[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S898-S902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Budget Malpractice

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to mark 
another lamentable milestone in the long record of deadlines and 
misgoverning that might be called malpractice over the last 4 years. As 
we can see, today is the 1,400th day our colleagues across the aisle, 
who control the agenda on the floor of the Senate through the majority 
leader, have failed to produce a budget or even bring one to the floor 
so we could vote on one. For 1,400 days this body has been truant from 
one of the most fundamental obligations to the American people.
  When they look to see what is happening in Washington, DC, they are 
incredulous. No family, no small business, no local government, no 
State government, no one except for the Federal Government, could 
actually operate without a budget. For nearly 4 years the Democratic 
leadership of the Senate has failed to put forward a fiscal plan to 
break our economy free from the lingering effects of the Great 
Recession. And the consequences of that are pretty clear when we look 
at trillion-dollar annual deficits and when we look at $16.5 trillion 
of debt which has threatened our economic recovery and job creation. 
That is the bitter fruit sown from the negligence of failing to produce 
a budget for 1,400 days.

  I realize none of this is maybe as easy as it looks, and I know our 
Democratic colleagues have been under constant pressure from the White 
House. Indeed, the White House itself has long reinterpreted the role 
of its annual budget submissions to Congress from the governing 
documents they once were to now really no more than political 
posturing. As evidence of that, I would point to the fact that the 
President's last budget he submitted got zero votes out of 99 Senators 
voting. No Member, even of the President's own political party, would 
support his budget proposal last time because they believed it was not 
a governing document they could support instead of just a political 
statement.
  These are some of the reasons I can't vote for Jack Lew for Treasury 
Secretary. After all, it was on his watch that most of this happened.
  I am also deeply troubled by the fact that in my office as well as in 
the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Lew would not 
commit to any limit--to any limit--on Federal spending. Traditionally, 
over the last 40 years or so, the Federal Government has spent roughly 
20 percent of our gross domestic product. It has been as high as 25 
percent under the Obama administration. When I asked Mr. Lew what is 
the right figure we ought to be shooting for, he wouldn't even mention 
any figure. So he would not commit to any limit on Federal Government 
spending.
  He also would not commit to the administration complying with Federal 
law requiring it to submit a blueprint for reforming Medicare, known as 
the Medicare trigger. It is a complex formula. But if Medicare is in 
trouble, Federal law requires the administration to submit a plan to 
fix it. Mr. Lew said: We didn't do it, and we are not going to do it.
  I can't support a nominee who refuses to commit to tackling one of 
the biggest drivers of our debt on the eve of another manufactured 
fiscal showdown that was actually the President's and the White House's 
idea--this sequester people are hearing so much about which is now 
being used as a means by which to extract more money from the American 
taxpayer. So instead of the Federal Government doing what every family 
and every business has to do when there is not enough money coming in 
the door, the White House and the Democratic leadership are insisting 
on more from hard-working Americans, after a $600 billion tax increase 
in December.
  Unfortunately, it is hardly surprising that President Obama would 
nominate someone who cannot simply commit to following the law. This 
administration has a record, sadly, of flouting the law of the land, 
and I will give some examples.
  This administration, of which Mr. Lew has been an essential member, 
has, for example, during the government-run automobile bankruptcy 
process--the company's secured creditors, who were supposed to get paid 
first, found they were given less than unions were because of politics 
and flouting the rule of law.
  As Solyndra was going bankrupt, we know the administration, rather 
than letting the private lenders pay for their bad judgment, decided to 
make the taxpayers subordinate to those private lenders.
  We know that last year, because the circuit court of appeals in the 
District of Columbia has told us so, the President made 
unconstitutional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and 
to now the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That case hasn't been 
decided, but it is impossible for me to see how the rationale would be 
any different from the court of appeals' decision in the NLRB case.
  We also know that last year the President waived key requirements of 
the 1996 welfare reform law. And to help implement ObamaCare, the 
Internal Revenue Service has announced that it will violate the letter 
of the law and dispense health insurance subsidies through Federal 
exchanges in those States that do not create State-based exchanges.
  We know that when the 2,700-page behemoth known as ObamaCare began to 
be implemented, when some of the supporters--and some of the 
President's own supporters--complained about it, they were issued 
waivers even though the rest of the American people had to simply take 
it.
  Finally, the President has again missed the legal deadline for 
submitting his own budget for this year. That was on February 4. In 
fact, four of the last five budgets have been late.
  Simply put, we can't keep living like this. We can't allow this to 
become a precedent for future Presidents and future majorities, 
regardless of party, to rely on. We can do better. We must do better. 
And my 26 million constituents in the State of Texas demand that we do 
better.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, just to follow up further on the 
situation we face, I talked earlier about the critical importance of 
having honest numbers. We can disagree on certain numbers. Mr. Lew 
predicted that under

