[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7832-7836]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing 
us to have a few remarks at this time, after the process has been 
completed tonight.
  The Senate has not fulfilled its responsibility. The United States 
Code that we passed, Congress passed, requires that there be a budget. 
It requires that Congress commence marking up the budget in the Budget 
Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows,

[[Page 7833]]

by April 1, and a concurrent resolution be passed by April 15, setting 
forth what the Congress authorizes to be spent in the next year.
  If anybody attempts to spend above that amount, the Budget Act allows 
a point of order to be raised, and it would require 60 votes to go 
above that level. So a budget says what we want to spend and makes it 
difficult for anybody to spend more. It is what we do in our 
households, it is what our cities and counties do, it is what our State 
governments do.
  I know Senator Manchin, the Presiding Officer, as a Governor, he had 
to deal with his tough budget situation. My Governor, Governor Bentley, 
just announced he is prorating 15 percent of the discretionary spending 
for the rest of the year.
  We are not talking about those kinds of cuts this year in Washington. 
I was in Estonia, near the Soviet Union on the Baltic Sea, and the 
proud Estonians had a larger deficit, larger economic decline than we 
did. The Estonians told us that every Cabinet official took a 40-
percent pay cut, every employee took 10 to 20. The health system, one 
said: My wife is a doctor. She is very unhappy. But they intend to 
complete the recovery in Estonia without adding to the debt at all. 
Their debt to GDP is 7 percent.
  By September 30 of this year, our debt-to-gross domestic product will 
total 100 percent, and according to the Rogoff-Reinhart study, a great 
authoritative study that has gained a great deal of applause, when the 
debt amounts to 90 percent of GDP, economic growth declines by 1 
percent.
  A 1-percent decline in GDP--the experts tell us--is the equivalent of 
1 million jobs. So we will be in a position where, because of the debt 
we have accumulated, the economy will grow 1 percent less and we could 
have 1 million less jobs.
  We do not know what our economic growth might be. It looks like it 
could be less than 2 percent. We are talking about a huge difference in 
what our economic growth could be this year. Maybe it will be 3. But if 
it is 3, it would have been 4. If it was 4, it would have been 5. If it 
is 3, it would be 2 because of this debt.
  So these are the circumstances we are dealing with. Every witness has 
told us we need to do something about it. The Nation is in a most 
serious fix. So there has been a decision made by the leadership of the 
Senate, the Democratic leadership of the Senate, not to produce a 
budget.
  It was interesting, when the President's budget was brought up, every 
single Member of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--voted no. We 
could say: Why did they do that? Well, the President's budget deserved 
not a single vote. Considering the severe, serious financial condition 
we are in, the President's budget was the most irresponsible budget 
that has ever been presented to Congress. It is stunningly short of 
anything necessary.
  Erskine Bowles, the man President Obama appointed to head the fiscal 
commission, said the President's budget was nowhere close to where they 
will have to go to avoid our fiscal nightmare--nowhere close. But our 
colleagues, what have they done? They complained about the Ryan budget. 
They vote against their own, and they vote against any other budget. 
They vote against the Ryan budget saying it is going to eliminate your 
Medicare, and you will not receive your Medicare because of Paul Ryan 
and the mean Republicans.
  But the Ryan budget made no change in Medicare in the 10 years in the 
Ryan plan at all, except canceled the President's health care bill and 
saved hundreds of billions of dollars. What it did was to propose in 
the future that we develop a new way of administering Medicare that 
would save money and make it more responsible to individual needs.
  We refused to even move to that legislation, to discuss it, and to 
analyze whether it should be done that way or whether it could be done 
