what he 
thinks if we as a corporation, a mayor, or a nation, facing the most 
severe debt crisis perhaps in its history, that we have not had a 
budget and do not have a plan. I guess my first question, Senator 
Corker is, how, from a businessman, a former mayor who had to run a 
city and balance your budget, what is your perspective?
  Mr. CORKER. I was on the floor last week as we talked about the 
continuing resolution. I said that the most frustrating thing to me 
coming to this body--I have been here now 4 years--is we never know 
where we are going.
  It is an amazing thing to have 535 people serving in Congress, and 
there is no roadmap whatsoever as to what we are going to do. I think 
it is pretty evident, by the time we have this debt ceiling vote--that 
I think most people perceive to be the real line of demarcation--I 
think it is evident we are not going to have a budget passed again even 
for that.
  So I have been working with the Senator and the other Senators on the 
floor and people on the other side of the aisle. I think one thing I 
can say is that, on this issue and candidly on every issue, I have no 
desire to message. I want to solve this problem as you do. I know you 
have been a leader on this fiscal issue, as have Senators Isakson and 
Barrasso and others.
  I want us to solve this problem. I think if you have not even had a 
hearing yet on the budget, it is likely that we will not have a budget 
this year, which is pretty amazing. So what I am trying to do is put in 
place something called the CAP Act. I have worked with a number of 
Senators on that, where what we will do is take where we are spending, 
our national spending relative to our economy, and we will take it down 
to the 40-year average of 20.6 percent in the post-entitlement period.
  If we do that, we can save our country 7.6 versus existing policy 
over the next decade, which goes a long way toward solving the problem. 
It totally reverses the amount of indebtedness we are accumulating as a 
country. So I am working--since I do not think we are going to have a 
budget, which is pretty amazing--working on another route so we 
actually know where we are going.
  Generally to the American people, they have to watch us and think, 
what in the world is going on in this dysfunctional body. We have got 
$3.7 trillion being spent, $2.2 trillion coming in. There is no plan 
whatsoever to deal with that. We are going to have to create other 
vehicles to deal with that. So I am generally working with people on 
both sides of the aisle to come to that end.
  I thank the Senator for his efforts on the budget, but I will say to 
you and say to the American people, as I have said many times, I have 
never been in a place that is more dysfunctional. No matter what the 
American people think about the way we handle their money, I promise 
you it is even worse. And I do hope--I am glad the President, by the 
way, is going to address this issue at 1:35 today. I know that Paul 
Ryan has put forth a budget which is a roadmap, and I appreciate so 
much his effort.
  But as a country, I think we all know we have to deal with this issue 
in a serious way. Spending is at all-time highs. We have not been here 
since 1945, on Federal spending relative to our economy. I know others 
want to speak and have other appointments and I will stop. I thank the 
Senator for his leadership. This is the No. 1 issue for Americans. It 
threatens our national security. It threatens our economic security. 
And between now and the time we vote on the debt ceiling increase, it 
is my hope we will solve this problem and move into a different 
direction.
  Thank you.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his work. I think the 
legislative statutory cap on spending is something I have worked with 
Senator McCaskill on, you have worked with her on, and has potential to 
help us deal with the crisis we are in.
  I will agree with the Senator, and I truly feel the American people 
have a right to be angry with Congress, because Congress has run up the 
largest deficits in history. We are on a trajectory that every witness 
we have had before the Budget Committee, and some fabulous witnesses 
outside of the government, all say it is an unsustainable path that 
places our Nation at risk. We have no real plan to deal with it. We 
should never have been in such a deep hole. So I think people have a 
right to be upset with us.
  Senator Isakson, I know, is one of Georgia's most successful and 
effective businessmen. He has been involved in running the Education 
Department in the State of Georgia. I guess I would ask the Senator as 
a businessman, and as an American citizen, how do you feel about where 
we are? Do you think we are in a serious crisis that requires us to 
alter our business-as-usual approach, do we have to take tough 
decisions, or is it something we sort of hold off and maybe things will 
get better in the future?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Alabama for the question. I 
will tell you this, I was in the real estate business for 33 years. 
Leverage is essential in real estate. You have to borrow money and put 
in equity as well to make a real estate transaction work. You cannot 
just do it for all cash. But too much leverage will destroy you. 
America has just been through a period where many American homeowners 
were destroyed by too much leverage. They borrowed more than they could 
afford to pay in order to borrow for a house.
  The United States of America is at the point where we have too much 
leverage. We have too much debt. Our deficit continues to escalate, 
adding to that debt. I tried to think--when I thought about what I 
would say this morning, I did not know you would ask the questions you 
asked. But it is appropriate that you did.
  I was trying to think of an example we could put forward of a leader 
in the private sector who addressed a tremendous problem America faced 
and solved it. You know who that leader was? Lee Iacocca. I do not know 
how many of you will remember it, but in the 1970s Chrysler was busted. 
The cars did not work, people did not buy them, they were going broke, 
they had too much debt. They hired a guy named Lee Iacocca, brought him 
up from the ranks and said: Lee, we need to fix this company or we are 
going broke. Lee Iacocca as a leader put everything on the table: 
benefits, how they made their cars, discipline, rules, everything. He 
brought everybody to the table, the labor unions, the workers, the 
advisers, the economists, and the board of directors.
  He said: Look, we do not even care who takes credit, we need to fix 
the Chrysler Motor Corporation. In a short period of time, Chrysler 
went from the worst rated consumer satisfaction to the best. They 
raised the guarantee on their product. They reduced their debt by 
efficiencies, and they became the most productive automaker of their 
time in the 1970s.
  America has the ability to return to our productive times but only 
through leadership. I am looking forward to the President's remarks 
today. I hope he will be a Lee Iacocca. I hope he will not take things 
off the table. I hope he will not play politics with where we go. All 
of us have to decide to put everything on the table and make sure we 
prioritize America's future and get our debt and deficit under control.
  I just had the Georgia Hospital Association leave my office. I will 
tell you the last thing I told them. They were talking about, please 
make sure we do not cut this, that, and the other. I said: You know, 
medicine is 17 percent of gross domestic product, but it is about 80 
percent of our challenge in terms of Medicare and Medicaid with the 
future years of the debt and the deficit. We are going to have to put 
everything on the table. We are going to have to make sure we rein in 
our expenses while not destroying 17 percent of the private sector.
  Quite frankly, I fear the health care bill that passed in December of 
2009, and was signed last year in March, is a bill that is overly 
prescriptive, overly regulatory, and disincentivizes competition in 
terms of health care.
  I hope the President will be open to suggestions in terms of bringing 
about

[[Page S2415]]

competition, making our citizens consumers, making sure we are price 
competitive in the delivery of the best health care in the world, not a 
government that tries to manage everything and be so prescriptive.
  Yes, we have a problem, but we are a great country where Republicans 
and Democrats need to sit down at their kitchen table like the American 
people and make decisions that are in the best interest of their 
future.
  I commend Senator Corker on the CAP Act. It is the right way to go. I 
also want to bring up the biennial budget. I know the Senator from 
Alabama is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and I have 
talked to Chairman Conrad about this. We have an example that works, 
and that is to change the way we do our business.
  In the last 3 years we have had 4 hours of debate on spending $10 
trillion. That is not the way to run a railroad. We need to change our 
process from an annual appropriation to a biennial appropriation where 
we appropriate money in odd-numbered years and we spend in even-
numbered years, which are election years, looking for savings and waste 
and reprioritizing the way we spend money.
  I know this must be true for the Budget Committee, and I know myself, 
if I am given the time and the task of finding savings or 
overexpenditures, if I am given the charge of doing so, I can do it. 
But if I am told to come in January, raise my right hand, and then by 
October pass as much spending as I can, I will spend too much money. It 
is human nature.
  The American people ask of us only to do what they have to do. They 
don't have the luxury of too much leverage. If they borrow too much, 
they go bankrupt. We need to empower the American people by the 
Congress doing what the American people have to do.
  The biennial budget, the CAP Act, and then Senator Hatch, with a 
number of Senators in this body, have introduced the balanced budget 
amendment--those are three components that change the paradigm, the 
process, and I guarantee will change the result.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree more. I have been a long supporter of 
the biennial 2-year budget. I do believe it can work. It has a large 
amount of bipartisan support in the Congress. It can help us. I see 
Senators Blunt and Barrasso. I believe Senator Blunt was here first. He 
has been involved in the leadership of the House of Representatives for 
many years. He is already showing himself to be a very wise and 
valuable contributor to our debate.
  First, I would like to ask him, does he think the American people 
have a right to be unhappy with their leadership when they wake up and 
find that we have had $1 trillion deficits for 3 years in a row and 
will virtually average a $1 trillion deficit for the next 10 years and 
there is no plan in the Senate except the President's budget that he 
submitted to us, that has the deficits increasing in years 7, 8, 9, 10 
to $1.2 trillion in the tenth year? Is this an unsustainable path? 
Don't the American people have a right to be upset with us and demand 
that we stop business as usual?
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the Senator. Of course, they have every right to 
be mad. They have every right to be as frustrated as we are that the 
work in which the Senator from Alabama is so involved as the leading 
Republican on the Budget Committee hasn't been able to produce a 
result. We are unlikely to have a budget again this year.
  I was just asked by a reporter walking over here--and, yes, I was in 
the House for some time before I came to the Senate--for somebody like 
you who has been in Washington, wasn't the tea party a big challenge?
  I said: No, the tea party was not a big challenge. They were a great 
opportunity for us to have someone out there talking about getting this 
spending under control. And I listed the struggle we were involved in 
before Senator Barrasso got to the Senate, where we actually took on 
entitlement spending in 2005. As I recall that effort, I got lots of 
calls on entitlement spending reforms, where we cut entitlement 
spending the only time in a decade by $40 billion. I got lots of calls, 
and not one of them was supportive of cutting spending. As far as I 
know, every phone I had rang everywhere I had a phone for 100 days, as 
far as I know, all the time. No matter how early we came in or how late 
we were leaving, those phones were all ringing. Every call was: Don't 
cut my program.
  As Senator Isakson said, as he was talking to the friends we are 
seeing today from hospitals around the country, the ones from Georgia, 
we have to look at everything. We have to look at ways to produce 
better results. The government is the last place left in America--and 
this relates to government at almost every level and almost every 
government at every level--where we measure how much we care about 
something based on how much we spend on it instead of the results we 
get.
  Everybody else, 20 years ago, made the decision if they were going to 
be competitive they had to produce a better product, a better result, 
and spend less money producing that better result. Only the government 
still thinks the other way--and we do this without a plan, apparently. 
The Senator can correct me if I am wrong because the Senator is a 
student of the budget in ways that are not exceeded by anybody in the 
Senate, but we are still trying to finish last year's work. I think it 
is the only time in the history of the Budget Act where neither House 
of the Congress passed a budget. There have been times when both of 
them passed them and couldn't agree. There have probably been times 
when somebody didn't pass one but never a time when nobody passed a 
budget. Nobody passed a single one of the 12 appropriations bills it 
takes to run the government. How irresponsible can we be?
  Now we have this situation where we are spending so much more money 
than we are taking in, and the numbers are so big it is hard to be as 
afraid of them as we should because who knows how much money $3.8 
trillion is. It is not just Senators and House Members; I don't think 
the Secretary of the Treasury really knows how much money that is. But 
we are spending way more than we are taking in.
  Have we ever had a time before when neither House of the Congress 
passed a budget?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am not aware of it. We are now 715 days without a 
budget. This is particularly problematic since we are facing such an 
acknowledged debt crisis. The Secretary of the Treasury Geithner came 
before the Budget Committee. I asked him a number of questions. I asked 
him about the Rogoff and Reinhart study that says when our debt reaches 
over 90 percent of our economy, 90 percent of GDP, it causes the 
economy to slow down, be dragged down by that debt 1 percent of GDP. So 
if it was going to increase it 3 percent, it would increase it 2; and 
this amounts to, another study says, 1 million jobs. One percent of GDP 
growth is 1 million new jobs added. So it is very serious.
  I asked him was that true. By the way, I think my colleagues are 
aware that we are past 95 percent of GDP today. We are over the 90 
percent mark, and by September 30, we are projected to be 100 percent. 
So we are well above the number. The true number is not the public debt 
but the gross debt, and the gross debt would be 100 percent by the end 
of September.
  Mr. Geithner said, yes, he agrees with the study that shows it pulls 
down the growth, and added: It is in many ways more serious than that 
because it could lead to a debt crisis, the kind of thing Erskine 
Bowles, the President's choice to head the debt commission, has warned 
could happen. We have a responsibility to lead the Nation that avoids 
us undertaking a crisis that we can see coming. We have a clear and 
present danger to the American Republic, this debt.
  Mr. Bowles, a businessman, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, the 
choice to head the debt commission by President Obama, told us we are 
facing the most predictable debt crisis in our history, and it could 
happen within 2 years. I think this is really serious.
  We have to change business. I think the momentum from the American 
people in this past election was basically a statement saying, we don't 
know what the problem is; it is all convoluted. But I believe as the 
Senator indicated at the beginning, the American people have a right to 
say: Get it together and fix this problem.
  Mr. BLUNT. If the Senator will yield for another moment, while we 
have a hard time dealing with these big numbers--and I think they 
approach now