[[Page S899]]

his budget, last year's deficit in the 10th year would be about $800 
billion. The Congressional Budget Office, using the same numbers, the 
same analysis, says it would be 50 percent higher. They said it would 
be $1.2 trillion. He was using rosy scenarios. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office came out with greater debt numbers and more 
danger for America.
  I am not so much complaining about that, although I think they 
deliberately tried to make their numbers look rosy. What I am 
complaining about is a fundamental mischaracterization of the budget he 
presented and what it would do according to his own analysis contained 
in the budget documents he submitted with his budget.
  This is a very important matter. People say: Why don't you get 
together in Congress? Why don't you all reach an agreement? Well, it is 
kind of hard to reach an agreement when the lead negotiator for the 
President, Mr. Lew--some call him Dr. No--goes around saying:

       We don't need to do anything; our budget we submitted will 
     get us over the next several years to the point where we can 
     look the American people in the eye and say, We're not adding 
     to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each 
     year, and then we can work on bringing down our debt.

  He implies bringing down our total debt because we are going to have 
surpluses, enough money to pay down the debt. However, according to his 
own numbers, the lowest deficit he had was over $600 billion, and they 
were going upward the last 6 years, getting worse, and the 
Congressional Budget Office said the last deficit would be $1.2 
billion. Unbelievable. So I wanted to continue to discuss that.
  According to the budget numbers he put out, his plan would add $13 
trillion in new gross debt to the United States in 10 years, by 2021. 
That was in 2011. Single-year deficits will never drop below $600 
billion. In 2015 they would start climbing back up to $774 billion. 
Over the 10 years total spending would increase--not be reduced at all, 
of course, but increase--by nearly 50 percent, with mandatory spending 
alone--not in any way controlled or reformed or fixed by the Lew 
budget--mandatory spending would increase by more than 80 percent. And 
mandatory spending makes up more than half of all the spending in our 
government. So on his track, by his own budget, by his own projections, 
by what he believes should happen, it increased by 80 percent. In fact, 
entitlements are growing at about three times the rate of GDP growth, 
the rate of the growth in the economy. That is unsustainable.
  Do we ever hear that from the President or his chief budget guy, Mr. 
Lew, who is now expecting to be the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
primary, premier economic leader for America? If one can't be honest 
about what the situation is, one ought not to be promoted. That is the 
way I feel about it, and I feel strongly about it. I have never seen 
anything like that in my entire time in the Senate, to have this kind 
of statement made that is so utterly unconnected to reality.
  It wasn't long after Mr. Lew came to the committee--2 days or 3 days 
after this statement--when I asked him about that. I asked him if that 
was accurate, and he said:

       It's an accurate statement that our current spending will 
     not be increasing the debt . . . We've stopped spending money 
     that we don't have.

  And the lowest deficit is $600 billion.
  But Mr. Geithner came after this exchange, and I am sure Mr. Geithner 
was well aware of what happened in the Budget Committee. Mr. Lew dug 
his heels in and insisted this statement was true. What did the 
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, say at that point? I think 
this is the difference between Mr. Lew and Mr. Geithner. Mr. Geithner 
was former head of the Federal Reserve in New York, a man of some 
seriousness and gravitas, and he wasn't going to go in there and say 
something that wasn't true before the Budget Committee, although he 
didn't give it up easily. I had to use all the skills I had to pin him 
down, but when I did, this is what Mr. Geithner said. Even if the 
budget Mr. Lew put forward were passed and enacted, Mr. Geithner said 
that ``we would still be left with a very large interest burden and 
unsustainable obligations over time.'' In effect, he said we would be 
left with an unsustainable debt path, when Mr. Lew says: Don't worry, 
my budget fixes it. And Geithner was talking about this very budget.
  Writing in the New York Times, writing an article, an op-ed in the 
New York Times, Mr. Lew said:

       The President's budget is a comprehensive and responsible 
     plan that will put us on a path toward fiscal sustainability 
     in the next few years.

