[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8188-8191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this next week we will be taking up the 
budget for fiscal year 2010. Anyone who previously had not been 
concerned about that debate and what it means for the country and its 
future probably should be concerned, based upon the most recent CBO 
report that came out on Friday of last week. It was sobering. It 
reinforces the point that we have been making about the outline we have 
seen of the President's budget; that is, this budget spends too much, 
taxes too much, and borrows too much.
  We have spoken extensively about the new spending in the budget. We 
have talked at great length as well about some of the new taxes in the 
budget and how it will drive up taxes on small businesses, the largest 
job creator in the economy, the economic engine that creates two-thirds 
of the jobs in our economy.
  We also want to talk about the fact that it borrows too much. The CBO 
report punctuates that point. I couldn't have put it more clearly than 
what they came out with last week, which suggests the initial estimates 
about the President's budget outline, which we received earlier, were 
dramatically understated and, in fact, it is going to add significantly 
more to the deficit than what we initially anticipated. In fact, in 
fiscal year 2009, which is the year in which we find ourselves right 
now, the CBO has revised its deficit estimate to where it is going to 
go over $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2009, which represents 13.1 
percent--13.1 percent--of our gross domestic product, which dwarfs 
anything we have seen at any time in history.
  So as we enter this debate next week, I think it really is important 
for all of us in this Chamber to take a good look at this analysis and 
to try to digest it and, hopefully, for the American people to be able 
to take a good look at what these numbers mean as well. It is sometimes 
difficult to even put it into terms people can understand. When I think 
about $1 trillion, it is a staggering amount of money. We are throwing 
around numbers in trillions and trillions and trillions today in the 
abstract. When you try to put it in terms that everyday Americans can 
understand, it is almost daunting to try to accomplish that.
  So when this new report came out, I think many of us found it even 
more sobering than what we already knew was going to be a very 
difficult economic and fiscal climate for the next several years. In 
fact, the President's budget outline that had been analyzed up to this 
point suggested the debt was going to double in 5 years and triple in 
10 years. That is still the case.
  If you can believe this, the publicly held debt, in 2019, is going to 
be $17.3 trillion under the CBO's new estimate. It is about $5.8 
trillion today. It literally does, in a 5-year period, double the debt 
and in a 10-year period triples the debt. It takes the publicly held 
debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product, from where it is 
today--a historical average of about, if you look back, 20, 30, 40 
percent, but let's say today we are looking at 40 percent, and that is 
a very high number relative to anything we have seen in history--it 
takes it up to over 80 percent by the end of that period. So you are 
looking at public debt and public deficits that are unparalleled and 
are unprecedented in American history. I think that is the whole point 
behind the argument we have made throughout the last several weeks in 
the lead-up to this budget discussion we are going to have next week: 
This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.
  The taxing component is something many of my colleagues have spoken 
to already. But if you look at, again, the overall tax increases--which 
many are imposed. And they talk about that it just applies to high-
income taxpayers. But you are talking about small businesses, many of 
which file or organize as subchapter S's or LLCs. So the income they 
get from their small business flows to their individual income tax 
statement, which means when these rates go up--and they are going to go 
up--the effective rates, to 40 and 42 percent, when today those same 
businesses would be paying 33 or 35 percent, they will be significant 
increases in the tax burden we are imposing. That is not to mention the 
new climate change initiative which is also contemplated in the 
President's budget, which imposes an entirely new energy tax on the 
American people, on the American consumers, creating all kinds of new 
costs for energy, whether it is electricity or fuels. There have been 
studies that have been done, very credible studies by researchers at 
MIT, that have suggested it is going to cost the average family in this 
country over 3,000 additional dollars per year in energy costs by the 
year 2015.
  These are some pretty daunting numbers. But they come on the heels of 
a stimulus bill that was passed a few weeks back that was about $800 
billion. When you add interest in it, it was about $1.2 trillion. That 
was a huge amount of money. When we try to put that in perspective 
relative to anytime in our Nation's history, it eclipsed anything we 
had seen previously. Then we had the Omnibus appropriations bill, which 
increased spending over the previous year by twice the rate of 
inflation--about 8.3 percent. Then you add the continuing resolution 
that was passed last year, which funded Government programs last year 
through March 6 of this year because that was a stopgap appropriations 
measure that was put in place because the appropriations bills had not 
been passed last year. Then we had the stimulus bill, which was, as I 
said, with interest, $1 trillion. Then we had the Omnibus 
appropriations bill, and with that a twice-the-rate-of-inflation 
increase. You add all those numbers together, and we have increased the 
size of Government this year by 49 percent--49 percent--from fiscal 
year 2008. I think that points to the fact, again, as to the amount of 
spending we are doing. It adds up because a lot of that, as I said 
before, is borrowed money, and it is contributing to these deficit 
numbers the CBO had just released.
  So it would be my hope--and I know others are on the floor who are 
going to speak to this issue a little bit more in detail. I know the 
Budget Committee has analyzed the new CBO report. We are awaiting the 
markup of the budget this week in the Senate. We suspect it is probably 
going to follow somewhat closely the President's outline, his proposal, 
although my guess is there will be some differences. But if you take 
the overall trajectory it creates, it creates a trajectory over the 
next 10 years that calls for an average deficit--this is the average 
over the 10-year period--of almost $1 trillion. It is $929 billion, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is the average.
  This year, it is $1.8 trillion. Next year, it is $1.4 trillion. It 
drops down to $670 or $650 billion, I think, for 1 year. But then it 
starts spiking and trending back up again, to where, over the course of 
the 10-year window--the budget analysis and planning that is done here 
is done in a 10-year window. If you look at that 10-year window, the 
average deficit is $929 billion a year.
  As I said, these are numbers that are staggering and unlike anything 
we