[[Page S2416]]

$3.8 trillion in spending and $2.2 trillion in money coming in--we are 
adding $4 billion a day. We are borrowing $4 billion a day. So in the 
time we had a continuing resolution for 10 days to try to decide how we 
cut spending, we borrowed more money in that 10 days than we saved.
  Then people said: That is Draconian. It is terrible. We can't spend 
this much money and continue to do it.
  If your family was bringing in $22,000 a year and spending $38,000 a 
year, and you had already borrowed way more money than any bank should 
lend you, as you just suggested, you would know that was a problem you 
couldn't sustain very long. If your business was bringing in $2.2 
million a year and spending $3.8 million a year, you would know you are 
not going to be in business very long. Those are the kinds of real-
world situations we have multiplied by thousands of times, but it has 
to be solved. The blueprint to solve that is the budget. We don't have 
one.
  The Senator's responsibility for the country is to be in that budget 
fight. I know the Senator is there. I know he is frustrated we don't 
have a blueprint, but we need a blueprint. Then we need to spend lots 
of time on this floor and in committees figuring out how we produce a 
better result and spend less money and what the Federal Government is 
doing that just simply isn't well done, and shouldn't be done, and 
constitutionally there is no authorization to do and stop doing that.
  I am pleased to be in this fight with the Senator from Alabama and 
with the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is a very serious crisis. The President submitted a 
budget to the Congress 2 months ago. I am hoping and expect that if he 
makes big changes in his plan for the future, we will see that in real 
numbers and not just a vague vision. A vision gets too close to being a 
dream. It gets too close to being of vapors. We are in a real situation 
with real money.
  I have been a very aggressive critic of the President's budget. I 
believe it is the most irresponsible budget ever presented to Congress. 
We are facing a systemic, deep, long-term crisis. Everybody knows it. 
His budget raised taxes $1.7 trillion. His spending was even more. In 
the net projection over 10 years, he would increase the debt of America 
$3 trillion more than the current trend we are on. Instead of taking us 
off the trend, it accelerates the trend. It was a stunning development.
  For example, at a time when inflation is 2 percent or so--according 
to the experts, at least, low inflation--he is proposing in his budget 
that the State Department have a 10.5-percent increase, an 11-percent 
increase for education, a 9.5-percent increase for the Energy 
Department, and a 60-percent increase in the Transportation Department 
to fund high-speed rail with no money to back that up. It is stunning 
to me that we could have those kinds of increases proposed in a formal 
written document--four volumes--that the President is required to 
submit that I have on my desk back in the office. And he makes no 
projections in that document to change any of the unsustainable 
problems we have with Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--zero reform.

  I understand he may talk about that this afternoon. I hope he will. 
But I believe he should go further--if he is going to propose changes--
in that we need a new budget. We need to see what the numbers are. That 
is what Congressman Ryan and the House Republican Budget Committee have 
done. They have produced a real budget that can be analyzed and scored, 
as we call it, by the Congressional Budget Office.
  If he is going to make changes in his plans for the future, I truly 
believe the President should talk more than about vision and dreams for 
the future but give us real numbers.
  Senator Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, has served in the 
legislature in Wyoming and has been a tremendous advocate on many 
issues, none more important than the health care debate we had.
  I say to Senator Barrasso, as someone who has not been too long in 
Washington and has already been elected to the leadership in the 
Republican Party--well deserved as a result of your proven acts--how do 
you feel we are handling the American people's money? What thoughts 
does the Senator have?
  (Mr. FRANKEN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is my impression that in so many ways 
Washington gets it wrong. The Senator is correct. I appreciate his 
leadership.
  I did have the opportunity to serve in our State legislature in 
Wyoming for 5 years. The constitution in Wyoming says you have to 
balance your budget every year.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, did you do that?
  Mr. BARRASSO. We balanced our budget every year, just like the 
families in Alabama or Wyoming have to balance their budget every year 
and have to live within their means. That is what we do. You take a 
look at the revenue, and then you do not spend any more than that. You 
live within your means. That is what families do. It is what the State 
does. That is why I was so proud to stand with the Senator as one of 
the cosponsors of the balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. I think this country has to balance its budget and do it 
every year.
  The President's spokesman yesterday--kind of the word of the day at 
the White House seemed to be ``vision.'' He kept saying the President 
is going to give his ``vision.'' The day before, the word was 
``balance.'' In his press conference, he kept saying the word 
``balance.'' I would like to hear a vision that we have to balance the 
budget of the United States. That is what I want to hear from the 
President today when he gives his speech at 1:30 this afternoon. I do 
not want to hear some recycled speech about, well, raise taxes, but 
that is what I am anticipating from the President.
  I have talked to people in Wyoming after church on Sunday morning, 
and they have seen you, I say to the Senator, on Sunday morning talk 
shows--I think last week with Bob Schieffer; ``Meet the Press'' the 
week before that.
  They say: Do you know that Senator?
  I say: Yes, I do.
  They say: Well, he makes us proud because he talks about the kinds of 
values we have--living within our means, balancing our budgets, not 
leaving our children or our grandchildren with mountains of debt.
  They agree with the Senator when he makes his statement about--I 
think the Senator quoted someone from the budget commission about this 
is a predictable crisis that is coming.
  Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the greatest 
threat to our Nation's security is the debt. And look how much we owe 
to foreign countries, significant amounts to China. You cannot continue 
to be a great nation with a debt like that to foreign countries, often 
moneys owed to people who are not our friends, who do not necessarily 
have our own best interest at heart.
  So it is incumbent upon us as a nation to get this spending under 
control. That is what I see as the main issue. Hearing Senator Isakson 
on the floor and Senator Blunt and others talking about this, it is why 
all 47 Republican Senators together unanimously endorsed the idea and 
cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, because we 
know that is the responsible thing to do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I agree with the Senator, that is common sense.
  Alabama Governor Dr. Bentley, a fine physician, announced that we are 
going to have to cut through the rest of the year in the discretionary 
spending 15 percent because we have a constitutional amendment that 
says the budget has to be balanced. Of course, we do not have that in 
Washington. But what would the Senator say if someone--the American 
people--asked you: Well, Senator, I hear the President is proposing an 
11-percent increase in education, a 10-percent increase in the Energy 
Department, a 10-percent increase in the State Department, $60 billion 
for the Transportation Department, at a time when we are going broke 
and spending money the likes of which we ought never to have spent 
before? How would the people in Wyoming react to that?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, they would want to know if whoever would say such 
a thing was actually still connected to the reality of the real world 
and trying to live within our means. You cannot do that. You cannot do 
that for very long at all.
  When you look at the President's budget, when you look at the 
spending that has come out of this administration and you look at the 
debt our country has accumulated since the time

[[Page S2417]]

George Washington became President, what you see is that from the time 
George Washington became President until the time George W. Bush left 
the White House, this President, through his spending and his budgets, 
has doubled the national debt in 5 years and tripling it in 10. That is 
what this budget he had submitted to the Congress just not that long 
ago--a couple months ago--has done.
  Now we are going to hear a new--I am not sure what we are going to 
hear today. Are we going to hear him standing behind the budget? The 
President put together a debt commission to take a look at this. I am 
still not sure where he stands on his own commission--the President's 
own commission--what his position is on that, because they have taken 
some strong positions, where he is in relationship to the reality we 
are facing today with this predictable crisis coming. So it will be 
interesting to hear what the President says this afternoon and what his 
new vision might be.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is right. We are talking about, is this a 
huge reversal from what we got just 2 months ago because it did not 
address Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security that now we hear he might 
be addressing.
  The Senator mentioned the debt commission. They spent most of the 
last year studying and hearing experts, becoming exceedingly concerned 
about the future. Mr. Erskine Bowles, who was chosen by President Obama 
to head that commission, when he first saw the President's budget, 
said: It is nowhere near what is necessary to avoid a fiscal nightmare.
  This is really serious. The budget the President submitted here was 
rejected by his own Chairman, saying: It is nowhere near what is 
necessary to avoid a fiscal nightmare. Since then, he has followed up 
to say: This is the most predictable crisis the Nation has ever faced. 
He said: Not just for our grandchildren, it could impact us now.
  So I ask the Senator: Don't you think, if the President is going to 
make a speech and announce a change in his policy, he should--as the 
House budget people have done--submit a budget to the Congress that can 
be analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, scored, and we can 
actually use it as part of the discussion about how to bring debt under 
control?
  Mr. BARRASSO. My impression is that he should have a responsibility 
to do that and do it for Congress.

  Last week, there was going to be a major speech--last week or the 
week before--on energy at a local university. He went and made a speech 
on energy, and the headline was that it was the same old speech on the 
same old issues, and very little new was there. So the concern today 
is, we are not hearing anything in front of Congress. It is a speech at 
a local university. I am hoping to hear what a real vision is. What is 
the roadmap and the specifics?
  The other Chairman of the debt commission--you mentioned Erskine 
Bowles--the other was Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. He was quoted 
today to say: We need specifics. If the President just talks in 
generalities, that is not going to go very far.
  I think specifics is what the Senator just outlined. As the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, you would actually like to see numbers 
on a piece of paper that can be scored, and we can go look through it 
and say: Will this work? Will this not work? How do the numbers add up? 
Let's get into the specific details because that is what we are looking 
at. When you have a nation that is spending $3.8 trillion or $3.7 
trillion and only bringing in $2.2 trillion, the problem is we are 
spending too much.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I just have to say, let's be frank about 
it. We had one budget submitted to both Houses of Congress from the 
President just 2 months ago, and it was very irresponsible and has 
gotten no support that I can see anywhere. But the House is on track, 
it looks like, to pass a budget this week that will be forward-looking 
and substantive and alter the debt trajectory we are on, put us on a 
path to prosperity, because the biggest and really, to me, only real 
threat to our economic vitality and our ability to bounce back from 
this recession is the debt we are carrying.
  But I have to acknowledge the Senator's former colleague, Senator 
Simpson, and Erskine Bowles said this about Paul Ryan's proposed budget 
in the House: that it is ``a serious, honest, straightforward approach 
to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges''--our ``enormous 
fiscal challenges.''
  All right. They go on to say this, and I think it is relevant, as the 
Senator suggested, to the President's speech this afternoon. They go on 
to say: Going forward, anyone who issues an alternative plan to 
Chairman Ryan's should be held to the same standard when offering their 
own solutions. We simply cannot back away from these issues.
  I know that is a firm, strong statement. I know it is probably 
different from what we are going to hear from the President, which is 
``speech'' and ``vision'' and ``hopes.'' But doesn't the Senator think 
we do have a right? Aren't they correct--this bipartisan commission, 
appointed by the President--aren't these leaders correct to say: We 
expect you, Mr. President, to fulfill your statutory duty to submit a 
real budget, and if you have changed it from the one you submitted 
earlier, submit us a new budget.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I think that would be the only responsible thing to do 
because right now the Congress is dealing with the budget that was 
submitted a couple months ago. That is the confines in which we are 
working. So it will be interesting to hear what the President says a 
little further down the line from now.
  I see Senator Coats from Indiana is joining us on the floor. He knows 
that in Indiana, families who are trying to live within their means and 
make ends meet and paying more for gasoline now due to the President's 
energy policies--about $700 more per family a year for gasoline. If 
they are trying to deal with bills and the mortgage and kids, it makes 
it that much harder. So families get it. Families know what happens 
when there is a squeeze, and they cut back on their spending for other 
things. That is what this country needs to do right now. That is what 
we need to do as a nation.
  I am so glad Senator Coats has returned to the Senate because he had 
been here previously and has now returned to join us to give us some of 
his sage advice and recommendations, and it is really wonderful to work 
with him.
  I say to the Senator from Alabama, I know you welcome him as well. 
But with that, let me say thank you so much for your leadership. As I 
told the Senator, the people of Wyoming after church say: Do you know 
that guy who was on television this morning? He sure did express the 
values we all have.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the American people get it. I think the 
American people understand that the driving issue of our time is the 
debt that threatens every good and hopeful wish we have for the future 
of our country.
  Senator Coats, who is one of our finest Members of the Senate--he 
left us, served as Ambassador to Germany, spent a number of years in 
Europe, and then came back and has been reelected.
  Let me ask him, fundamentally, this question. Pete Domenici--you 
served with Pete--served with a Democratic wise lady, Alice Rivlin, on 
another debt commission. He testified before the Budget Committee 
recently: I have never feared more for my country. That was a deep, 
personal statement from Pete Domenici, who chaired the Budget Committee 
in the Senate previously. I ask the Senator, what are you hearing from 
your constituents, and what is your belief at this time in history 
about the dangers we face?
  Mr. COATS. Well, it is interesting that the Senator asks that 
question because I just left my office and a meeting with Pete Domenici 
literally 15 minute ago.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Really?
  Mr. COATS. Because he came in to express that same urgency and 
burden. As former chairman of the Budget Committee here for so many 
years, he certainly understands the current fiscal situation. His views 
echo the voices and views of people across this country--from 
economists, whether they are liberal or conservative, whether they are 
from Harvard or Indiana University, the whole spectrum--saying this is 
an emergency, this is an urgent fiscal crisis we face. The time to 
address this crisis is now, not later. This has to rise above political 
considerations for 2012 because our country is on the precipice, and 
unless action is taken now, it may very well be too late.