  He wrote that in the New York Times--totally inaccurate. Does he not 
respect the American people? Does he think he can just go and make CNN 
statements and write in the New York Times and say anything he pleases 
about the financial condition of our country--a financial condition 
that represents the greatest threat to our national security, more than 
any other threat we have in this world today?
  That same month, Mr. Lew stated in an interview with National Public 
Radio:

       If we're able to reduce the deficit to the point where we 
     can pay for our spending and invest in the future, that is an 
     enormous accomplishment. This budget has . . . proposals that 
     would do that.

  And it did not. The budget did not have anything in it that would 
have had us pay for our spending. We are borrowing 36 cents out of 
every $1 we spend today. We are adding debt to our Nation every single 
hour--and to say we are going to be paying down the debt.
  At no point did Mr. Lew's own estimate show that the President's 2012 
budget was coming close to a point where we could pay for our spending. 
Excluding interest payments on the national debt--excluding the 
interest--the plan would have resulted in $1.5 trillion in deficits 
over 10 years, and even more than that when you consider the full 
interest cost of $7.2 trillion. The long-term outlook, with annual 
interest payments approaching $1 trillion and mandatory spending 
consuming over three-quarters of the budget after 10 years, and 
growing--entitlement and mandatory spending absorbing three-quarters of 
the budgets--Mr. Lew's comments were not merely misleading, but I 
believe qualify to be described as the greatest financial 
misrepresentation in the history of the American Republic. If someone 
has a better analysis of it, I would like to hear it. If somebody comes 
down and says this is a true statement, I would like to hear them say 
it. I invite all my colleagues--members of the Finance Committee; lots 
of them voted for Mr. Lew--do you think it is OK to say this? Do you 
think this is accurate? And if it is not accurate, do you want to 
promote him anyway? Why would you want to do that? I do not understand 
it. I am not going to support that. Mr. Lew made these representations 
over and over again.
  The President's next year's budget in 2012, for the 2013 fiscal year, 
was formulated while Mr. Lew was still the President's Budget Director 
and delivered while he was the President's Chief of Staff. It similarly 
was extreme and irresponsible, and it was part of a continued campaign 
to mislead the American people about how it operated, to say it was so 
much better than it really was.
  Although the White House claimed $4 trillion in savings, according to 
the Office of Management and Budget's own data, the 2013 budget would 
only have reduced the deficit by $197 billion over 10 years. They 
claimed they saved $4,000 billion--$4 trillion--but, in fact, it would 
only have reduced the budget by $197 billion over 10 years--virtually 
not changing the debt course of America. And all of those savings--
virtually every one--were from tax increases. The spending was not 
reduced.
  The White House also pushed the idea that the budget contained $2.50 
in budget cuts for every $1 in tax hikes, while in reality there was a 
net spending increase above the policy baseline we were operating 
under. It spent more, not less. They claimed there were $2.50 in cuts 
for every $1 in tax hikes. That is not true. Overall, from current 
budget levels, spending would have increased by more than $2 trillion.
  The net result of the proposals contained in the 2013 budget was to 
bring the Federal debt up to $26 trillion by 2022--an increase of $11 
trillion. The proposed $4 trillion in savings simply did not exist. It 
was a complete fabrication. Mr. Lew understood that. He helped write 
that budget. He was the Chief of Staff at the White House when it 
actually came to the Senate.

[[Page S900]]

  Once again, a Lew-designed budget was presented to the American 
people in false terms designed to create the impression that we were 
putting America on a sound financial path, while we were doing the 
opposite--if it had passed.
  And, of course, you say: Well, Sessions, that is your view. You are 
the one who is mischaracterizing the President's budget. This is all 
partisan. Maybe you would think that. I hope not. But let's see what 
some of the other observers around the country said about it when it 
was released. I am not talking about the budget that was described by 
Mr. Lew in these wonderful terms. If we had a budget that would do 
that, the American people would jump up and down and shout hallelujah. 
We are not close to it, however, as independent observers noted.
  Look what these honest observers said about it.
  The Washington Post, the largest paper here in Washington, said this:

       The larger problem with the budget is the administration's 
     refusal to confront the hard choices that Mr. Obama is so 
     fond of saying must be faced.

  The title of that editorial: ``President Obama's budget kicks the 
hard choices further down the road.''
  What about USA Today, a nationwide paper?