another way. But nobody denies that this budget, that any budget we 
pass, must confront our entitlement programs. Surely, they do not. So 
whatever you do, you are attacked by it. Our majority leader, whom I 
admire and enjoy working with, was quite frank. He said: It would be 
foolish for us to pass a budget. He did not mean it would be foolish 
for America. He did not mean it would be foolish for the public 
interest. He did not mean it would be foolish in terms of containing 
the reckless spending and dangerous path we are on. He meant it would 
be foolish politically because he had a plan, and the plan was to 
attack the people who had the courage, the gumption, and the hard work 
to produce a budget dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges of 
America: Paul Ryan and his Budget Committee, wants to attack them, 
bring up their budget and vote it down, and not produce anything in 
response.
  I believe that is an embarrassment to the Senate. It is an utter 
failure to meet our statutory obligation. More importantly, it is a 
failure to meet our moral obligation. Many have said: Well, we need to 
do something because we are putting debt on our children and 
grandchildren. That is absolutely true. But we have been told by 
numerous experts, including Mr. Bowles, who chaired the debt 
commission, that we could be facing a debt crisis in 2 years, give or 
take a little bit. That was his opinion.
  His cochairman, Alan Simpson, said it could be 1 year. So we could 
have another debt financial crisis that could put us back into a 
recession as a result of our fiscal irresponsibility as soon as 2 
years, according to Erskine Bowles--accomplished businessman, 
successful businessman, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, chosen by 
President Obama to head the Commission. That is what he told us in the 
Budget Committee just a few weeks ago.
  How serious is it? Our highway spending this year is about $40 
billion. Last year, this country spent, in interest on our debt, $200-
plus billion, five times the highway bill, just for example, and we 
need to do something about our infrastructure and highways in America. 
I am very worried about it.
  I indicated that, just for example, the highway budget is about $40 
billion. The Federal Department of Education is about $70 billion. But 
we spent last year in interest payments on the debt that we have 
accumulated, over $200 billion.
  The President submitted his budget. It was favorably commented on by 
Democratic colleagues and represented what appears to be, I guess, the 
mainstream Democratic view--although I am pleased to see nobody voted 
for it.
  But according to the Congressional Budget Office, which has analyzed 
the budget the President submitted to us, it would result in an 
interest payment, in the 10th year, of $940 billion.
  That is an amount of money that exceeds our imagination. It is larger 
than the Defense Department budget. It is larger than Medicare. It is 
larger than Medicaid. It is the fastest growing item in our entire 
budget. And that assumes a slight increase but modest interest rate, 
below the 6-percent historical average. So if interest rates were to go 
up faster--and that is quite possible--instead of $940 billion, we 
could have trillion-dollar-plus interest payments every year, crowding 
out the ability of the Education Department, Transportation Department, 
NOAA, the EPA, and every other agency in government to get funds. We 
will crowd out that spending by placing an annual burden on our people 
of $940 billion a year. It is this trend and this path that is 
unsustainable. We have been told that.
  I just want to repeat what happened just a few moments ago. What 
happened? Four measures were brought up by the majority, and they were 
brought up with the full knowledge that nothing would happen. There 
were several hours of debate. We voted on four tremendously important 
items, four budgets for the United States of America, with no real 
ability to discuss each one of them in any depth at all. It was a 
political exercise. The majority leader said it would be ``foolish'' 
for us to pass a budget. In other words, it is foolish for the 
Democratic majority to commit themselves to any plan for the future of 
America. It was an avoidance of responsibility. They would not even 
vote for the President's budget because if they did, they would be 
responsible for it.