[[Page 8189]]

have ever seen. It is hard to put into perspective what we are talking 
about relative to anytime in American history.
  The other thing I will mention with regard to the stimulus bill as 
well--because I think there was an assumption that all this borrowing 
and all this spending would somehow lead to job creation and hopefully 
getting the economy expanding and growing again--what the CBO found in 
their analysis, again, was that in the long term the impact would be 
negligible or negative from the spending that was created in the 
stimulus bill. So not only were we getting no additive benefit in terms 
of job creation from the stimulus spending--or in the long term, at 
least--we are going to see negative, they think, or at least 
negligible, zero, economic growth as a result of it. We are adding $1 
trillion to the amount we have borrowed from future generations, and we 
are asking our children and grandchildren to have to pay it back, not 
to mention what I am sure are going to be other types of economic 
consequences associated with that: higher interest rates, higher 
inflation. There is already a lot of discussion about that as we 
continue to borrow more and more money, whether there will be people 
out there who will want to buy our debt.
  I believe those are all legitimate concerns and questions we need to 
raise in this debate, coupled with the fact that there is nothing done 
in this budget that would in any way significantly reduce the long-term 
costs associated with the entitlement programs and what is really 
driving, in the outyears, these deficits: Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid. There has been a lot of discussion in the new 
administration about a willingness to sit down and talk about how to 
reform and make these programs strong and better and more efficient for 
the future, but there is nothing in this budget that does that.
  In fact, the only serious savings we can point to in the President's 
budget that they try to achieve come out of defense, come out of the 
military, come out of our national security, which I would argue: If we 
do not get national security right, the rest is conversation. But they 
are assuming savings as a result of drawing down troops in Iraq and 
places such as that, which I think they are overstating what they are 
going to be able to achieve in savings.
  I would argue some of the other assumptions in the President's 
outline are optimistic with regard to revenues--and I think the CBO 
study bears that out--to the point now that even the Washington Post, 
yesterday, came out with an editorial that I think illustrates exactly 
how serious this fiscal situation is for our country, and drawing into 
question the fact that there is very little done in this budget that 
addresses those long-term fiscal problems I just mentioned in the 
entitlement programs.
  There is nothing to reduce the cost of Government in the outyears, 
only things that are going to pile on additional costs and add and 
multiply over a long period of time. The incredible amount of borrowing 
we are already doing is going to be multiplied many times over into the 
future.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the 
Washington Post be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 22, 2009]