[[Page S2418]]

  We have had a number of these sessions as a caucus, and we have even 
had some meetings with our colleagues from the other party, where 
experts have come before us--again, not carrying any kind of 
ideological bent on this thing but basically saying: Look at the 
numbers. Do the math. By the way, it is not calculus, it is third grade 
math. When we spend $3.7 trillion and our revenues are only $2.2 
trillion, we have a huge $1.5 trillion deficit, and this has happened 
year after year after year. Cumulatively, we are well over $4 trillion 
in debt over just the last 3 years, and this is going to skyrocket from 
here. So it is not as if we are at the peak. With the aging population 
and the increase in mandatory spending coming down faster than we can 
deal with it, we are in a dire situation.
  Here is the reason I came back to the Senate. People ask all the 
time: Why in the world, after a lot of years of service in the House of 
Representatives and in the Senate, as an ambassador overseas--you are 
of retirement age--why don't you enjoy the fruits of your labors? Why 
would you want to throw yourself back into the arena, particularly at 
such a critical time when the decisions you are going to have to make 
are not going to always be popular and when the requirements of what we 
are going to have to engage in to do what we need to do are going to be 
very demanding? The answer is, for the sole reason that I also have 
this great fear within me that we are seeing a country that has been 
the most prosperous free country in the history of civilization about 
to unwind. We have spent ourselves into a situation where we are 
literally at the crisis point.
  So I came back for one primary reason. As much as I enjoy seeing my 
former colleagues and being in the business of being a Senator and 
representing the people of Indiana, I came for one reason only; that 
is, I have such a concern about the future of this country. I have 
three children and eight grandchildren now, another one just born 
recently. But it is not just my grandchildren, it is America's 
grandchildren and America's children whom we are loading debt onto that 
they are not going to be able to dig out of. It is going to deny them 
the opportunities we have had in our generation--to save money so we 
can go to college and get a good education, so we can get married and 
have a family and afford to buy a home, so we can enjoy the 
opportunities that freedom and prosperity have brought to us as a 
nation.
  It not only affects us domestically, but it affects our role on the 
international scene. Already, NATO is saying we can't do this alone in 
Libya. We need America. I am not getting into the issue of whether we 
should be engaged in Libya. That is not the point. The point is that be 
it a tsunami or a nuclear accident or a flood or a disaster anyplace in 
the world, who is the first to show up and the only one with the 
capacity to deal with it? The United States--the U.S. Navy, the U.S. 
Marines, U.S. troops not carrying guns but carrying water, carrying 
food, bringing aid, first aid ships. Whom does the world turn to in 
times of distress and disaster? It is America. America has been a 
generous nation because we have had the capacity to be a generous 
nation. All of that is at risk. So whether it is domestic or whether it 
is international, we are at risk.
  We know we cannot solve this problem unless we can work together. We 
don't control two of the three thirds of government. We control the 
House of Representatives, and we have seen what Paul Ryan and others 
have done there, including John Boehner, to get us started on this 
process of what we need to do. But we have not done that yet in the 
Senate. We are trying to work with our colleague so we can. But in the 
end, if the President of the United States does not engage in this 
effort, we will not succeed. We can talk all we want. We can present 
all the plans we want, but until the President gets engaged, we are not 
going to succeed because he is the one who ultimately has to sign this 
bill. He is the one who ultimately has to sign off on it.
  Currently, and for the last 3 months, he has been totally AWOL, off 
doing other things, at a time while the house is burning down. I am 
hopeful that, in just 1 hour and 10 minutes or so, the President will 
come forward not with nice phrases, not with generalities, not with 
fluff that we heard in the State of the Union Address--some nice 
sounding things but no backup--but with specifics: Here is what his 
plan is. I hope what I hear from him is: I, the President of the United 
States, Barack Obama, want to sit down and get in the arena with 
Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate and work 
together to avoid this potential crisis; and I agree this is not 
something we can do in 2013. This is not something we can play politics 
with. This is not something we can defer. We must do it now.
  I believe the American people--I can speak for Hoosiers in Indiana; I 
can't speak for other States, but I believe the people in Indiana, and 
I think this is true across America--understand this better than a lot 
of the politicians do. They understand this because they are part of 
families that have to meet budgets. They are businesses that have to 
put the payroll to pay their employees. They cannot allow themselves to 
get so drastically in debt that they are not going to be able to 
recover. So they are asking us to take leadership, to step up and do 
it, make decisions not for one's personal political future but for the 
future of America. The President needs to join us in that effort.
  I am hoping and praying that in 1 hour and 10 minutes, as the 
President finally presents to the country, he will do two things. No. 1 
is to say: I am ready to engage and engage fully because this is the 
No. 1 issue facing the future of America. All is on the line. No. 2, 
here are my specifics in terms of what I will support or what I will 
work with. I hope he will say, as we have said: This isn't set in 
concrete. Let's work together to see what works and what will address 
the crisis we are facing.
  So I thank the Senator for his leadership as head of the Republican 
caucus on the budget side. He has been out front. The Senator from 
Alabama has been out front from day one. I thank my colleague, Senator 
Isakson, whom I think will engage here next, as well as Senator 
Barrasso, who said some nice words about me. But I think we are here 
for one reason and one reason only; that is, America is in trouble and 
we need to step up and do what we can, everything we can, to get us 
back on a path to fiscal health. It will not happen overnight, but if 
we can certify that we have a plan in place and that we are going to 
stick with it, we can save this situation and turn it around.
  So I thank the Senator for his time and for allowing me to get in my 
2 cents' worth. I am here to make the tough decisions and for no other 
reason.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. I 
guess I have been critical of the President. Many people say it is 
political. I feel as though any President should look the American 
people in the eye at this point in history. I called on him before the 
State of the Union Address, over 2 months ago now, that he should tell 
the American people we are in this financial crisis, and that--the 
reason we are talking about reducing spending is because we have no 
choice. We can't spend $3.7 trillion and take in $2.2 trillion. We 
cannot sustain the debt course we are on, as every witness, Republican 
and Democratic, has told us. But I do believe it is a responsibility 
for the President of the United States, who can see this clear and 
present danger to our future, to at least join in and say we have to do 
something about it. He didn't do that at the State of the Union. He 
hasn't done it since. So maybe today that will be a big change, if we 
get that.
  I do believe the Senator from Indiana is exactly right. He has the 
responsibility under the Budget Act to send us a responsible budget 
that changes what we are doing and puts us on the right track. If he 
wants to do it all by even more tax increases than he submitted 
already, which was $1.7 trillion in his budget proposal, so be it. Put 
it out there. Let's talk about it. But don't deny we are in a crisis.
  Senator Isakson understands finance better than anybody in this 
Senate. He lived through and provided leadership during the huge 
financial crisis. It looks as though we have moved debt from the 
private sector to the sovereign government sector, and that is why we 
are being warned we could have a similar type crisis, which is what I

[[Page S2419]]

understand Secretary Geithner to have meant and Erskine Bowles and Alan 
Simpson to have meant.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for his leadership. I know he wants 
nothing more than what is best for America. I would be glad to have the 
Senator share his thoughts at this time.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliment. It is 
probably overstated, but it is an honor and a privilege to serve with 
Senator Sessions as well as with Senator Coats.
  I wish to reflect on something we shared this morning. Senator Coats 
and myself and others were with Senator Akaka for breakfast this 
morning. He talked about 1941, living on Hawaii, the youngest of eight 
children. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and America went to war in 
the Pacific and in Europe. Sixteen million Americans of that generation 
went to the Pacific and Europe, fought and died. Some came back to this 
country and, because of the GI bill, 8 million of them went to 
universities and got bachelor's degrees and started the small 
businesses and the industries that took the U.S. economy to dynamic 
growth and opportunity for every generation that has succeeded them, up 
until now.

  Senator Sessions and I and Senator Coats and Senator Akaka, who is a 
great American, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii who is retiring next 
year, we are all part of a generation that will, at some time, leave a 
legacy to our children and our grandchildren. The Senator from Alabama 
has children and grandchildren, I have them, and Senator Coats does as 
well. I don't want to be the first generation since World War II to 
leave my children and my grandchildren worse off than every generation 
before left their children and grandchildren.
  This economic war we have on spending and debt is every bit as 
damaging as a war with bullets and bombs. Because with too much 
leverage, with an inability to pay our debt, we have what happened to 
us once before in the last 65 years, and that was the early 1980s when 
we had the misery index: double-digit unemployment, double-digit 
interest rates, double-digit inflation. I remember the days when I ran 
my business when the prime rate was 21 percent. I remember when 
unemployment was 14 percent and inflation was 12 percent. It was called 
the misery index. What happened is, America started borrowing too much, 
spending too much, and business contracted.
  We need to make sure we don't let that happen again because the 
greatest economic threats to the security of America are runaway 
interest rates, runaway inflation, and runaway unemployment. We don't 
want to be the cause of that. We want to be the platform that allows 
free enterprise and American business to come back, the American 
economy to come back, reduce our deficit over time, and reduce our debt 
over time. We don't have to pay it all off, but we have to stop the 
increase. We have to begin to get back in order so we are not an 
overleveraged Nation.
  I pledge this, as Senator Coats did, and I know the Senator from 
Alabama did as well: I will not leave my grandchildren and my children 
worse off than I was left by my parents and my grandparents. We have 
the greatest Nation on the face of this Earth. Democrats and 
Republicans, the President, Congressmen, and Senators need to sit down 
at the American kitchen table and do what we have asked of the American 
people: get our spending in order and look to a brighter, more 
prosperous future for those who will succeed us.
  I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator one more 
question. Let's take the Ryan budget. I think it is far more realistic. 
It is the one that is, as was referred to by Erskine Bowles and Alan 
Simpson, a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our 
Nation's enormous fiscal challenges. It is long term. It deals with 
Medicare, Social Security, discretionary spending.
  I am optimistic about the future. If we were to put ourselves on that 
course and send the word to the American people, the American business 
community, the world financial community that we have gotten our house 
in order, is that the kind of budget that could unleash growth that we 
haven't seen in years now?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Well, it is, because it will instill a degree of 
confidence that we have finally been willing to deal with our long-term 
problem of debt and deficit, with our entitlements but also with our 
spending.
  But I want to refer back to a statement the Senator made in his 
previous remarks before he recognized me, when he was challenging the 
President to bring forward a budget in this speech he will make in an 
hour or so. He should bring it and put it on the table, along with 
putting Paul Ryan's recommendations on the table, putting the deficit 
commission's recommendations on the table, and putting the group of six 
who are working on another document on the table--let's don't rule 
anybody out--and sit down and one by one go through them and find out 
what is the best answer and the solution for America.
  It is time to stop the political job of picking and choosing for 
political purposes. We need to pick and choose for the American people. 
If we put everybody's ideas on the table, and they are genuine about 
their interests to solve the problem, we can do it, and we can begin 
this afternoon.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the most important thing--and I don't want to 
be too negative--is to tell the American people the truth that every 
expert we have asked has said you could have a crisis sooner than you 
think. We should avoid that.
  Congress and the President should acknowledge it and say that we 
understand it and we are going to take steps to avoid it. But I have a 
sense that the United States is still a productive nation. The Senator 
from Georgia is attuned to the business community in Atlanta. They are 
still willing to work hard and invest and take risks to be more 
productive and create jobs. But this confidence the Senator mentioned--
if we restore that confidence, is the Senator optimistic we can bounce 
back?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely. With all due respect, I think the last 
couple years the government has tried to eliminate risk with 
overregulation of almost everything. If you eliminate risk, nobody gets 
out of bed in the morning and figures they are protected. We need to 
mitigate this and allow people to take a risk in order to get a reward. 
We can give them a platform of confidence and predictability so they 
will deploy capital, invest money, and employ people. The interesting 
point is, the byproduct of that is you have higher revenues. When you 
have a productive America on a progressive tax system, you get higher 
revenues. If people are more satisfied, they are more happy and more 
productive. There is less productivity when there is overregulation and 
underconfidence. We need to restore the confidence and have fair but 
equitable regulations and we need to empower the American investor to 
invest their capital and we will improve employment, improve revenue, 
and improve the future of the United States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, our country requires us to stand and be counted. 
``Nothing comes from nothing,'' as Julie Andrews sang in that wonderful 
song. Things have to be paid for. When you borrow money, you pay 
interest on it. Interest under the budget the President has sent to us 
last year was $200 billion--$207 billion, I think. In the 10th year, 
that budget, as scored by the CBO, is imposing on the American economy 
a $940 billion, 1-year interest payment. I know the Senator is familiar 
with Georgia. Alabama's general fund is less than $2 billion. Our 
education budget is less than $8 billion. We are talking about imposing 
on the American people an annual interest payment of $940 billion. The 
Federal highway fund is $40 billion, and Federal aid to education is 
$70 billion. This is going to crowd out everything.
  That is why we are on an unsustainable path. We need the President to 
engage, and I hope today he will initiate his engagement, in which he 
tells the American people we can't continue this way. Would the Senator 
care to close it out?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I will close by just saying amen.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there has been a lively debate on the 
floor