       President Obama likes to talk about those ``Sputnik 
     moments'' when the nation rises to difficult challenges like 
     the one posed by the Soviet space program in the 1950s. On 
     Monday--

  The day this budget was released--

     he had a chance to turn his . . . budget proposal into his 
     own such moment. He whiffed.

  The title of that editorial: ``Obama's budget ducks tough choices.''
  What about the Financial Times?

       President Barack Obama has unveiled a hugely disappointing 
     budget, cutting only a few percentage points . . . in 
     projected US federal deficits over the remainder of this 
     century. . . . If Mr. Obama will not make this case, who 
     will?

  The title of that editorial: ``Obama's budget shows failure of 
leadership.'' That is absolutely true. It was a failure of leadership.
  Another from the Washington Post:

       White House budget director Jacob J. Lew has told advocates 
     of reform that the White House thinks any significant plan 
     offered by the president would simply become a target for 
     partisan attack.

  Then it goes on to quote Alice Rivlin:

       ``I would have preferred to see the administration get out 
     front on addressing the entitlements and the tax reform that 
     we need to reduce long-run deficits,'' said Alice Rivlin, a 
     commission member [on the deficit commission] who served as 
     budget director in the Clinton White House.

  That was Alice Rivlin, a wise commentator, a Democrat, but a wise 
commentator. She went on to say:

       But they clearly made a tactical decision.

  She meant a political decision.
  That was the Washington Post. The title of that was: ``Obama spending 
plan criticized for avoiding deficit commission's major proposals.''

  Another from the Washington Post:

       Erskine Bowles, the Democratic chairman of the fiscal 
     commission, said the White House budget request goes 
     ``nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our 
     fiscal nightmare.''

  He is referring to this. This was on February 14--2 days after Mr. 
Lew made those ridiculous statements.
  This is Mr. Erskine Bowles, a man chosen by President Obama to head 
the fiscal commission and spent a year studying our debt problem.
  How about Investor's Business Daily, a prominent business 
publication?

       The White House's new budget is far worse than merely bad. 
     By not attacking the underlying cause of our debt explosion 
     and by raising taxes, it will lead inevitably to a weaker 
     economy and perhaps even default.

  The title of that editorial: ``Obama's Gutless Budget Proposal''--a 
proposal written by Mr. Jack Lew.
  What about the Wall Street Journal? This is entitled: ``The Cee Lo 
Green Budget.''

       After three years of historic deficits that have added 
     almost $4.5 trillion to the national debt, President Obama 
     was finally going to get serious about fiscal discipline. 
     Instead, what landed on Congress's doorstep on Monday was a 
     White House budget that increases deficits above the spending 
     baseline for the next two years. Hosni Mubarak was more in 
     touch with reality last Thursday night.

  The Wall Street Journal, the premier business publication in America.
  The Orlando Sentinel:

       Count us deeply disappointed by the $3.7 trillion budget 
     that President Obama unveiled Monday. . . . To really tackle 
     the national debt, Mr. Obama needs to get off the sidelines, 
     and start leading.

  The title of that: ``President Obama's budget plan falls short''--
Jack Lew's budget plan.
  The New York Daily News:

       But the bottom line is that [President Obama is] figuring 
     on reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years while 
     his blue-ribbon commission said cutting four times that 
     amount is critically necessary.

  The title of that editorial: ``Deficit of courage.''
  This is another one:

       President Barack Obama rolled out a $3.7 trillion budget 
     Monday that promises $90 billion in reduced spending for 
     fiscal 2012, but it would still produce a whopping $1.1 
     trillion deficit. The best that can be said is that we've 
     started to frame the national debate.

  So said the Chicago Tribune.
  The Indianapolis Star:

       Obama has all but ignored the recommendations of his own 
     deficit reduction commission.

  The headline of that editorial: ``We ignore `red menace' at our 
peril.''
  How about the Los Angeles Times, a major western newspaper of liberal 
political views:

       President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012 landed with a 
     thud Monday, laying out short- and long-term tax and spending 
     plans that disappointed lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. 
     The proposal was a remarkably tame response to Washington's 
     fiscal problems, not the bold statement about belt-tightening 
     that the White House had suggested was coming.

  The Denver Post, another large and liberal newspaper, states:

       Obama called the proposal one of the ``tough choices and 
     sacrifices,'' yet it does not confront entitlements and 
     continues to act as if government spending is the way to 
     prosperity.