                           Red Ink Red Alert


         A congressional report should give the president pause

       The new estimates by the Congressional Budget Office 
     showing a federal deficit of 13.1 percent of gross domestic 
     product for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, are 
     neither surprising nor particularly alarming, though it's 
     larger than the 12.3 percent foreseen by the White House. 
     Both are stunning numbers--far and away the largest deficit 
     ratio since World War II. But spending rises in recessions 
     and tax revenue falls, and we're in a big recession. It would 
     be counterproductive to balance the budget in this historic 
     downturn. The huge deficit includes $700 billion for a 
     necessary rescue of the financial sector. Nor is it shocking 
     that the CBO forecasts a deficit of 9.6 percent of GDP in 
     fiscal 2010 if Congress enacts President Obama's $3.6 
     trillion budget plan--a deficit also much larger than what 
     the president predicted. The difference largely reflects the 
     CBO's economic forecast, which is more up-to-date and, hence, 
     gloomier than the one Mr. Obama relied on.
       What is scary, though, is the CBO's depiction of the 
     remaining years of the president's term, and the half-decade 
     after that--'if his budget is enacted. In none of those years 
     would the federal deficit fall below 4.1 percent of GDP--and 
     it would be stuck at 5.7 percent of GDP in 2019. This is in 
     stark contrast to the president's projection: that his plan 
     would get the deficit down to about 3 percent or so of GDP by 
     that time. It's true, as Peter R. Orszag, director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, told us, that the CBO's 
     forecasts are subject to large margins of error, especially 
     in the out years. And Mr. Orszag is correct to point out 
     that, even under the CBO's scenario, the deficit as a share 
     of GDP would decline by half under Mr. Obama.
       Still, it's less significant to meet that target than to 
     keep the deficits within sustainable bounds, and few experts 
     believe that years of deficits above 4 percent of GDP are 
     consistent with long-term economic vitality.
       If the CBO's numbers are subject to revision on account of 
     changing circumstances, then so are the administration's; and 
     those were based on very rosy economic assumptions to begin 
     with. Very little of the claimed deficit reduction in the 
     Obama plan comes from policy changes; it results more or less 
     automatically from the assumed end of the recession, as well 
     as by claiming savings in reducing operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan from unrealistically high forecasts. Yet both the 
     White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the CBO 
     report is no reason to revise the president's ambitious tax 
     and spending blueprint.
       Mr. Obama should treat the CBO report as an incentive to 
     fulfill his repeated promises, during and after the campaign, 
     to make hard choices on the budget. Until now he has offered 
     a host of new spending--on health care, middle-class tax 
     cuts, education and alternative energy--without calling for 
     much sacrifice from anyone except the top 5 percent of the 
     income scale. Though his emphasis on controlling health-care 
     costs is welcome, it's not a substitute for reforming the 
     entitlement programs that are the drivers of long-term fiscal 
     crisis, Medicare and Social Security. Yet the president has 
     offered no plan for either and no road map even for achieving 
     a plan. Several members of his own party in the Senate have 
     been expressing doubts about his strategy, and the CBO report 
     will lend credibility to their concerns. He should heed them.

  Mr. THUNE. As to the stimulus bill, in and of itself, we are told, if 
the spending that is included there is not terminated at the end of the 
2-year period--when we assume the short-term stimulus spending would 
terminate--if those programs are continued, the estimate of what they 
would cost goes from about $1 trillion to over $3 trillion over that 
10-year period.
  So there will be mountains and mountains and mountains of debt as far 
as the eye can see, complicated by an unwillingness by the new 
administration to take on any of the serious decisions that have to be 
made with regard to entitlement programs and mandatory spending in this 
budget, with lots of new programs created, as I said, new energy taxes 
under the guise of climate change, a new health care program that is 
estimated to cost around $600 billion but which many independent 
analysts are now saying is going to cost up to $1.5 trillion.
  These are all costs that are adding up and continuing to lead to more 
and more borrowing, higher and higher deficits, to the point that this 
year 13.1 percent of GDP is the percentage and over $1.8 trillion is 
the actual number of the deficit. And that goes on now for years and 
years, and an average of $1 trillion a year just in deficits, to where 
the public debt, at the end of that 10-year period, will be $17.3 
trillion. That is an incredible problem for our country and for future 
generations.
  So it is high time we got it under control. It is why this budget is 
so wrong for America and for our future.
  Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Thune for his 
excellent remarks. I will just say that sums it up pretty well. I would 
like to go into a little more detail about the budget--just some of the 
matters in it--so we confront honestly the situation with which we are 
dealing.
  This is the budget, which I hold up in my hand. This is the budget 
the President sent up. It is from the Executive