[[Page S2420]]

concerning our 2011 budget. Now we are starting to talk about the 2012 
budget. I think it is important to point out what I hope is the 
obvious, which is that the budget of our Nation represents our vision 
for our future. It is a policy document that speaks to what our 
priorities will be. It provides the financial tools for us to be able 
to meet those objectives.
  I know we are in very difficult fiscal times, but this is not the 
first time in the history of America. I remind my colleagues that in 
the 1990s we were confronted with a large budget deficit. I happened to 
have been in the House of Representatives during that time. We saw, 
through the leadership of President Clinton, that we were able to bring 
our budget into balance, and we did that from large deficits. We did it 
in a way that maintained America's priorities and maintained the 
priorities for our children and our future because we continued to fund 
those essential programs that allowed our Nation to grow.
  As a result of what we did in the 1990s, we saw unprecedented growth 
in our economy because we did our budget the right way, speaking to 
America's future and to our priorities, and doing it in a fiscally 
responsible way. I think President Obama was correct when he stated in 
his State of the Union Address that America will meet the challenges of 
international competition, and we will do that by outeducating, 
outinnovating, and outbuilding our competitors.
  That requires a budget that speaks to those priorities, that speaks 
to educating our workforce, to provide the type of climate where 
America can continue to lead the world in research and innovation, that 
we pay attention to our infrastructure, whether it is transportation, 
water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, so we have the capacity to 
be able to compete internationally and that we can create the jobs that 
will be critically important for America.
  We need more jobs and we need good-paying jobs. That is what 
President Obama's vision is about, and our budget needs to underscore 
that vision. Yes, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way but in 
a way that allows America's future to be secure. That is why I so much 
opposed the budget that was sent over to us from the House of 
Representatives, the 2011 budget, H.R. 1, before the ability to reach a 
compromise. I did that because when you look at what H.R. 1 would have 
done--particularly in light of the budget agreement we have now reached 
on the 2011 budget--you cannot help but notice a huge difference 
between our visions for America. We all agree we have to have a 
workforce that can compete.
  Look at the stark differences between the budget agreement and the 
House-passed budget. In NIH research--and I take pride in this, since 
NIH is headquartered in Maryland--most of the funding for basic 
research, which is critically important for innovation--you cannot get 
to the applied research unless you have the basic research, and you 
cannot get good high-tech jobs unless you invest in basic research. 
Thanks to the budget agreement we reached, most of the funding will be 
able to be maintained for the basic research at NIH. If the House 
budget would have become law, it would have been $1.4 billion less. 
That would have been a huge hit on America's ability to be able to 
compete in this global marketplace. You also need to have a trained 
workforce. You need job training and Job Corps programs. Most of the 
funding has been maintained in this budget agreement for our job 
training and Job Corps programs; whereas, if you look at the House-
passed budget, they eliminated all funds for job training and a 40-
percent reduction in the Job Corps program. That was restored under the 
budget agreement that allows America to have the competitive workforce 
it needs to meet future challenges.
  Perhaps the area that I think people in Maryland and Minnesota may 
recognize the most is what happens to Pell grants. Most students cannot 
make it today, unless they have help in higher education. It is too 
expensive to be able to afford without the help of programs such as 
Pell grants. You need to have education beyond high school if you are 
going to be competitive today. Well, the House-passed budget would have 
reduced Pell grants by 15 percent. I can assure you that tuition isn't 
going down by 15 percent this year. Tuition at colleges and 
universities is going up and up.
  I am proud we were able to, in the budget agreement, maintain the 
maximum Pell grants at $5,550. We maintain funding for Race to the Top 
funds because we want excellence in K-12. The House-passed budget would 
have zeroed out the Race to the Top funds.
  To me, if you talk about a budget that speaks to America's values, to 
give young children the chance to succeed in school, Head Start has 
never been a partisan program. It has been supported by Democrats and 
Republicans because there are proven results in Head Start. People who 
participate in Head Start will do better. We have those results, so it 
is in our economic interest.

  The Republican-passed budget in the House would have knocked 218,000 
children off the Head Start Program. It would have reduced 55,000 
teachers and aides from Head Start Programs around our Nation. I am 
pleased to see that the agreement we will be voting on shortly restores 
all the funds for the Head Start Program, so our children can get the 
Head Start they need to succeed in K-12.
  The budget speaks to our energy policies and transportation policies. 
It is interesting to look and see that the agreement reached by our 
negotiators restores more than $268 million in renewable energy and 
alternative energy sources. If we are going to be able to be 
competitive, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If we are going 
to keep jobs in America, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If 
we are going to be secure, we have to get ourselves off foreign oil. We 
need alternative energy sources.
  The compromise restores a lot of the funds that were not in the 
House-passed budget document. I might talk about one issue that is very 
important to the people living in this region. We made a commitment 
years ago that the Federal Government would participate with the 
surrounding jurisdictions in the funding of the Nation's transit 
system, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit System, which is 
critical to getting Federal workers to work and to our Nation's 
Capital. Our government committed $150 billion a year to modernize that 
system. Taxpayers of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia 
are contributing also to the modernization of a system that is aged and 
critically important. We live in the second most congested area in the 
Nation, as far as commutes are concerned. The House of Representatives, 
in the Republican-passed budget, took out that $150 million--took it 
out. I am proud the compromise reached restores that $150 million.
  Our budget speaks to our health and our environment. The Health 
Resources Services Administration was severely cut in the Republican-
passed budget. It would have affected care in each one of our 
communities. Our negotiators restored $900 million to that budget. What 
does that mean? It means the 11,000 community health centers, located 
in all our States, will be able to continue the services they are 
currently providing.
  I took the floor before and talked about the Greater Baden Center, 
located just a few miles from here, and how they have expanded service 
this year to deal with prenatal care. In Maryland and in America, our 
infant mortality rate is too high. For a wealthy nation and State to 
have the type of infant mortality rate we have is inexcusable. It is 
because we have low-birth-weight babies. Some die and others survive 
and have complications and have a tough time in life and they are very 
expensive to the health care system. In our health centers, we are 
doing something about that. At the Greater Baden Center, they are now 
going to provide prenatal care so pregnant women can get the attention 
they need and can deliver healthier babies. Under the House-passed 
budget, they would not have done that.
  The math is simple. We invest in the health of Americans. We 
understand that. That is our budget. The Republican-passed House budget 
would have cut off those funds. The affordable care act will be able to 
implement it. We are not going to be stopped by the effort made in the 
Republican-passed budget.
  As far as the environmental protection riders we have talked about, 
these

[[Page S2421]]

are the policy riders. I know this is confusing to people listening to 
this debate, and they understand that the House-passed budget by the 
Republicans had a lot of policy issues that had absolutely nothing to 
do with the budget. They blocked the Environmental Protection Agency 
from protecting the environment. Let me say that again. They blocked 
the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. 
They couldn't enforce the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. For the 
people of Maryland and this region, that means blocking the enforcement 
of the Chesapeake Bay Program--a program that enjoys broad support from 
the people not only of our region but the Nation.

  Well, I am pleased to say the budget we will be voting on later this 
week eliminates those restrictions. All of them are out. Thank goodness 
they are because they should never have been in the budget document to 
start with.
  I will make it clear, Mr. President. I am very disappointed by many 
of the provisions included in this compromise. It is a true compromise. 
It is not what the Democrats would have written, I can assure you of 
that, and it is not what the Republicans would have written. It is a 
true compromise, and that is what we had to go through, I understand, 
but I feel compelled to at least let the people of Maryland know the 
cost of the compromises.
  For example, the General Services Administration will have $1 billion 
less to deal with government construction. What will that mean? Well, 
at White Oak, MD, we have the FDA's expansion. That will be put on 
hold. That will not only affect my community, but it will affect our 
country because we are talking about public health and food safety.
  There is a rider that was attached that did survive that deals with 
the delisting of the great wolf under the Endangered Species Act. That 
is not how we should be acting. There is a remedy for dealing with the 
delisting. There is a process we go through. We shouldn't go down a 
dangerous precedent that starts congressional or political action on 
delisting species that are included under the Endangered Species Act.
  The cuts for the community development block grant are much more than 
I would like to see. These are programs that are important for our 
urban centers. During these times, when their budgets are being hit the 
hardest, I think it is very unfortunate to tell them we are just going 
to add to their challenges. We should be helping them during these 
times. We shouldn't be taking resources away from them.
  The Federal Transit Administration has a major cut in this budget. I 
find that regrettable, particularly as it relates to their new start 
budget. I come from a State that has major new transit projects we want 
to get moving--the purple line to connect our suburban areas around 
Washington, the red line in Baltimore, Carter City's transit way to 
connect the 270 corridor for high-tech jobs. All those depend upon us 
continuing to move forward with sensible transit projects that, quite 
frankly, I think are in jeopardy as a result of the compromises that 
were needed to be made.
  Teach for America is eliminated. The Federal participation in that is 
eliminated. On Monday I had a chance to teach for Teach for America. I 
was in a high school in Baltimore with some very dedicated young people 
willing to give up their lives so America can compete in the future. We 
certainly should have continued the Federal partnership in Teach for 
America.
  I talked about the Environmental Protection Agency, but I didn't 
point out that the Republican budget in the House cut that agency by 30 
percent--30 percent. We restored half of those funds, but the cut is 
still going to be pretty severe.
  So I just wanted my colleagues to know that, whereas I am very 
pleased that many of the decisions made in this compromise for the 2011 
budget will allow us to be able to move forward as a nation for 
America's vision--being able to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-
build our competitors--there are challenges as a result of the 
compromise that have to be faced. Mr. President, these discussions will 
continue now to the 2012 budget.
  We are already seeing that happen. In the House they are already 
starting to act on what is known as the Ryan budget, which we think is 
pretty much inspired by the tea party. It is pretty extreme. It is 
pretty radical. It is not a credible plan, in my view. It is not a 
credible plan to reduce the Federal deficit.
  Now, why do I say that? Well, the Ryan budget concentrates on 
domestic spending. It doesn't touch military spending, and it doesn't 
touch our revenues. Let me correct that. It does deal with our 
revenues, but it deals with it in the wrong way. It not only extends 
every tax break that is currently available, providing tax relief for 
millionaires, but it provides additional tax relief. It lowers the 
highest rates.
  Now, how is that going to be paid for? Well, they are expecting they 
are going to take more out of middle-income families. That is bad for 
middle-income families, but my guess is they will not even be able to 
reach those targets, and we will have huge deficits as far as the eye 
can see. It is not a credible plan.
  The deficit commission taught us if we are to have a credible plan to 
deal with the deficit, we have to deal with domestic spending. We have 
to deal with military spending. We have to deal with mandatory 
spending. And we have to deal with revenues. We have to deal with all 
of them. The Ryan budget does not.
  It is going to be hard for middle-income families, it protects 
America's wealthiest, and it attacks our seniors--attacks our seniors. 
The Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program.
  Now, I can tell you what that means in dollars and cents. It means 
our seniors, who currently have--currently have--the largest out-of-
pocket costs for health care than any other age group of Americans, 
will see their health care costs go up dramatically--double. Some of us 
remember how it was for seniors to get health care before we had 
Medicare. We had to fight with private insurance companies. Private 
insurance companies are not interested in insuring people who make a 
lot of claims. Guess what. As you get older, you make a lot of claims.
  What the Republican budget would do is tell our seniors: We are going 
to give you a voucher. It is a limited amount of money. Now you go find 
a private insurance plan out there. Whatever it costs, you are going to 
have to fill up the difference. We know it is going to cost a lot more 
than the voucher we are giving you.
  That is what they are doing. They are making it more expensive for 
our seniors to afford health care where they are asking us to reduce 
their costs, not make it more expensive.
  Then the Ryan budget goes further by block-granting the Medicaid 
Program. That means, quite frankly, Medicaid will not survive. We can 
talk about the hardships it will have on providing health care in our 
community, how it will have more and more people using the emergency 
rooms rather than using preventive care or seeing doctors, and that is 
all going to absolutely happen if we ever block-grant Medicaid.
  Let me follow up on our seniors. Many of our seniors depend upon the 
Medicaid system, and their families depend upon it for long-term care--
nursing care. That will not survive if we block-grant that to our 
States. So the Ryan budget not only is not credible as it relates to 
dealing with the deficit, it also is very punitive against our seniors.
  What I find probably the most disappointing is where I started this 
discussion, saying our budget is our vision for our future, that it 
speaks to our priorities for our future. The Ryan budget leaves our 
children behind. If we are going to succeed, we have to take care of 
our children. They are our future. We have to deal with their education 
and with their health care. The Ryan budget puts them in severe 
jeopardy. It is a philosophical document that I don't think represents 
the values of America. I think our values are in our children and in 
our future and in our ability to meet those economic challenges.
  I think there is a better way. President Obama is calling for a 
comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that will invest in winning 
the future. I would hope all of us could embrace that. Don't we want a 
comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that invests in winning in 
the future, that invests in our children, that invests in education and 
in innovation?