  That is true for sure.
  The San Francisco Chronicle, an important newspaper:

       In a crucial way, it lacks honesty.

  The Dallas Morning News, a big newspaper:

       But taken as a whole, his proposals represent the third 
     time in 2 months he has walked up to the challenge of curbing 
     the deficit and more troubling long-term debt and turned away 
     on leading the Nation back from an impending fiscal 
     nightmare.

  The Philadelphia Inquirer:

       The shortcoming in Obama's spending proposal is its lack of 
     strategy for sustained, long-term deficit reduction.

  That is correct. It had none of that in it. It goes on to say:

       Cutting deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade might sound 
     significant. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
     has projected deficits rising $12 trillion over that time.

  The title of that editorial is ``Still missing the mark.''
  The Minneapolis Star Tribune:

       The flurry of deficit-reduction plans released late last 
     year were supposed to kick off a national ``adult 
     conversation'' about the Nation's metastasizing long-term 
     debt problem.

  When is that conversation going to begin? It certainly didn't happen 
on Monday when President Obama released his $3.7 trillion budget 
request for 2012. The title of that editorial is ``Slinking away from 
U.S. budget reality,'' written by Mr. Jack Lew, Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, who declared it was a wonderful budget, 
totally misrepresenting what it would do.
  The Washington Post, Dana Milbank:

       Obama's budget proposal is a remarkably weak and timid 
     document. . . . The President makes no serious attempt at 
     cutting entitlement programs that threaten to drive the 
     government into insolvency.

  What about Senator Conrad, who was the chairman of the Budget 
Committee at that time, a distinguished Democratic Senator who retired 
from Congress and is no longer in the Senate. This is what Kent Conrad 
said, my friend, with whom I served on the committee:

       But we need a much more robust package of deficit and debt 
     reduction over the medium- and long-term.

  Well, our Democratic leadership in the Senate refused to bring up a 
budget. Today marks the 1,400th day this Senate has violated the law of 
the United States and not produced a budget. It is unthinkable at a 
time when the debt represents the greatest threat to our country.
  The House has passed a budget each year. That was part of the 
strategy.

[[Page S901]]

That was part of the gimmick. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, says 
we don't need a budget; it is foolish to have a budget. That was his 
comment: It is foolish to have a budget even though the law explicitly 
requires the Senate to produce a budget.
  What did he mean, ``foolish''? He meant if you pass a budget, 
somebody could criticize you. Somebody could look at your spending and 
taxes, evaluate it, and say: We don't like that. He doesn't fix the 
debt. It raises taxes too much. It doesn't cut spending. Or it 
increases the spending too much. Why do that? It is foolish. Let's 
don't pass one, and we will criticize Paul Ryan, the young, dynamic 
chairman of the House Budget Committee who wrote a budget that passed 
the House and would have fixed our debt problem and put us on a 
sustainable course.
  This was a budget that was complimented by Alice Rivlin and Erskine 
Bowles. They may not have agreed to everything that was in it, but they 
complimented him on having integrity and doing what it said in laying 
out a plan for the future of America. The House passed it.
  What did the Senate do? Nada, nothing. It was one of the greatest 
acts of irresponsibility, I submit, in Senate history. There are a lot 
of them out there. This is one in the top group, in my opinion. How 
could you possibly, at a time of crisis, not bring up the budget? The 
President submitted a budget, as he is required to do by law, and every 
President always has. The Senate just decided not to even move one. 
They say: We will have one this year. I am looking forward to that. It 
is behind time, as was the President's submission of a budget. He was 
late, according to the law, in submitting that.
  As time went on and the tension rose over the budget and our future 
spending program, the Democratic leader in the Senate thought he would 
be clever and would bring up Congressman Ryan's budget and make all the 
Republicans vote for it--virtually all did; maybe two or three didn't--
and then they would attack them because it had cuts in spending. They 
are going to say: You don't like old people. You don't like children. 
You don't like education. You don't like this in health care, and this 
will be great.
  As I said, most Republicans, virtually all, voted for it.
  Senator McConnell said: All right, let's bring up the Obama budget. 
Let's bring up the budget Jack Lew prepared to the floor.
  He forced a vote on the Lew budget. How many votes do you think it 
received? Zero. Every Democrat voted against it and every Republican 
voted against it. It was brought up in the House of Representatives. 
Every Democratic Member of the House voted against it and every 
Republican voted against it. It happened the next year in the 2013 
budget.
  Not a single person voted for this budget because it wasn't worthy of 
a single vote. It would not do anything to change the debt course of 
America, and they were totally misrepresenting what it would do. It was 
a sad moment. That is where we are.
  My question simply would be, Where was Mr. Lew in this? He was the 
architect. He was the architect of the budget, but he was deeply 
involved in the political activities that were going on at this time. 
It fell to his lot--I am not sure if he asked for it--to come and 
testify before the Budget Committee and say these kinds of things about 
it, these words that will live in infamy. Did he just volunteer to do 
it? Was he so much a part of the Obama political interest he would say 
whatever it takes to promote a budget that wouldn't work?
  Secretary Geithner, President Obama's own Secretary of the Treasury, 
would not say so. He wouldn't say these kinds of things. He tried not 
to embarrass the administration, tried not to embarrass Mr. Lew. When I 
pinned him down, he said this still leaves us on an unsustainable debt 
course; not fixing our problem as was represented.