[[Page 7834]]

  What they did was attack the one group of people who have done the 
right thing, the responsible thing, and that is to produce a historic 
budget that would basically solve our debt problem--it didn't 
overreach--and that is the House budget. It was long term, short term, 
and it dealt with entitlements, discretionary spending, and taxes. It 
was a thoughtful, important, historic budget. The Chicago Tribune 
praised it. The Wall Street Journal praised it. The fiscal commission 
chairmen, Bowles and Simpson, praised it for its courage, its 
integrity, its lack of gimmicks, and for being honest.
  Do you know what they said. They said, again, that anyone who opposes 
the Ryan budget or opposes any one of the budgets, if you don't like 
it, you should put forth your plan. Has the leadership in the Senate 
proposed any plan? In a shocking display of irresponsibility--I don't 
have words to describe the degree of irresponsibility that I think has 
been shown here tonight--they have said: We are not going to produce 
anything. We are just going to attack what you have done.
  Many of our colleagues have said we have to deal with entitlements 
and confront the surging debt caused thereby; that Medicare and Social 
Security are in danger and they could go belly-up. We have to change 
what we are doing. The House wrestled with that. It wasn't within that 
10-year window. Everybody who is 55 and above and everybody who is on 
Medicare today would have no change--none. Yet we have people going 
around telling our seniors that this Ryan House budget would change 
their Social Security and they would not get it. In fact, it would save 
the Social Security Program, put it on a sound basis, and guarantee 
that people now receiving it and people over 55 who are soon to be 
receiving it would have no change whatsoever. In fact, in some ways, it 
would strengthen it for them. This is not correct.
  Well, do we have a better plan? What about the Becerra rule? I 
suppose that is Congressman Xavier Becerra they named that for, a 
Democratic Congressman from Los Angeles. Did they produce anything they 
think is better? Do they have any plans to change the debt course we 
are on? Zero, nada.
  I really believe this is not the responsible way to deal with the 
challenges this country faces. I am deeply disappointed. The matter is 
not going away. As ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I feel a 
great sense of responsibility to defend the legally required processes 
of a Budget Act. What kind of ranking member or member of the Budget 
Committee would I be if I sat by and acknowledged and accepted these 
four votes as somehow disposing of the situation?
  What should happen? What should have happened is that by April 1, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, with whom I enjoyed 
working this year, should have produced a chairman's mark, and it 
should have gone to the Budget Committee, and we would have had an 
opportunity to debate and vote on that and discuss all the issues 
relevant to getting our country on a fine, sound, fiscal path. But I 
think the majority leader decided that was not a good path.
  Senator Conrad, if you read the newspapers, apparently brought up his 
budget, his proposal to the Democratic conference, and it received a 
chilly reception, according to the newspapers. Senator Conrad has said 
repeatedly that he knows we are on an unsustainable path. He said once 
that we are heading to the wall at warp speed. We have to change, he 
said, because we are on an unsustainable path. But they thought, I 
suppose, he was too frugal, and so apparently, according to the papers, 
he came back the next week with a budget that Senator Sanders and some 
of the others apparently blessed. We thought we were going to have a 
markup, maybe, and he would bring that forward. They said publicly: We 
have a budget, and we have basically agreed on a budget, but we are 
just not bringing it forward. But it should have been brought forward 
to committee, marked up, passed out of committee, and brought to the 
floor.
  It won't pass the committee, they say. What do you mean? We have to 
pass a budget. The Budget Act provides that it can't be filibustered. 
It allows the budget to be passed with a simple majority. The Democrats 
have a majority in the committee. They can pass a budget just like they 
like it. Whatever they like, they could vote to pass it. Why not? Well, 
I think it is because they thought it would be foolish politically for 
them to commit themselves to any plan that dealt with taxes, with 
spending, with the debt. They didn't want to commit themselves. They 
decided that the smart thing to do would be to attack the foolish 
Republicans, who actually had the responsibility and the integrity and 
the sense of duty to lay out a plan for this country's financial 
future.
  Make no mistake about it, a budget is a serious matter. It sets forth 
your vision for America, how big you would like the government to be, 
how much tax you want to impose, how much spending you want to incur 
and how much debt you would like to incur, and it sets it forth before 
the whole world. We were waiting to see--the House had done their 
duty--what will the Senate do? Nothing.
  I don't think that is responsible. I don't believe it is acceptable. 
I don't accept it. I am going to continue to resist this kind of no-
action policy.
  I hope the American people will register their complaints and 
concerns with their Senators and demand that this Senate do its duty to 
set forth a budget that can help contain spending in America and put us 
on a path to financial stability and allow our economy to begin to grow 
at a robust rate because I truly believe the debt and the interest we 
pay is weakening our economy, as the expert economists have told us.
  Mr. President, we can't quit now. We are not going to quit now. We 
are going to keep pushing for the kind of budget that will allow us to 
put this country on a sound path. I am deeply disappointed that we have 
totally shortcut the entire process. We have entirely avoided the 
responsibility to cast a serious vote on a budget, bring one up where 
we have the opportunity to debate and amend it and calculate out and 
study and make sure there are no gimmicks in there and hidden 
manipulations that hide the way the numbers appear. We have seen that 
too often. In fact, if the American people knew the extent to which 
this Congress, year after year, has manipulated the numbers to hide the 
serious, irresponsible spending programs we are executing, they would 
be more angry with us than they are, and 70 percent of Americans think 
this country is on the wrong track. Fundamentally, I believe that is 
based on the fact that they think we are spending recklessly, running 
up too much debt, and endangering the future health and welfare of 
generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am submitting my views today 
about the need to enact a fiscally responsible federal budget for 
fiscal year 2012.
  The April 15 statutory deadline for Congress to complete its annual 
budget resolution was over a month ago. An annual budget resolution is 
essential for controlling spending, for guiding the annual 
appropriations process, and for setting national spending priorities.
  For the past 2 years, the Senate has failed to meet this critical 
deadline. During that time, the U.S. has borrowed an additional $3.2 
trillion--more than $100 billion a month until the $14.29 trillion debt 
ceiling was reached on May 16.
  For the first 7 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the budget deficit 
was a record $871 billion--$71 billion higher than it was at the same 
point in fiscal year 2010. During the same period, income tax revenues 
increased by $110 billion, or 9.1 percent.
  The problem isn't that Americans are taxed too little; Federal 
deficits are out-of-control because government is spending too much.
  Not passing a budget, not bringing forward even a budget proposal, 
takes us down a path that ends in Social Security and Medicare 
bankruptcy, harms our national security, and passes the bill for 
current fiscal irresponsibility onto our children and grandchildren.