[[Page S2422]]

  As President Obama says, he wants to meet our values for the dignity 
of our retirees. Think about that for one moment. How we treat our 
retirees speaks to what we are as a nation--the dignity of our 
retirees. Think about a retiree trying to find an insurance company 
that will take care of their insurance needs because we dumped the 
Medicare system. We can't let that happen. We can't let that happen.
  There is a better way. Sixty-four of us in the Senate have said there 
is a better way. We have said: Look, it is time for us to be serious 
about a credible plan for our deficit, and we are prepared--64 of us: 
32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--to not only cut our domestic spending, 
but we will look at bringing down mandatory spending, and we will look 
at military, and we will look at revenues. There is a better way to do 
this. I think we can represent the best of America's future in our 
budget by providing education, innovation, job growth, health and 
environment policies that make sense, and we can do it with fiscal 
responsibility. That is our mission.
  So I know a lot of my colleagues come down to say we have to take 
care of the deficit--do the deficit--and I agree with that. But, 
remember, our budget document is our statement about America's future. 
It is our policy document, and America needs to stand up for quality 
education, for the best health care in the world, and for encouraging 
innovation that will give us the jobs of the future so that America can 
continue to lead the world. I think America deserves nothing less, and 
I intend to continue to fight for that type of vision for America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Democratic women of the Senate are 
on the floor today to talk about the three votes that will occur 
tomorrow: one, the passing of the continuing resolution, which I 
reluctantly support because of the many cuts in it, but also the two 
riders, one defunding the health care bill and the other defunding 
Planned Parenthood.
  My gosh, how outrageous that we have to vote on these two riders. 
These two riders absolutely do not affect our deficit and our debt. In 
fact, the health care reform that we passed, by the CBO's own estimates 
and by independent evaluators, says we will actually reduce health care 
costs because of what we have done.
  What are the consequences of what they are talking about? The 
rightwing is trying to change the conversation away from, how do we 
create jobs in this country, how do we authentically reduce deficit and 
debt, into socially provocative riders that literally wage war against 
women. The extreme rightwing campaigned against the health care. They 
said they were going to repeal and replace. All they want to do is 
repeal. They have no idea for replacing. Let's talk about what they 
want to repeal. Let's talk about the war they are waging against women.
  If you repeal or defund health care, it will have a Draconian impact 
on American women, make no mistake about it. In the health care bill, 
we ended gender discrimination in health insurance. No longer could 
insurance companies charge women 30 to 40 percent more than men of 
equal age and health status for the same coverage. The other thing we 
ended was denying women health care on the basis of a preexisting 
condition. We were horrified to learn that in 8 States, women were 
denied health insurance access simply because they were victims of 
domestic violence. They were beaten up in their homes, they were beaten 
up by insurance companies, and now they want to beat them up on the 
Senate floor and beat them up in the Senate budget.
  We are going to stand up. We are not going to tolerate women being 
pushed around and made targets of this war. No longer can women be 
denied coverage because they had a C-section or because they had a 
premature baby. We fought for preventive services. We fought for 
mammograms and for Pap smears. We fought not only for ourselves, we 
fought for men too, which included their screening.
  If you defund health care, make no mistake--and every woman in 
America should know this--they are going to take the funding for 
mammograms away from you. They are going to take away the preventive 
health amendment that allowed you access to preventive screening at no 
additional copays or deductibles. Do we really want that? Oh, sure, you 
are going to be able to have your mammogram, but you are going to dig 
deep in your pocket.
  We also wanted to end gender discrimination. We wanted to end the 
punitive practices of insurance companies toward women on the basis of 
preexisting conditions. We also wanted to have preventive care. One of 
the greatest preventive-care-giving agencies is Planned Parenthood. It 
is the single most important health care provider, particularly to 
young women, in America. If we lose Planned Parenthood, 8,000 Maryland 
women will lose Pap smears and 7,500 women will lose access to breast 
care exams. Many of them will lose access to health care generally.
  Just because the Republicans live in the Dark Ages doesn't mean 
American women want to go back. That is why we, the Senate Democratic 
women, will be voting against these two riders. Women must be clear: 
Defeating this amendment is a way to end the war against women. There 
will be many fights ahead of us. We are under attack. We women are 
under attack, at all ages. The Paul Ryan budget particularly attacks 
senior women. We are going to fight this. We are suited up. We squared 
our shoulders. We put our lipstick on. This is not about gender, this 
is about an American agenda, and we will fight, and we will make our 
fight a victory.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank all of my Democratic women 
colleagues for coming today and speaking so passionately, as the 
Senator from Maryland has just done, on issues we feel so deeply about. 
You will be hearing from all of us because we are outraged that the 
price tag for a vote on the continuing resolution is to attack votes on 
women's health.
  I yield to the Senator from California for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Mikulski and Murray, 
Senators Cantwell and Shaheen and Stabenow and Landrieu--I am going to 
really name every single Democratic woman. They have been unbelievable.
  Since the beginning of this budget battle, our Republican friends in 
the House have insisted that this debate is about spending. I have to 
tell you, we went all the way to them--about 70-plus percent--on 
spending cuts. We understand we have to cut, but we are not going to 
cut foolishly, we are not going to cut into the heart and soul of our 
country. That includes women's health programs, title X, Planned 
Parenthood funding. For every dollar of taxpayer funds for title X, the 
yield is $4. That is how great the prevention is.
  Yet what do they want to do? We see these two riders, these two votes 
we have to have before they will allow us to have a vote on keeping the 
government open. They pounded the table and said: We have to have two 
riders. What was it? Was it some big budgetary item that maybe we 
overlooked? Was it some move that would say that taxpayers who are not 
paying their taxes due, like some of the big corporate giants that hire 
enough lawyers that they don't pay--no, it was not about that. Was it 
about some scandal they uncovered that they said could save us money? 
No. The two votes they want are about giving the shaft to women, women 
and their families. The two votes are about health care which primarily 
impacts women--by the way, also men, but primarily impacts women.
  If that is the kind of budget war they are engaged in, they have met 
us on the battlefield. We have decided we will remain on that 
battlefield, which is this Senate floor, as long as we have to. We will 
go to the galleries, we will go to the press as long as we have to. We 
will fight it in our cities, we will fight it in our counties. We will 
fight

[[Page S2423]]

it. We believe at the end of the day people will see who is fighting 
for them--who is fighting for them.
  I am going to read a couple of letters from my State. My State is the 
largest State in the Union. Planned Parenthood provides care for more 
than 750,000 women.
  Listen to this woman.

       Planned Parenthood is the only health care I have ever 
     used.

  ``Ever,'' she says.

       I don't have health insurance. So when I get sick, I get 
     over it as soon as possible so I can go back to work. Planned 
     Parenthood has provided me with the only health care coverage 
     I can afford, pelvic exams, STD testing, birth control. It 
     isn't much, but can you imagine the millions of people who 
     rely on Planned Parenthood suddenly living their lives 
     without these basic services?