  Now we want to replace Mr. Geithner, a man who was frank in his 
testimony about the dangers we faced, with a man who stood by this kind 
of testimony and statements.
  I do believe our country is a bit confused. I believe we are to the 
point where in politics people think they can say almost anything and 
nobody cares. Just say this or say that; if it is not true, well, so 
what. I guess it is just politics.
  If we continue in that way, this is a very dangerous trend. It places 
the entire democratic Republic of America at risk. The whole concept of 
American Government is based on finding the truth. This is why you have 
debate in the Senate; open, public debate. The truth, the theory is 
that it will somehow rise to the top, and it normally will when you 
have honest debate. You have negotiations on issues, you advocate for 
your side, and you may begin to reach consensus, sometimes at least.
  How can you reach consensus when the person you are negotiating with 
is insisting his budget does things it absolutely does not do? He is 
doing that for political reasons, not for the interests of America. How 
are you able to deal with that?
  I think this Senate--as a matter of its own integrity to defend the 
integrity of the Senate, and, perhaps, more importantly, to defend the 
integrity of the American people--has a firm and clear duty to insist 
that high public officials tell the truth when they come before 
Congress or when they go on national television. He is being paid by 
the American people. Was he paid to misrepresent the budget or to tell 
the truth about the budget?
  He didn't tell the truth about the budget. Is there a consequence? We 
just promote him to some other high office because he helped the 
President win his election by spinning the debt situation in America in 
a way that is not correct.
  Make no mistake, I don't have proof of this. And maybe it is wrong. 
But it seems to me this was a campaign decision made in early 2011 that 
they were going to say their budget fixed our debt problems. Why do I 
state this? Because it was continued periodically off and on and was 
repeated again in a national television ad by the President of the 
United States in September 2012 to win reelection. ``Our plan pays down 
the debt,'' I believe, was the phrase they used in that television ad.
  That wasn't true. He didn't have a plan that paid down the debt or 
didn't add to the debt or put us in a position to pay down the debt. He 
never had a plan to do that. He didn't.
  You say: That is not correct. I will ask my Democratic colleagues--
this is a free country, a free Senate--you come down and say if I am 
incorrect on this. Show me if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will 
apologize; but I don't think I am wrong. I have looked at it hard, and 
I don't think anybody is going to come down and dispute what I have 
said fundamentally on the details of this budget document.
  I thank the Chair for indulging me.
  I yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Lew nomination has not received an 
enthusiastic response in many quarters, that is for sure--maybe from 
the hard left, where he has been an advocate of some very hard left 
views and some inflexibility when it comes to dealing with some of our 
entitlement programs and welfare programs that have been surging out of 
control. But this is what some others have said about the nomination.
  Larry Kudlow, a commentator on CNBC--who was an economist for the 
Federal Reserve System of the United States and a former chief 
economist at Bear Stearns and an employee at the Office of Management 
and Budget, where he was a chief economist--said this on the radio not 
too long ago. I guess this was written about by Jeff Poor, a reporter 
for the Daily Caller.

       Larry Kudlow explained why President Obama's nomination of 
     Jack Lew as Timothy Geithner's replacement to head the 
     Treasury Department was a ``nutty appointment.''