[[Page 7835]]

  We are just 4\1/2\ months from the beginning of fiscal year 2012. 
Unless we pass a budget and approve the individual spending measures 
that are required to fund government operations, we will return to 
stopgap continuing resolutions and to recurring threat of government 
shutdowns.
  Yesterday, I joined all 46 of my Republican colleagues in a letter to 
the Senate majority leader that urges him to initiate the steps that 
must be taken for the Senate to debate, vote, and produce a responsible 
Federal budget for the next fiscal year.
  As the majority leader knows, the procedural votes he has scheduled 
will not advance us toward that goal. These votes are intended only to 
score political points.
  Today I will be in Dallas to attend my daughter's graduation from 
lower school to middle school. This will prevent me from being present 
for votes on the motions to proceed on four budget proposals. My 
absence for these procedural votes will not affect the outcomes. But I 
wanted to make known my position in advance of these votes.
  A serious attempt to move a fiscal year 2012 budget forward would be 
a bipartisan effort that would enable us to debate, amend, and move 
forward a plan for long-term deficit reduction, while funding essential 
government programs and services. I look forward to a real debate, open 
amendments, and a vote on a serious budget that will dramatically bring 
down the outstanding debt our country has accumulated. Unfortunately, 
that opportunity is not going to be presented to the Senate today.
  I would vote in favor of the motions to proceed on the three 
Republican-originated budget proposals before the Senate: the so-called 
Ryan budget that has been approved by the House of Representatives, as 
well as alternative plans put forward by Senator Toomey and Senator 
Paul.
  Each of these proposals would put the Federal Government on a 
multiyear glide path to a balanced Federal budget. Each proposal would 
go about achieving this crucial goal by reducing Federal spending, not 
by raising taxes, and could be a constructive starting point for Senate 
debate and consideration of amendments. I do not agree with parts of 
each proposal. But if we had an open amendment process we could attempt 
to improve each proposal, while preserving the best parts.
  I could not vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the 
President's fiscal year 2012 budget. Unlike the Republican proposals, 
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to add $8.7 trillion 
in new spending and $1.26 trillion in net new taxes over the next 
decade, while only projecting $1.1 trillion in savings over 10 years.
  Rather than balancing the Federal budget, the President's budget plan 
would add several trillion dollars more to the national debt. That 
would be a catastrophe by any standard. But the reality of the 
President's budget would be much worse. In the President's budget a 
$1.1 trillion deficit was projected for the current fiscal year. But we 
are instead headed for a $1.4 trillion shortfall.
  The President subsequently signaled understanding that his proposed 
budget falls short by releasing a new deficit reduction proposal on 
April 13. The President's new plan targets $4 trillion in deficit 
reduction in 12 years--through tax increases and a new ``debt 
failsafe'' trigger that would include cuts to spending through the tax 
code--a new euphemism for tax increases.
  It is our responsibility to the country to act on establishing 
constraints on federal spending and producing a budget blueprint. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to prepare 
nor advance a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution forward, except to say 
repeatedly that higher taxes are essential. In my estimation, raising 
taxes in a struggling economy will stifle job creation and further 
delay recovery from a devastating, long-lasting recession.
  We must make bold cuts in spending where we can. We should also take 
steps to assure the long-term safety and soundness of Social Security 
and Medicare, for current retirees and for today's workers who will 
need to depend on benefits later. We must also carefully prioritize 
investment and research in areas of strategic national importance.
  Just as American families and small businesses across the Nation set 
their spending priorities so Congress is expected to do the same. As a 
nation, we have reached a serious, fiscal crisis. It is time to start 
making the necessary and difficult decisions for the future of our 
country.