  She answers her own question: ``It is shameful.''
  It is shameful. That is a letter from Sonja Kodimer. I have other 
letters from women in my great State.
  Three million Americans get care at Planned Parenthood. Three-
quarters of them have income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty 
level. They rely on Planned Parenthood--many of them do--as their own 
only health care.
  By the way, the other rider we have to vote on is to defund health 
care reform. My colleagues have said it. Senator Mikulski worked night 
and day with the late and great and extraordinary Ted Kennedy to get us 
to the point where finally we are telling the insurance companies: No, 
you cannot charge women thirty, forty, fifty percent more for the same 
coverage as a man. By the way, being a woman is not a preexisting 
condition. And you cannot deny a woman who had a Caesarian health care 
coverage.
  If you are a victim of domestic violence, that is not a preexisting 
condition.
  That is what we repaired in the bill in addition to many other things 
we did. They want to give the shaft to women and their families, and we 
are not going to stand for it.
  Barbara Haya from Oakland wrote to me. She said that when she was a 
student with limited funds, she was denied health insurance because of 
a preexisting condition. Planned Parenthood was Barbara's only source 
of basic health care services. When she needed cancer screening, 
Planned Parenthood was there. She says please don't cut any funding to 
Planned Parenthood because without them she would not have her health 
care.
  Let's be clear. Nationwide, 97 percent of the services Planned 
Parenthood provides have nothing to do with abortion. They do not use a 
dime. It is illegal. It has never happened for that 3 percent, that is 
private funding. So don't stand up and say this is about abortion. It 
has nothing to do with it.
  As a matter of fact, if they have their way--this is a fact--and 
women do not get birth control, we will see more unintended 
pregnancies. We will see more abortions. That is just the fact.
  So anyone who votes to defund Planned Parenthood, A, is denying 
essential health care services to women and their families, and, B, 
their policy will lead to more unintended pregnancies and more 
abortions.
  So, yes, we stand here strong. Maybe some of us are five feet or 
under even in a couple of cases, but that belies our determination and 
our strength. We stand here united. And we say to the people of this 
country, you can count on us because we will be here as long as it 
takes to protect women and their families, and we will not allow women 
and their families to be held hostage. It is over. It is over.
  I thank Senator Murray and Senator Mikulski.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I want to thank my colleague from California for her 
great statement, and the Senator from Maryland. And you will hear more 
of us.
  Frankly we are here today because we are outraged. We strongly oppose 
the resolution on the floor that slashes health care for women and 
girls and middle-class families. I have to say as a woman and as a 
mother, I am angry that women's health care is even up for debate right 
now. Middle-class families in this country are struggling. When I go 
home to my State of Washington, I hear about people who are worried 
about getting a pink slip or how they are going to put food on the 
table, whether their job is going to be there for them, and if we are 
making sure our economy is working for them and their children. That is 
what I hear about. I do not hear about, when are you going to slash 
health care for women. Not once.
  We have seen a smokescreen. That is why we are here. Last week under 
the continuing resolution that was being negotiated between the House 
and the Senate and the White House, one remaining open item: 
eliminating title X funding for women's health care. It was not about 
budget deficits; it was not about the debt; it was not about jobs or 
the economy. It was about an ideologically driven attack on women's 
health care.
  We were able to keep that out of the continuing resolution that we 
will vote on tomorrow. But the pricetag the Republicans in the House 
gave us to get to a vote to keep government open and to move our 
country forward is two votes: one that defunds Planned Parenthood, and 
one that defunds health care. Both of those are extreme attacks on 
women's health care.
  My colleagues have spoken eloquently about Planned Parenthood. This 
is not about abortion. Federal funds cannot go to abortion. We are 
frankly tired of having to correct the untruths that continually come 
out about this funding. But we are not going to give up and we are 
going to keep fighting and we going to keep correcting them.
  Planned Parenthood is about providing Federal funds for care, such as 
mammograms, and cervical cancer screenings, and prenatal care, and 
family support and counseling. This is about preventive health care 
services for women, and we take it as a direct attack on every woman in 
this country and her ability to get the health care she needs.
  The second vote is an attack to dismantle health care. Well, let's 
remind all of us why health care finally became an issue that we were 
strong enough to deal with in this country. I will tell you why. 
Because women finally said, we have had enough. Let's face it, women 
are the ones who take their kids to the doctor, they are the ones who 
see the bills coming in, and they are the ones who fight insurance 
companies on a daily basis.
  They said, we have had enough. So we went through a long process here 
to make sure that we passed health care in a way that protected women. 
It was women who were denied health care coverage because of 
preexisting conditions time and time again. We said ``no more.'' Now 
they want to vote tomorrow to put that back into effect. We heard from 
women who were denied coverage for health care because they were a 
victim of domestic violence. We said ``no more.'' Now they attack that 
again.
  There are so many reasons why this is the wrong approach. But I will 
let all of our colleagues know, we are going to defeat these amendments 
tomorrow. We are going to move on. But the Democratic women of the 
Senate are now vigilant, and we are here, and we are not going to allow 
the 2012 budget or further discussions as we go along to be a smoke 
screen to cover up a real agenda, which is to take away the access for 
health care and basic rights that women have worked long and hard and 
fought for in this country.
  I want you to know you will be hearing more from us, but we are not 
going away. We are going to defeat these amendments tomorrow, and we 
are here to fight them until they stop being offered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. It is my great pleasure and honor to be here with my 
friends and colleagues who have all fought so long and hard to make 
sure that women's voices and experiences are represented in the 
decisions we make here in the Senate and in Washington on behalf of all 
of the families we represent.
  I have to say that people in Michigan, my family, friends, everybody 
across Michigan, are shaking their heads right now trying to figure out 
what the heck is going on. All of this is a diversion from what we want 
to be talking about and doing something about; that is, jobs, putting 
people back to work, making sure people have money in their pockets to 
be able to

[[Page S2424]]

pay their bills, and that they can tackle their house that very well 
may be under water right now, and how they are going to pay for gas 
with prices going through the roof, and how they are going to be able 
to take care of their kids and make sure they can have the 
opportunities to go to college that they want for them. All of the 
things we all want for our families, that is what families want us to 
be talking about right now.
  I also have to say the people in my State are finding that the 
dollars they earn right now are hard to come by. These dollars are 
precious, and we need to be holding every program accountable, we need 
to get results for every dollar is spent, and make decisions that if 
something does not work, we need to stop doing it. We need to focus on 
things that do.
  We know the whole deficit discussion is very critical for us, and 
that we need to be smart about the way we do things. That is not what 
this debate is about at the moment, certainly not only women's health 
care. But we understand that we need to be serious about this. 
Certainly in my role as chairing the Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry Committee, we take that very seriously, and we will be doing 
that in the context of our responsibilities moving forward.
  But I also know, and the people of Michigan understand more than I 
think anybody else across the country, that we will never get out of 
debt with more than 15 million people out of work, which is why we want 
to focus on jobs. They also know that women of all ages, seniors, 
middle-class families, did not cause the deficit hole we are in, and 
they should not be responsible for the sacrifice and burdens on their 
backs only in order to move us out of deficit.
  We certainly are not going to allow a thinly veiled threat to women 
in general to become part of a debate about how we balance the budget 
and eliminate the deficit, which is a very real issue. The fact is, in 
order to get the budget completed for this year, women--women's health 
care--was held hostage. We were able to separate that, because the 
women came together in the Senate and said, there is no way we are 
going to allow this whole debate to become some political debate about 
whether women should get breast cancer screenings or cervical cancer 
screenings or blood pressure checks. So we separated that now from the 
agreement for the rest of the year. I am proud to have stood with women 
from all over this country to say no, we are not going to let you play 
politics with the women of this country and our health care. But now we 
have in front of us two different votes. This was the price we had to 
pay. And we are willing to stand here and make the case for why people 
need to vote no. But it is also deeply concerning that we have to be in 
a situation to debate whether women should get breast cancer screenings 
and cervical cancer screenings, and whether we should have access to 
health care as a part of the price to be able to come together on a 
budget agreement. That is exactly where we are.
  The majority of the funds from what is called title IX for preventive 
care goes to health departments. By the way, I helped be able to 
support, when I was a county commissioner years ago, the Ingham County 
Health Department, setting up their preventive care center for women, 
health care screenings for women.
  All across Michigan, 70 percent of the funds under something called 
title X go to health departments. There is a small amount that goes to 
Planned Parenthood. That is being very politicized now, because of the 
other side's wish to politicize women's health care. But in 2009, those 
centers provided 55,000 cancer screenings. We had almost 4,000 women--
3,800 women--who got back an abnormal result on a cancer screening. 
Because they had a chance to get that screening, they then had the 
opportunity to do something about it, and lives were saved. Moms are 
alive today to be able to care for their children, and watch them grow 
up because they found out they had breast cancer early. Grandmas are 
alive and well today to be able to play with their grandkids and their 
great-grandkids because they found out early they had breast cancer or 
cervical cancer or some other health care challenge. I think we ought 
to celebrate that as the best of who we are and our values in this 
country.
  The other piece we have in front of us will be to defund health care 
in general. We know, first of all, that women are health care 
consumers. Usually in families they are making the decisions about 
health insurance, if you are able to have health insurance, or how to 
purchase it or what will be covered and certainly caring about our 
families. We usually are the last ones to take care of ourselves. I 
certainly can speak to that myself as maybe other colleagues can, that 
we tend to make the decisions first for our children, our families, and 
not take care of ourselves as we should.
  But we made a very strong statement, and I think a valued statement, 
in health care reform, to say that we want to make sure women have 
access to health care and that they can afford to get it, and that they 
are not penalized, we are not penalized as women, and that we are not 
going to have to pay more.
  Right now, prior to health care reform, any woman purchasing health 
insurance on her own was paying more, sometimes up to 50 percent more, 
or more, for the same health insurance as a man, or even less health 
insurance, because she was a woman, because she may be of childbearing 
years, because of whatever the reason.
  Women have traditionally paid more for the same insurance. That is no 
longer the case. Now, for the same coverage, the same medical 
circumstances, women cannot be discriminated against. That is a good 
thing. I think that is something we should be proud of that we have 
been able to do, to make sure insurance companies cannot charge women 
more just because they are women.
  We have also made clear that preventive care is an essential part of 
basic health care. I will always remember the debate I had as a member 
of the Finance Committee with a colleague on the other side of the 
aisle over whether maternity care is a basic part of health insurance 
and health care.
  Of course, I think it is hard for people in Michigan to understand 
why we would even have to have that debate, because prenatal care, 
maternity care, certainly is a basic, not just for the women involved 
but for the baby, for the family. But we stood together and we said, we 
are going to make sure that maternity care is part of the definition of 
basic health care.
  So there were a number of things that we did together, the women of 
this Senate, to make sure that over half the population, the women of 
this country, have access to quality, affordable health care for 
themselves so they can continue to care for their families and be a 
very important part of who we are in contributing to America.
  We are here because tomorrow the question will be, should women's 
preventive health care services be allowed to continue as part of our 
framework in terms of health care funding, both broadly in health care 
reform, and narrowly under title X and family planning for the country?
  We will say no to efforts to defund women's health care.
  I hope going forward, as we tackle huge issues for the country around 
bringing down the debt and balancing the budget and growing the economy 
and creating jobs and looking to the future, that we will not see, once 
again, something as important as women's health care put on the 
chopping block as part of the debate. That is the message all of us 
have and the message we will be sending tomorrow, that women across the 
country need to know they are valued, that we want them to be healthy, 
that we want them to be able to afford health insurance, that we want 
them to get cancer screenings, that we value their lives. We don't 
believe folks should continue to play politics with their health care.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Murray and Mikulski for 
gathering with us today and all of my colleagues who are here. I am 
proud to join them.
  Tomorrow we expect to vote on House proposals to defund Planned 
Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. These resolutions have been 
offered not because anyone argues they create jobs or improve health 
care but

[[Page S2425]]

because House Republicans were willing to shut down the Federal 
Government if they did not receive a vote on Planned Parenthood and 
health care. That is right. Even though shutting down the government 
would have meant furloughing 800,000 people, including members of the 
military, they were willing to shut down the government.
  This kind of a threat, especially in a recession, is irresponsible. 
Planned Parenthood is a critical provider of women's health care, 
especially to low-income individuals. Mr. President, 1.4 million 
Medicaid patients around the country--mostly women but not all--depend 
on Planned Parenthood as their main source of primary and preventive 
health care. They depend on Planned Parenthood for contraceptives, 
screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, and for screenings for 
breast and cervical cancer. In some parts of New Hampshire, Planned 
Parenthood is the only provider of preventative services for low-income 
women. It serves almost 16,000 patients annually. In a time of economic 
hardship, we should not be taking steps to reduce access to health 
care.
  Let's be clear. This vote has nothing to do with abortion. By law, 
Planned Parenthood cannot use Federal funds for abortions. Moreover, 
Planned Parenthood provides family planning services that greatly 
reduce the occurrence of unplanned pregnancies. It is ironic that many 
of the most ardent opponents of abortion are the very people who want 
to shut down the family planning services that prevent unplanned 
pregnancies.
  This vote is also not about deficit reduction. Despite what some 
Members of the Senate have claimed, 97 percent of the reproductive 
health services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire--and 
throughout most of the country--are preventive care. Over 90 percent 
are for preventive care. As we all know, preventive health care lowers 
health care costs and saves lives. Detecting cancer early through 
regular screenings greatly increases a patient's quality of life and 
chances of survival. In the long run it is vastly cheaper for patients 
in the health care system, and the Federal Government, for diseases to 
be prevented or treated early.
  One of my constituents from Rochester, a mother of two, told me about 
her oldest daughter who works for a small restaurant. Her daughter 
can't afford health insurance, and it is not provided where she works. 
For her regular checkups and preventive care, she relies on Planned 
Parenthood. Because of the history of cervical cancer in her family, 
her daughter was regularly screened, and it was Planned Parenthood that 
first diagnosed her daughter with cervical cancer. Because of that 
early diagnosis, her daughter was able to obtain successful lifesaving 
treatment. There are countless stories such as this. We heard some of 
them this afternoon.
  I also wish to address the other House proposal we have been 
discussing this afternoon. It is a proposal that would also hurt 
women's health care. That is the pending resolution to deny funding for 
health care reform. Already the Affordable Care Act is working for 
women across the country. As of last year, it is illegal for insurance 
companies to require women to obtain preauthorizations or referrals to 
access OB/GYN care. But there is a lot of work that still has to be 
done.
  Currently, women in the individual health care market pay up to 48 
percent more in premiums than men. Beginning in 2014, this kind of 
discrimination, because of the new health care law, will be outlawed. 
Issuers will be banned from issuing discriminatory gender ratings to 
charge women and small businesses with predominantly female workforces 
more for the same coverage.
  In the same year, 2014, health care reform also makes it illegal for 
insurers to deny health care coverage on the basis of preexisting 
conditions, designations which have often been used to discriminate 
against women. Many women across the country today are denied coverage 
for preexisting conditions such as breast or cervical cancer, having 
had a C-section, or even just being pregnant. Some women have even been 
denied coverage for having sought out medical care for domestic or 
sexual violence. It is critical that we ensure low-income women have 
access to health care in these difficult times and that we ensure that 
all women have access to health care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against these two provisions tomorrow, 
these ideological attacks on women's health care. Let's get back to the 
business of creating jobs and dealing with this country's debt and 
deficit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to talk about 
tomorrow's votes on two different amendments and to say that I am proud 
to join my female Senate Democratic colleagues in this effort and to 
speak out about this important issue.
  To me the American people have sent us a clear message. They want us 
to focus on job creation, promoting innovation, and putting Americans 
back to work. But instead tomorrow we will be on the Senate floor 
trying to defend access to health care for women. We will vote tomorrow 
on whether to defund Planned Parenthood, an agency that serves hundreds 
of thousands of people in my State on important exams such as breast 
examinations and helping to prevent infections and various things.
  Just a few weeks ago I talked about one of my constituents, a 22-
year-old woman from Seattle who was diagnosed with an abnormal growth 
on her cervix at Planned Parenthood and received lifesaving treatment. 
She was uninsured, and without Planned Parenthood she would not have 
been able to get that kind of treatment. Certainly, her health would 
have been in major danger in the future.
  I tell that story to emphasize the importance of Planned Parenthood 
on prevention and that they are centers of prevention for many women 
who have no other access to health care. We cannot jeopardize the 
access to that preventative health care at a time when it is so 
important for us to reduce long-term costs.
  In fact, even in the investment area, every dollar invested in family 
planning and publicly funded family planning clinics saves about 4.2 in 
Medicaid-related costs alone. So preventive health care is good for us 
in saving dollars, and it is certainly good for our individual 
constituents who have a lack of access to health care. That is why I am 
so disappointed in the situation we have now, where colleagues are 
saying to us: You can get a budget deal, but you have to defund women's 
health care access to do so.