  If you keep up with business issues and stuff, you will see Mr. 
Kudlow on TV regularly, and he, like a lot of our commentators, enjoys 
stirring the pot sometimes, but, as I say, he was a chief economist at 
Bear Stearns and at the Office of Management and Budget and

[[Page S902]]

an economist at the Federal Reserve. He knows a great deal about the 
economy. His instinct is what led him to call this a ``nutty 
appointment.''
  Continuing Mr. Poor's quote:

       Kudlow pointed to Lew as part of the problem.

  Part of the problem as to why we don't have a budget. He said he is 
part of the problem.
  Once again citing the Poor article:

       Kudlow cited Lew's lack of qualifications as another reason 
     that President Obama's appointment was ``completely 
     irresponsible.''

  Quoting Mr. Kudlow, the article went on to say this:

       ``You know, this whole thing is kind of centered around the 
     Senate, which hasn't done a budget in 1,351 days--so whatever 
     that is, four years,'' Mr. Kudlow said.

  And I will just add that today is the 1,400th day.
  Continuing the quote:

       ``Now the White House might not even submit a budget, and 
     now the White House had taken the budget director and chief 
     of staff and put him over the Treasury, where Jack Lew is 
     completely--and I mean completely unqualified to be Treasury 
     Secretary.''

  He is talking about Lew, and sending him to be Secretary of Treasury.
  Mr. Poor goes on quoting Mr. Kudlow, who explains:

       ``He has no financial experience. He has no international 
     experience. He has no currency experience. He ripped off 
     Citibank for a couple million dollars. He was there for one 
     year. I mean, there's about a million people--give me a phone 
     book, and I'll find somebody more qualified for Treasury 
     Secretary than former OMB director Jack Lew. This is all of a 
     piece. It is completely irresponsible.''

  Well, that is pretty clear, what he expresses there, what he 
believes. And I think that is valuable insight.
  Are we just making this up? This staffer for Tip O'Neill, the Budget 
Director of OMB before and now Chief of Staff at the White House, is he 
really qualified to lead the United States of America in addressing the 
challenges of our time?
  What about the Secretary of the Treasury position? Is that a matter 
of great importance? The Treasury is one of the four great senior 
Cabinet positions we have--Attorney General, Defense Secretary, State, 
and Treasury. The credibility of the Treasury Secretary is his greatest 
asset, and, as I have said, this statement raises the most grievous 
doubts about his credibility.
  We have had great Secretaries. Albert Gallatin early on, who was a 
Swiss immigrant, helped create the House Ways and Means Committee and 
instituted the development of the Treasury. Simon Chase from Ohio stood 
as one of Lincoln's top aides and was responsible for the civil system 
of federally chartered banks. William McAdoo, a distinguished 
businessman, helped create the Federal Reserve System. Andrew Mellon, a 
brilliant Pennsylvania businessman, served as Secretary of Treasury. 
Henry Morgenthau, Jr., served as FDR's Secretary from 1934 through 
1945. William Simon, a successful businessman, served as Secretary 
under Nixon and Ford. He supervised the Nation's economic policies in 
crisis times.
  So this nominee doesn't have the kind of background one would 
normally look for in a Secretary of Treasury, particularly when we are 
doing so poorly economically. We had a big recession, and we are coming 
out of it at a slower rate than we perhaps have ever seen other than 
the Great Depression.
  Mr. Malpass testified at the Budget Committee yesterday about the 
Lew-Obama-Paul Krugman theory of borrowing money and spending money to 
stimulate the economy and get us out of the recession. All you have to 
do is look at it and see it didn't work. How much more evidence do you 
need?
  So that is the advice we have been getting there. And this good 
staffer quality is what our Democratic chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus, seemed to see in Jack Lew during his recent 
confirmation hearings. He seemed to call into question the necessary 
stature the position requires and whether Jack Lew met those standards. 
This is what Senator Baucus said to Mr. Lew:

       I'm going to ask you--it's clear you'd be a great staffer. 
     I'm not talking about being a great, courageous staffer and 
     telling the President what you think and don't think. I'm 
     talking about something else. I'm talking about the public 
     perception, the public demeanor, representing the United 
     States across the country and around the world, be able to 
     influence policy in a way that makes sense--most of us would 
     tend to agree with. We may differ along the edges, but most 
     everybody in this room agrees that needs to be done.

  So even the chairman of the Finance Committee, a Democratic chairman, 
Senator Baucus, with great experience, certainly raised some questions 
about the nomination.
  Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I look 
forward to Senator Kaine's remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and that the time count against the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.