[[Page 8190]]

Office of the White House, Office of Management and Budget. The big 
print on it says, ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' The small print 
says, ``Renewing America's Promise.'' Well, I am not sure what 
``Renewing America's Promise'' means, I guess, but I am pretty sure 
that ``A New Era of Responsibility'' is not what this budget is. I 
would like to talk about it because it is breathtaking, really.
  Now, some would think: Oh, here we go. This is just another political 
dustup, just another fight between the Republicans and Democrats, just 
another partisan spasm. That is what it is all about. They talk about 
these numbers, and I don't know what these numbers mean: a billion, a 
trillion, a million. What does all that mean? Well, sometimes numbers 
do mean something. Sometimes numbers are quite different from one 
another. Sometimes situations have changed, and sometimes they have not 
changed much. Sometimes the changes are dramatic, significant, 
directional in nature, historic in nature. That is what I think we are 
dealing with today.
  I believe the discussion over this budget--I am a member of the 
Budget Committee--is historic. I believe the decisions we make around 
this budget will affect the very nature of the economy, the nature of 
the Government that we have, whether we will continue to have a 
government of limited powers, and where we are heading. Are we moving 
toward a ``Francification'' of America, a socialization of America? 
That was a big issue in the campaign. It turned out to be where, in the 
last few weeks, you remember Joe the Plumber and the quote ``We are 
going to spread the wealth around.'' People said: Oh, no, President 
Obama does not really mean that. Yes, he is going to do some new things 
and make some changes, but he is not heading toward a European-type of 
economy for America.
  So let's talk about the budget. What does his budget say? What does 
it mean? A budget is a President's plan for the future. It tells where 
he will get the money he wants to spend. It tells where he will spend 
it. It tells how much money he will spend and how much spending will 
occur, and will there be a surplus or will there be a deficit?
  Now, some people think: Well, he can't help it. That is just the way 
things are. These are things that a President does not have power over.
  Not so. These represent Presidential priorities. Most States in this 
country have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. They have had 
shortages bigger than we are having, and those States are getting by. 
They are having to make some reductions in their expenditures. I have 
had a bunch of cities and counties in to visit with me the last 2 
weeks, and all of them are making some kind of reduction in their 
spending. They are not disappearing from the face of the Earth.
  So here we go. This is not a secret document, fundamentally. The 
numbers I am talking about that he proposes as his budget for the 
country are here.
  Normally, since I have been in the Senate--12 years--and on the 
Budget Committee most of that time, budgets pass on a party-line vote. 
There have been some tough, close votes. I remember the budget that had 
the tax cuts in it was a close vote. Several Democrats voted with the 
Republicans, and it passed. But this budget is different because we 
have a very large Democratic majority in the Senate. I think it is a 
three-vote Democratic majority on the Budget Committee. Under our 
rules, a budget does not have to be subject to a 60-vote point of 
order, and it is not subject to filibuster or any kind of 60-vote 
threshold; it passes on a simple majority. So the Democratic majority--
a very large majority now--has the power to pass this budget. That is 
just the way it is. They have the power. I hope, therefore, they will 
feel the awesome responsibility they have in discussing this budget 
because it is so unusual, it is so large, and it is so game-changing, 
to a degree which I have never seen before, and I don't think any of us 
have.
  One of the things that disturbed me in this whole process is the 
spectacle of our Secretary of Treasury going to Europe to meet with 
European leaders and chastising them--and they have had some pretty big 
stimulus packages--for not having bigger stimulus packages, not 
spending more money, and not going into more debt. This is so odd 
because we as Americans have normally been the ones who have criticized 
the Europeans for their tax and spend and entitlement, socialistic 
welfare system. So here we are doing that.
  Prime Minister Merkel in Germany said it is extraordinarily dangerous 
that transatlantic conflict is being fanned, and, ``I am grateful to 
the American President that he has told me this is an artificial 
debate,'' she told lawmakers on April 2 at the Group of 20 nations. She 
said:

       The Group of 20 nations need to send ``a positive 
     psychological signal, not a competition over stimulus 
     packages that can't be implemented.''

  The European Central Bank president, Mr. Trichet, said this:

       If the additional deficits are costing you both a strong 
     increase of the cost of your own refinancing and a loss of 
     confidence of your people, you are not better off!

  He goes on to say:

       If your people have the sentiment that they will not be 
     better off in an endless spiraling of deficits, they will not 
     spend any money that you give them today!

  So the Europeans are pushing back. They are warning us that we are 
going too far.
  So let's look at some of the numbers to which Senator Thune made 
reference. The first is the title of the budget, the President's 
budget, which came right out of this book--these numbers the President 
has submitted to us--what he plans to occur in America over the next 10 
years under his budget.
  In 2008, last September 30, we had a $455 billion deficit. Since 
World War II, that is the largest deficit the country has ever had--
$455 billion. Do you know what it was the year before? It was $161 
billion. Why did it jump that much? Well, 150 billion of the dollars 
that jumped was the checks that got sent out. President Bush sent out 
the checks. He was going to stop the recession. He sent everybody a 
check last spring. It didn't work. I voted against it. It wasn't easy 
to vote against constituents getting a check, but I didn't think it 
worked then, and everybody agrees now that it didn't, but that helped 
jump the deficit to this record amount--$455 billion.
  What about this year? Including the stimulus package--or a part of it 
that we just passed--and the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and the 
bailout of Fannie and Freddie, scored at about $200 billion according 
to CBO, it comes out this year, September 30, the deficit will be 
$1,752 billion, more than three times the highest deficit we have had 
since the Republic--well, at least since World War II, when we were in 
a life-and-death struggle with millions of people in arms all over the 
world, turning out airplanes and ships by the thousands.
  Is this just one time? Is it just a one-time expenditure? No, it is 
not. In 2010, the President's own numbers show the deficit will be 
$1,171 billion, or about $1.2 trillion.
  According to the numbers in the President's budget, which were 
gimmicked, in my view, we will already be under a recovery in 2010. We 
will not be in negative growth; we will have I think 1.6 percent 
economic growth, GDP growth. We are still going to have $1.2 trillion 
in deficits. It drops down to $912 billion, $581 billion, $533 billion, 
and then starts growing again, and in the 10th year of his budget, he 
is projecting a deficit of $712 billion.
  Now, within those projections are some rosy scenarios, such as if the 
economy is growing and unemployment is not too high, then you have more 
money to spend than if the economy is still slow-sinking and 
unemployment is high. So the budget assumes an unemployment rate of 8.1 
percent, the highest--that is as high as it would ever get during this 
entire 10-year period. It assumes that next year or later this year, we 
will have 8.1 percent unemployment. Well, we are at 8.1 percent 
unemployment now. That is the current figure. The blue chip group, the 
top economists and the ones most people

[[Page 8191]]