  The avoidance of a government shutdown has also brought on a 
challenge on the backs of women in the District of Columbia because it 
included a provision denying DC leaders the option of using locally 
raised funds to provide abortion services to low-income women. For 
those who argue against big government, this is a contradiction because 
this is a real imposition on the ability of elected officials in the 
District of Columbia to decide what to do with their locally raised 
funds. I know, because I am in the Hart Building, what the mayor and 
others on the council had to say about this. This is an imposition on 
the health services of low-income women in the District of Columbia and 
certainly has gone almost unnoticed in the eleventh hour and sets a 
precedent for a dangerous slippery slope with what we are telling local 
governments to do.
  It is time for us to focus on our budget, living within our means, 
and getting back to work, but certainly not to try to do all of that on 
the backs of women. It is not time to shut down access to women's 
health care.
  Republicans in the House have decided to wage war and to say women 
should be a bargaining chip. The American people have sent us a clear 
message. They want us to get back to work, and they support Planned 
Parenthood and efforts of Planned Parenthood on preventive health care 
and health care delivery services.
  A recent CNN poll showed that 65 percent of Americans polled support 
continued funding of Planned Parenthood. I know my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would like to say that these funds are used in 
funding organizations that may be involved in doing full reproductive 
choice services. But I ask them to think about that issue and that 
logic. Where will they stop? It is Planned Parenthood today, but are 
they going to stop every institution in America from receiving Federal 
dollars? It is illegal for Planned

[[Page S2426]]

Parenthood to use Federal dollars for full reproductive choices, 
including abortion. It is illegal. They cannot use those funds. Yet the 
other side would like to say that this is an issue where they would 
like to stop Planned Parenthood today, and then they will try to stop 
other organizations in the future. It is time to say no to this 
amendment tomorrow and to say no on trying to pull back from the full 
health care funding bill at a time when we need to implement the 
reforms to keep costs down and to increase access for those who 
currently don't have access to health care and return to the system 
with much more expensive health care needs in the future.
  I am disappointed that at the eleventh hour of a budget debate that 
is about living within our means, about how we take the limited 
recovery we have had and move it forward economically, instead we are 
saying that we can't move forward on a budget and a recovery until we 
take everything that we can away from women's access to health care.
  We will fight this tomorrow. I am proud to be here with my colleagues 
to say we will be the last line of defense for women in America who are 
going about their busy lives right now, taking their kids to school, 
trying to juggle many things at home and work. They are every day, as 
the budget people within their own homes, trying to figure out how to 
live within their means. The national budget debate has broken on this 
point: We can only have a budget agreement if we defund women's full 
access to health care. That is wrong.
  We will be here tomorrow to fight this battle and speak up for women.
  I wish to point out to my colleague from New York that I remember in 
1993, in the year of the woman, when so many women got elected to 
Congress, it was the first time in the House of Representatives we had 
a woman on every single committee. The end result of that is we had an 
increase in funding for women's health research. So much of the 
research had been up until that point focused on men. Why? Because 
there wasn't anybody on the committee to speak up about how women had 
uniquely different health care needs and deserved to have a bigger 
share of funding for health care needs than were currently being 
funded. That is what we get when we get representation.
  Women Senators will be here tomorrow to fight to say that women 
deserve to have access to health care through Planned Parenthood and 
title X. Please, for those working moms who are out there juggling, 
dealing with children and childcare, dealing with their jobs, dealing 
with pay equity at work, dealing with all of these other issues that 
women are struggling with--that they don't have to be a pawn in the 
debate on the budget, that there are people who believe, just like the 
majority of Americans do, that we should move forward with this kind of 
preventive health care for women in America.
  I see my colleague from New York who has been a staunch supporter of 
Planned Parenthood and women's health care choices, and I thank her for 
that leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for her 
extraordinary remarks and her leadership in fighting for these issues.
  It is a privilege to be in the Senate today to listen to the remarks 
of all of the Senate women colleagues who care so deeply about women in 
America and how they are literally being used as a pawn in a debate 
about the budget.
  These women have drawn a line in the sand, a line in the sand that we 
will not let you cross. You may not balance the budget on the backs of 
women, period.
  It is very simple. The election last November was not about a mandate 
for these social issues. It was about the economy. It was about, How 
are we going to create jobs? How do we get a body of representatives to 
come together, work together across party lines, to come up with 
solutions? That is what the election was about.
  The American people voted overwhelmingly for a vote and a discussion 
of issues relating to jobs. How do we create jobs? How do we create the 
atmosphere and the landscape so our small businesses can grow?
  But that is not what the House of Representatives has focused on. No. 
They have created an entire agenda around an assault on women. Women's 
safety nets, women's health care, protections for women and children, 
early childhood education, prenatal care, Pap smears--you name it--this 
is what they are beginning to focus their attention on.
  Millions of Americans depend on reproductive services. Millions of 
women depend on prenatal care, on early cancer screenings, breast 
exams--all of the types of preventive health care that families rely 
on. In fact, in New York, there are over 200,000 New Yorkers who rely 
on this preventive care.
  For my friends and colleagues, this is a factual statement: Current 
law already prevents Federal money from paying for abortions. This has 
been the law of the land for over 30 years.
  Shutting down the government to fight a political argument is not 
only outrageous, it is irresponsible. The price for keeping the 
government open is this assault on women's rights, equality, access to 
health care, access to preventive care.
  Women shoulder the worst of health care costs, including outrageous 
discriminatory practices that we worked so hard during health care 
reform to fix.
  The National Women's Law Center tells us that under the previous 
health care system, a 25-year-old woman would have to pay 45 percent 
more to get basic health care than a male her same age. Some of the 
most essential services required by women for their basic health were 
not covered by many insurance plans, such as prenatal care, Pap smears, 
or mammograms or preventive screenings, including postpartum 
depression, domestic violence, and family planning.
  The institutionalized discrimination in our health care system is 
wrong and it is a tax on women and their families. What we did in 
health care reform was to begin to address these issues to make sure 
the inadequacies of our current system could be addressed, safeguarding 
women's health, and making sure this institutional discrimination no 
longer exists.
  Yesterday was Equal Pay Day. Women all across America earn 78 cents 
for every $1 their male colleagues earn for doing the exact same job. 
Yesterday was the day it would take a woman to work all of last year 
and this year to earn exactly what that male colleague earned in 1 
year.
  Well, who does that affect? It affects families. It affects every 
family in America who has a working mother who is bringing money home 
to pay for her children, for her family, for their well-being.
  So when we should be talking about the economy and issues about how 
do we have equal pay in this country, the Republican House is talking 
about how to continue this rhetoric and assault and negative effects on 
women and their families and what they need to protect themselves.
  The votes we are going to have tomorrow to defund Planned Parenthood, 
to repeal health care--American women, make no mistake about it, this 
is an attack on you. It is an attack on every preventive health 
service, every safety net, everything you care about, whether it is 
early childhood education, Pap smears, mammograms, or prenatal care 
when you are pregnant. That is what their efforts are all about, and 
you should just know you have women of the Senate who will stand by 
you. We have drawn this line in the sand, and we will not allow them to 
cross it. We are your voice in Washington, we are your voice in 
Congress, and we will protect you and the basic safety nets and 
equality you should expect out of the U.S. Government.
  Since I am the last speaker, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, you may not know it from the weather in 
Washington, but spring has finally arrived.

[[Page S2427]]