                            H. Con. Res. 34

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, for me, Medicare is not a political talking 
point. My parents immigrated to the United States in the late 1950s. 
They worked hard for over 40 years to provide their children the chance 
to do all the things they themselves could not. But they never made 
much money. As a result, they retired with precious little in savings. 
Medicare was and is the only way they could access health care.
  When my father got sick, Medicare paid for his numerous hospital 
stays. And as he reached the end of life, Medicare allowed him to die 
with dignity by paying for his hospice care.
  Like most 80-year-olds my mother has several age-related ailments. 
Without the access to quality health care that Medicare pays for, I 
cannot imagine what life would be like for her.
  America needs Medicare. We need it to continue without any benefit 
reductions for those like my mother currently in the system. And we 
need it to survive for my generation and my children's generation.
  But Medicare is going bankrupt. Anyone who says it is not is simply 
lying. And anyone who is in favor of doing nothing to deal with this 
fact is in favor of bankrupting it.
  Medicare will go broke in as little as 9 years. No one likes this 
news, but it is the undeniable truth. And the sooner we begin to deal 
with it, the better off we are all going to be.
  My goals are simple. First, I will not support any plan that changes 
Medicare for people like my mother who are currently on the plan. We 
cannot ask seniors to go out and get a job to pay for their health 
care.
  Second, any solution must solve the problem. We need to save 
Medicare, not simply delay its bankruptcy.
  And third, any solution cannot hurt economic growth. At a time of 
high unemployment, Americans cannot afford to pay more taxes.
  I will support any serious plan that accomplishes these three things. 
It does not matter to me if it comes from a Democrat or a Republican. 
Saving Medicare is more important than partisan politics.
  House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has offered a plan. I 
support H. Con. Res. 34 because, right now, it is the only plan out 
there that helps save Medicare.
  Democrats oppose this plan. Fine. But, if they have a better way to 
save Medicare, what are they waiting for to show us? What is their plan 
to save Medicare? Either show us how Medicare survives without any 
changes or show us what changes you propose we make. Anyone who 
supports doing nothing on Medicare is a supporter of bankrupting 
Medicare.
  Where is the House Democrat plan to save Medicare?
  Where is the Senate Democrat plan to save Medicare?
  Where is President Obama's plan to save Medicare?
  They have no plan to save Medicare, and they do not plan to offer 
one. They have decided that winning their next election is more 
important than saving Medicare for my mother and retirees like her.
  I have been in the Senate just long enough to be disgusted by the 
reality that Washington has too many people who think their personal 
political careers are more important than our country's future.
  Maybe the Democrats' strategy to use Medicare as a political weapon 
will work. Maybe not offering their own plan to save Medicare will help 
them win seats in Congress and reelect the President. Maybe it is great 
for the Democrat Party.
  But it is terrible for people like my mother, and it is terrible for 
America.

[[Page 7836]]

  Medicare is going bankrupt. If something does not happen soon, in 
just a few years whoever is in charge in Washington will have to go to 
people like my mother and tell them we can no longer afford to continue 
providing her with the same Medicare she is used to.
  We have always had intense partisan politics in America. But 
throughout our history, on issues of generational importance, our 
leaders have agreed to put aside politics for the sake of our country. 
Shouldn't saving Medicare be that kind of issue?
  I am ready to work with anyone in Washington who is serious about 
saving Medicare. I am open to any serious solutions they have.
  We are running out of time to save Medicare for our parents and 
secure it for our children. If we fail, history will never forgive us.


                            S. Con. Res. 20

  Mr. President, I came here to support budgets that make tough 
spending reductions, save our safety net programs, and preserve our 
commitment to protecting Americans at home and abroad. In the midst of 
this fiscal crisis, there should be no sacred cows in the Federal 
budget, but we also can't walk away from our commitments abroad. 
Especially in this time of great upheaval around the world, and as 
America's enemies dream of a Greece-like day of reckoning that will 
leave us no choice but to abandon our allies around the world, I simply 
cannot support a budget that would make the world a less safe place 
because the United States' role in it is diminished.

                          ____________________