look at, project unemployment to be over 9 percent. CBO projects 9 
percent will be the maximum unemployment rate. If it goes that high, 
then we are going to have bigger deficits. So there are some other rosy 
scenarios in there that the objective economists do not believe will 
occur.
  When you score this budget without using those gimmicks or rosy 
scenarios, as the Congressional Budget Office is required to do--they 
are required to make an independent analysis of the President's budget, 
and they have done so.
  Let me just say that we are proud of the independence of the 
Congressional Budget Office. They are a talented group. They work for 
us here. The new Director was chosen in a bipartisan way but clearly 
with the final power in the hands of the substantial Democratic 
majority in the Senate. They control the ultimate choice of the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  They come out not with a $712 billion deficit for that year--not $912 
billion but $1.2 trillion, $500 billion higher when they use numbers 
they believe are fair and honest and accurate, coming out with $1.2 
trillion in deficit, not $700 billion in deficit. There will not be, in 
this entire 10-year period, taking President Obama's own numbers, and 
certainly not the Congressional Budget Office's numbers, a single year 
that is close to as low as the $455 billion deficit of President Bush's 
last year. Most of them are twice that or will average twice that.
  So what I wish to say to my colleagues is that this is not 
sustainable.
  The President had a great meeting with the Republicans one day at 
lunch in the room right over here. He was very personable, open, and 
responded to any questions asked. I thought he was very sincere when he 
said: Look, we are going to have to spend a lot of money now, but when 
this economy comes back we are all going to have to work together to 
reduce the systemic threat of out-of-control deficits. He said that 
more than once. I thought he meant that. But when you propose a budget 
that has deficits increasing every year over the next 5 years and 
reaching, in his own numbers, $712 billion in deficit--and according to 
CBO, $1.2 trillion--then I can't take that very seriously. There is not 
one act in this budget plan of any significant evaluation of the out-
of-control entitlement programs we have or how to bring those under 
control.
  So that is not politics; that is reality. It is not acceptable. We 
have to say no to this budget. I know my Democratic colleagues are 
uneasy about those numbers. They tell me they are uneasy about them. 
They want to support their President. They want to pass this budget. 
But at some point, I think my colleagues are going to have to say no. I 
hope they will. Certainly, the Republicans can't say no; we don't have 
enough votes.
  Now, Senator Thune made reference to this number.
  Madam President, what is our timeframe?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business expires at 4 o'clock p.m., in 
several minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would just point out these numbers. 
The public debt, which I think is probably the clearest definition of 
what our debt situation is--you can argue about that, but the public 
debt, I believe, is correct--is now $5.8 trillion. In 5 years, it will 
be $11.5 trillion, a doubling of the debt; and in 10 years, another 5 
years, it will be $15.3 trillion, tripling--that is the debt since the 
founding of the Republic--$5 trillion right here. In 10 years, we are 
going to triple the total debt. That is not acceptable. And they are 
projecting not a recession in the next 10 years after we get out of 
this one, they are projecting growth, no wars, and it is still like 
this. The truth is, those of us who observed budgeting before don't 
stay to the budget totals; we usually go over them through some sort of 
gimmick or maneuver.
  How about another number that is disturbing to me--very disturbing. 
The White House estimate on interest payments in the budget is $148 
billion for 2009. According to CBO, they estimate it higher at $170 
billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 
additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It shows the interest rate or payments on this tripling 
debt reaching $694 billion, according to the White House's own 
estimate, in 2019, to the people who buy our debt--the largest foreign 
recipient of which is China.
  CBO says that is underestimated. They calculate it to be $806 
billion. The entire general fund of the State of Alabama, an average-
size State, is about $7 billion for the counties, schools, teachers, 
and roads. The highway budget for the entire United States of America 
is $40 billion a year, including interstate, all the money we send to 
the States, and all of the pork money we put on top of it. This is $806 
billion in interest alone on a debt that we have run up in previous 
years. That is why people are worried about it.
  I will conclude with that and say, again, I know we all get caught up 
in politics, that is true. But this year, this budget is not a normal 
budget. It is not a bigger budget or a lot bigger. It is a gargantuan 
budget, the likes of which we have not seen before. It results in debt 
increases that are not sustainable. It has no projection of any 
containment of spending. It does nothing to deal with the entitlement 
difficulties that are driving much of the debt, and it cannot be passed 
in this fashion.
  I urge my Democratic colleagues to say: No, Mr. President, you have 
to go back and look at this some more. We cannot pass this budget and 
not just take a few hundred billion dollars off, or something like 
that. We need to have a serious discussion of the financial condition 
of our country. I think the Republicans will be there trying to work 
with you on it. But without some leadership from the other side, this 
budget will go into effect.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________