Even though it is cold and rainy outside, there is no mistaking the 
change of seasons in Washington. Every spring, the congressional office 
buildings are busy with people who want to visit their representatives.
  I look forward to many of these visits. I look forward to seeing 
families who have traveled all the way from Utah to see for themselves 
and to show their children the Capitol, the White House, the 
Declaration of Independence, and the monuments to many of our Nation's 
greatest heroes.
  But we truly know it is spring in Washington because the Halls of 
Congress are filled with people here for one purpose; that is, to ask 
for more money. When budget season hits, interest groups descend on the 
Capitol with one-track minds. Like the swallows to Capistrano, they 
return to the same spot each year to ask for more dough. The message is 
always the same: Their issue or their program is always critical, 
always essential.
  Liberals like to beat up on businesses and demand their shared 
sacrifice. Translation: You better pony up. But the interest groups 
that thrive on taxpayer dollars always seem to be exempt from this 
required sacrifice. Somehow I don't think this is what the Founders had 
in mind when they guaranteed individuals the right to petition the 
government. Petitioning the government for more cash is somehow less 
inspiring than petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
  I appreciate the sentiments of a new Member of the House of 
Representatives who hung a banner in his office that read: If you are 
here to ask for money, you are in the wrong place.
  The fact is, Washington has an enormous spending problem. Washington 
is addicted to spending. The first step toward recovery is 
acknowledging that you have a problem. I suppose we can take some 
solace in the fact that few persons in a position of responsibility now 
deny that our deficits and debt are a problem.
  Facts have gotten in the way. This morning, the Financial Times had 
an above-the-fold headline that read: ``U.S. Lacks Credibility On Debt, 
IMF Says.'' No kidding.
  Our total debt is now over $14 trillion, with no end in sight. The 
administration is now asking the Finance Committee and Congress to 
raise the debt ceiling by $2.2 trillion just to get this country 
through next year. The President's first two budgets were a tragedy. 
But when the United States was staring down the barrel of a third 
straight $1 trillion-plus deficit, his fiscal year 2012 budget morphed 
into parody.
  Recognizing the shellacking his party took over the issue of big 
spending, the White House had to talk a big game about deficit 
reduction, but their numbers never added up. This is how the Washington 
Post described the impact of the President's budget: After next year, 
the deficit will begin to fall ``settling around $600 billion a year 
through 2018, when it would once again begin to climb as the growing 
number of retirees tapped into Social Security and Medicare.''
  Americans quickly saw this budget for what it was--business as usual, 
spending as usual.
  Today, the President tried a do-over. He was going to give a big 
speech. That seems to be his go-to move. This time, he was going to 
convince Americans that he is very serious about deficit reduction. 
Unfortunately, he bricked this shot as well.
  We are approaching a debt crisis, but the President seems willing to 
run the clock until the next election. This is a very dangerous game.
  I think we need to be clear about how precarious our Nation's fiscal 
situation is. The fact is, we could be closer to a debt crisis than 
even the most pessimistic accounts. Because of this administration's 
dramatic ramp-up in Federal spending, Americans are deep in Federal 
debt.
  Currently, Federal debt held by the public equals a modern record of 
about 69 percent of the Nation's economy--known as the gross domestic 
product. The Congressional Budget Office reports that current tax-and-
spending law takes that figure to 76 percent of GDP over the next 10 
years.
  To put that number in perspective, consider the following statistic: 
At the end of fiscal year 2008, as the George W. Bush administration 
was winding down, the debt held by the public reached about 41 percent. 
That is less than 2\1/2\ years ago, in contrast with 69 percent of the 
debt. As bad as the 76-percent figure is, it gets worse under the 
President's fiscal policies.
  President Obama's third budget was released on Valentines Day this 
year. If Americans were expecting some love and concern from our 
President, they sure didn't get it. The administration's figures 
claimed that the President's budget would raise debt held by the public 
to 87 percent of GDP. That is the administration's figures.
  I have a chart that shows the growth in the debt--the national debt 
as a percentage of GDP. The current policy happens to be the red, the 
Obama 2012 budget is the blue. As you can see, by 2021, the national 
debt will be 76 percent of our GDP.
  On Friday, March 18, 2011, CBO released its estimates of the 
President's budget. These estimates showed that debt held by the public 
would grow to 87 percent of GDP in 10 years, just like it says on the 
far right of the chart. That alarming figure is there on the chart.
  Let me put this another way. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, if we continue current tax policy, don't raise rates, fix the 
AMT, provide estate tax relief, and provide for a fix to the physician 
payment system or the SGR as it is known--policies supported by a clear 
majority of Americans--by 2021, the debt held by the public will reach 
97 percent of GDP.
  For those watching C-SPAN, whose jaws just hit the floor, I hate to 
tell you, but the news might even be worse. As bad as these numbers 
are--and they are very bad--they could be dramatically understating the 
fiscal consequences of our current deficit spending policy. This is 
because we face a hidden potential for even greater levels of 
additional Federal debt. We may be in the middle of a debt bubble. The 
stated current level of debt may grow astronomically without any policy 
changes. Let me say that again. If we do nothing to our current policy 
and continue to spend, the debt we currently hold may prove disastrous.
  Here is what I mean by a bubble. I will use an example we are all too 
familiar with. An economic bubble can be described as significant trade 
volume in different products or assets with inflated values. Interest 
rates affect everything in our economy, from the monthly payments we 
make on a new car or home to the amount we are able to save at a local 
bank. Interest rates during both the dot-com bubble and the housing 
bubble were driven by policies at the Federal Reserve. During 2001, the 
Federal Reserve lowered the Federal funds rate from 6.25 percent to 
1.75 percent. The Fed further reduced the rate in 2002 and 2003--there 
is the Federal funds rate--to around 1 percent.
  These low rates had a substantial effect on the growth of mortgage 
lending between 2001 and 2004. The share of new mortgages with 
adjustable rates, which was around 20 percent in 2001, was more than 40 
percent by 2004--adjustable rate mortgages.
  Currently, just like at the beginning of the last decade, interest 
rates are very low. Ten-year Treasury rates are currently around 3.5 
percent. During the past 2 years, this administration has spent 
recklessly, raising the total debt from $10.6 trillion to over $14.2 
trillion. We are currently spending 40 cents of every $1 on interest, 
paying China and others who hold our debt. But what will happen when 
interest rates rise? Under projections from the CBO, 10-year Treasury 
note rates are expected to rise from current levels to 5.3 percent in 
2016.
  What happens if interest rates rise to levels seen during the 1980s 
or the 1990s? During the 1980s, rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-
year notes rose to over 8 percent and 10 percent, respectively. During 
the 1990s, rates on 3-month and 10-year notes rose to 5 percent and 6.6 
percent, respectively.
  Exactly like the housing bubble, as a nation, we are falling into a 
national debt bubble. We continue to spend on our national credit card 
while interest rates are low. Just as many purchased homes with 
adjustable rate mortgages, eventually the adjustment kicked in, the 
low-rate bubble popped, and many Americans found themselves facing 
higher mortgage payments that were unaffordable.
  We are exposing ourselves to more debt than we should. The cost of 
that

[[Page S2428]]

decision is severely understated. That cost, as laid out by CBO, could 
be astronomical. Under President Obama's 2012 current budget, the CBO 
projects deficits for each of the next 10 years, resulting in an 
estimated $10 trillion being added to the public debt, a 100-percent 
increase.
  Under the scenario where interest rates rise to the historical 
average of the 1990s, the public debt is projected to grow an 
additional $8 trillion or a 77-percent increase. Under the scenario 
where interest rates rise to the historical average of the 1980s, the 
public debt would grow to $12.1 trillion, doubling in size.
  It is right here on this chart. You can see it. This is a chart 
showing the public debt over the next 10 years, from 2011 to 2021. You 
can see the green on the far right of each column is the 1980s interest 
rate, the blue in the middle of each column is the 1990s interest rate, 
and the red happens to be the current baseline estimates, which almost 
everybody who looks at it seriously would say are too low.
  If the interest rates return to the levels of the 1990s without any 
policy changes, the debt, as you can see, grows significantly, 
according to this chart. If we return to the 1980s interest rates, we 
will hit a 116-percent increase. If interest rates return to the 1980 
levels, boy, are we in trouble.
  Those who argue against spending restraints now are akin to the 
bubble inflators of the housing industry, encouraging more and more 
spending and consumption, never considering what will happen when the 
rates adjust.
  This is why it is urgent, I would say imperative, that we cut 
spending now. Not after the next Presidential election. Not next year. 
Not next month. Immediately.
  We cannot afford either the short or the long term effects of this 
dangerous spending addiction. American taxpayers understand what 
Washington has to do. It is time to cut the national credit card and 
stop this reckless spending.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and 
their liberal progressive base, keep urging for more taxes. I don't get 
this. I don't think Americans have been sitting at home thinking: You 
know what this debate over government spending has been missing? A 
proposal for a giant tax increase.
  But to borrow from Bruce Dickinson, Democrats have a fever. And the 
only prescription is more taxation.
  When it comes to dealing with our budget deficits and our exploding 
debt, Democrats have a one-track mind. They claim that they are serious 
about spending. The White House is touting reforms to Medicare and 
Medicaid to get spending under control. But ObamaCare is not Medicare 
reform. And real Medicare reform will entail repealing ObamaCare.
  The health care bill took a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare 
to finance $2.6 trillion in new government spending. And instead of 
taking responsibility to ensure the long-term viability of Medicare, 
the President did what he seems to do best. He punted decisionmaking to 
a board of unelected bureaucrats.
  ObamaCare is not Medicaid reform either. States are already facing a 
crushing collective deficit of $175 billion. But instead of helping the 
States to lift this burden, the President's health care bill larded on 
a $118 billion Medicaid expansion on the States. That is about $300 
billion.
  The White House has circulated a factsheet on the President's attempt 
at deficit reduction. It claims $340 billion in savings over 10 years--
``an amount sufficient to fully pay to reform the Medicare Sustainable 
Growth Rate, SGR, physician payment formula while still reducing the 
deficit.'' However, the President's budget estimated the cost of a 10-
year doc fix at $380 billion. Assuming Congress utilizes the 
President's proposed savings to fund a doc fix, the net deficit 
increase from the White House's health proposals will be at least $40 
billion.
  With due respect, when the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, 
which our seniors depend on, is scheduled to be insolvent in 9 short 
years, that is totally inadequate.
  So what are we really looking at in this vaunted deficit reduction 
plan? Yesterday, in anticipation of the President's remarks on deficit 
reduction, his spokesperson gave it away when he said, ``[t]he 
president believes there has to be a balanced approach.''
  Translation: You better check your wallet.
  The Wall Street Journal said that tax increases are on the table.
  But Americans know that for Democrats tax increases are never off the 
table. Most Americans understand that they are the centerpiece of 
Democratic policy.
  America was waiting for the President to propose something new today. 
Instead, he dusted off his proposal to end the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 
for households and businesses earning over $250,000 a year.
  Citizens wanted something innovative--maybe a little hope and change 
for a change.
  But instead they got the fiscal policy of Walter Mondale and Michael 
Dukakis.
  Under the President's proposed failsafe for deficit reduction, 
taxpayers who use their own dollars to deduct mortgage interest, make 
contributions to charities, save for education, or save in a pension 
plan, will be treated the same as spending for Nevada's Cowboy Poetry 
Festival.
  To me they are not the same. But to the President they are. David 
Plouffe, the President's senior adviser and former campaign manager, 
had this to say about the President's proposal:

       People like him . . . who've been very fortunate in life, 
     have the ability to pay a little bit more.

  Well, that's big of him. We hear this quite a bit from rich 
Democrats: Please tax us more, they say.
  Well, as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, I feel 
obligated to inform Mr. Plouffe that the President, and all of those 
rich liberal Democrats who are eager to pay higher taxes, can do just 
that. They can write a check to the IRS and make an extra payment on 
their tax returns to pay down the Federal debt. The option is right 
there at the bottom of their tax return.
  America awaits these checks. This might be a good talking point. I am 
sure it has polled well. But I have yet to hear the economic or fiscal 
rationale for raising taxes on small business creators and American 
families. It is certainly not deficit reduction.
  Raising taxes might be politically necessary for Democrats. But it 
will do little to reduce the deficits and debt that are at their root 
spending problems.
  An article from the Tax Policy Center shows just how delusional it is 
to try and balance the budget through tax increases. In an article 
titled, ``Desperately Seeking Revenue,'' the authors laid out what 
types of tax increases would be necessary, absent spending changes, to 
reduce Federal deficits to 2 percent of GDP for the 2015 to 2019 
period.
  This is a remarkable article. Its authors concluded that tax 
increases consistent with the President's campaign pledge not to raise 
taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 or families making less 
than $250,000 would require the top two rates to go from 33 percent to 
85.7 percent and 35 percent to 90.9 percent.
  This article makes clear, yet again, that we have a spending problem, 
not a revenue problem. We are not going to make meaningful deficit 
reduction--we are not going to get the debt under control--by taxing 
the so-called rich. Taxing citizens and businesses more is not going to 
fix what is essentially a spending problem.
  Consider this chart. The top red line is the CBO baseline, the middle 
blue line is the President's budget plans. The bottom orange line is to 
extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and index the AMT, the Alternative 
Minimum Tax.
  You can see here that under the President's budget plans, under the 
CBO baseline, and under the Republican position, individual income tax 
revenues as a percentage of GDP are going up. Tax revenues are already 
going up, and they are not getting us where we need to be as a nation. 
Yet in his remarks today, the President's landmark proposal is little 
more than tax increases. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
  When the Drudge report announced yesterday that the President was 
going to recommend tax increases, it did not even merit a flashing red 
light. Drudge just pushed it to the side, because it is really no 
longer news to anyone that Democrats want to raise taxes.

[[Page S2429]]

  The real news would have been if the President stood up to his 
political base and made meaningful recommendations for entitlement 
reform.
  The people of Utah, and taxpayers around the country, would have 
stood up and listened if the President backed a serious rollback of 
domestic non-defense discretionary spending, which has exploded on his 
watch.
  Instead, they got the economic philosophy of President Carter. Maybe 
that statement isn't fair to President Carter. I don't know. It seems 
like it has all the elements of fairness.
  Ultimately, this spending crisis cannot be ignored, and both voters 
and markets will respond to the leaders who take this issue on in a 
serious way.
  One of the problems with our colleagues on the other side and their 
wonderful desire to increase taxes on everybody is that those tax 
increases would not go toward paying down the deficit. They would go 
for more spending. That has been the case for all my 34 years in the 
Senate. Every time we have raised taxes, over the long run it has not 
gone toward bringing down the deficit. It has gone for more spending.
  We Members of Congress have all kinds of ways of spending money, and 
our Father in Heaven knows we get a lot more credit for spending in 
this country up through the years than we do for conserving. On the 
other hand, I don't think there is much credit coming today. I think 
most everybody in America, including all those Democratic millionaires 
who supported the President last time--maybe not all of them but a good 
percentage of them--are saying: Enough is enough.
  I am hoping the President will give a speech someday that will make a 
difference on spending because that is clearly the problem. It is not 
tax revenues, it is spending. I think we have had enough of that. I 
think the American people, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, 
have had enough of that. Even though we wish we could do more, we wish 
we could help more people, we wish we could provide a new car for 
everybody in America, I am sure, but that is not reality. It is time to 
face up to reality and get this government spending under control.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________